"Question about "Jabo" armament" Topic
17 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board Back to the WWII Aviation Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land World War Two in the Air
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Blackhorse MP | 07 Jul 2020 8:16 p.m. PST |
I play 15mm Spearhead and the rules classify all Western Allied ground support aircraft as "Jabos", and give them possible armaments of AT cannon, rockets or bombs. Each sortie will have only one of the three. I most often play the Americans and I must say I'm not sure exactly what the US planes were usually equipped with. We almost always go with bombs as the default because I'm not sure how often they had AT cannons or rockets, if they had them at all. I know the British had their rockets and the Germans had their AT cannon but I don't hear much about the US other than bombs. Our area of focus is Western front '44-'45. So my question to the learned masses here at TMP is what were the weapons carried by US "Jabos" and in what percentage, if you would care to hazard a guess, were they employed? Any input is appreciated and Thanks in Advance. |
Dan Cyr | 07 Jul 2020 8:22 p.m. PST |
While most allied fighters could strafe ground targets, you'll find that in general (broadly speaking) US fighter-bombers would most likely be P-47 which could be armed with their .50 cal MGs, bombs and/or rockets. Same for British fighter-bombers, but I believe they'd have 20mm cannon instead of the US MGs. |
Thresher01 | 07 Jul 2020 8:26 p.m. PST |
Yea, no anti-tank cannons on US fighters. Bombs, or a few rockets though. |
Martin Rapier | 07 Jul 2020 11:06 p.m. PST |
P47s could be armed with rockets or bombs. |
Yellow Admiral | 08 Jul 2020 2:42 a.m. PST |
The most potent weapon of fighter-bombers was overclaiming. In Western Europe, Allied fighter-bombers on call would be armed appropriately for the expected targets: rockets for tanks and bunkers, bombs for fixed positions and structures, fixed forward armament for strafing softer targets (or just lighting fires). The tactical air forces responsible for close air support did their best to predict the needs of the day's sorties. The planes should be armed in a way that makes sense in the context of the battle being fought – or be armed wrong if the scenario presupposes an intelligence failure (e.g., "Where did those tanks come from?!?!?!"). The 1944 film Thunderbolt gives a great impression of the P-47's use as a ground attack workhorse. In Europe, A-36s, P-40s, and P-51s would have been very similar. RAF planes, Lightnings and Airacobras also had cannons, but lots of ground targets were difficult or impossible to damage with MGs or aircraft-caliber cannons, so they still took off with bombs or rockets if they were expecting to attack hard targets. - Ix |
Blackhorse MP | 08 Jul 2020 7:12 a.m. PST |
Ok, got it. I think I'll go with mostly bombs, occasionally rockets. Thanks for the input guys. |
donlowry | 08 Jul 2020 8:57 a.m. PST |
US P-38s had 20mm cannon as well as .50" MGs. |
Thresher01 | 08 Jul 2020 9:40 a.m. PST |
Yea, thought about the P-38 after posting. 1 x 20mm cannon for it, plus .50 cal MGs. Firing .50s into the engine gratings from above could at least cause immobilization, and/or fires on German tanks. |
Mark 1 | 08 Jul 2020 11:27 a.m. PST |
I think I'll go with mostly bombs, occasionally rockets. Several years ago I read a book, "Angels Zero" link , which is a first-hand account of P-47 close support in ETO in WW2. The conclusion I reached from that book was very much what you describe above -- most often bombs, sometimes rockets. But I would add a bit more to that -- earlier very much more often bombs, while rockets became increasingly common later (while still not more than 50% of the time). The earlier USAAF rocket mountings, with clusters of tubes, was not liked by the pilots. Even after the rockets had been fired the tubes had a substantial impact on the aircraft's handling. At least with bombs, after you dropped them you were a real fighter plane again. The later US 5-inch HVAR rockets (developed initially for the Navy, and only completing acceptance testing in June of 1944) were considered a greatly superior armament to the earlier 3.5 inch and 4.5 inch tube launched rockets, in part for their superior performance in accuracy (the tubes of the earlier rockets were supposed to give accuracy, but the very high velocity of the zero-length-launch HVARs in fact provided better accuracy), their superior punch at the target (with larger warheads, available in both HE and APHE), and the fact that once you fired them, you were a real fighter plane again. So by maybe the time of the Bulge, rocket-equipped US fighters were reasonably common, but before that they were kind of rare. That said, rules that suggest a sortie could only have one type of ground-attack weapon are not historically accurate. It was not uncommon for P-47s to mount one bomb on the centerline and some rockets on the wings. P-38s were even more often mix-mounted, as their payload carry capacity was higher. If they went all-rocket they carried a large number on "Christmas tree" mounts under the wings (as many as 14 rockets per plane), whereas in a mixed load they might carry one or two bombs (depending on size) and 8 rockets. And in all cases they would still have their guns to strafe with after dropping their other ordnance. Still it would not be the first time that rules simplified history for the sake of game-play. So I am not saying it is necessarily the wrong approach, just that it does not track the use of the planes accurately. At least to my understanding. Wasn't there at the time, so no claims beyond "that's what I have read" should be inferred. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Griefbringer | 08 Jul 2020 2:15 p.m. PST |
Still it would not be the first time that rules simplified history for the sake of game-play. So I am not saying it is necessarily the wrong approach, just that it does not track the use of the planes accurately. Spearhead is a high level game that abstracts a lot of things, for example a rifle company is typically represented by three identical rifle stands, while a an air sortie represents an attack by 2 to 4 aircraft. So at this scale of representation, it might not be unreasonable to abstract the sorties simply by their main armament. In any case, the air attacks themselves do not seem to be handled in particularly detailed fashion: main difference seems to be that anti-tank cannons prioritise vehicular units in their target selection. Speaking of historical US aircraft, wasn't there one WWII plane design that actually mounted a 75 mm gun for some role? I would need to check the name. That said, by the time of Vietnam war there is the even more impressive 105 mm howitzer mounted on "Puff the Magic Dragon" alongside with numerous smaller guns for pounding ground targets. |
slugbalancer | 08 Jul 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
The aircraft that mounted a 75mm gun was the B-25H.
From what I can remember the Typhoon squadrons of the RAF's 2nd TAF were trained for bomb dropping or rocket firing. Different skills needed. |
Blackhorse MP | 08 Jul 2020 5:18 p.m. PST |
Mark 1, Griefbringer has it right about Spearhead abstracting the ground attack rules, and concentrating on just the main armament. And when you're playing with up to a Division on the table a little simplicity ain't necessarily bad. Thanks for the info about rockets becoming more common later in '44. Maybe I'll divide it up: D-Day-Bulge: Bombs 1-5(on a D6), Rockets 6 Post Bulge: Bombs 1-4, Rockets 5-6 |
Skarper | 08 Jul 2020 8:12 p.m. PST |
I would suggest any rules for tactical air support should downplay actual damage but cause significant disruption and disorganisation to the unit attacked. Soft skin vehicles are a much more lucrative target for aircraft than AFVs or troops dug in or dispersed in defensive positions. Also – the most effective aircraft were not the specialist ground attack squadrons, but fighters armed only with guns engaging targets of opportunity. Perhaps this is due to their being many more of these than specialist Ground Attack FBs? Also they had little to do and were over the rear areas in a target rich environment. Regardless, it's a game and FB are 'fun' so enjoy it. |
emckinney | 08 Jul 2020 11:26 p.m. PST |
B-25 with 75mm gun was for anti-ship missions. Not suitable for tank busting. |
Griefbringer | 09 Jul 2020 12:39 p.m. PST |
The aircraft that mounted a 75mm gun was the B-25H. Thanks for the info, now I don't need to dig it up. B-25 with 75mm gun was for anti-ship missions. Not suitable for tank busting. Reading the description, it was manually loaded, which would result in rather slow rate of fire. I presume that it could be quite effective if actually hitting a tank, but scoring a hit at that rate of fire would likely take quite a number of passes. I would suggest any rules for tactical air support should downplay actual damage but cause significant disruption and disorganisation to the unit attacked. Checking the Spearhead air attack rules in detail, the designer seems to have gone for the opposite effect: an air attack either destroys the target unit, or has no effect at all, but unlike other attacks cannot cause target unit to become suppressed. Also, if I am reading the description correctly, tanks do not benefit from their armour against air attacks. |
Mark 1 | 09 Jul 2020 2:40 p.m. PST |
B-25 with 75mm gun was for anti-ship missions. Not suitable for tank busting. Reading the description, it was manually loaded, which would result in rather slow rate of fire. I presume that it could be quite effective if actually hitting a tank, but scoring a hit at that rate of fire would likely take quite a number of passes.
Yep. Manually loaded. From my readings it seems that a typical anti-ship attack run it was common to get 2 or 3 rounds fired. But the plane took a long straight run-in to do that. The B-25 was not used much in ETO. It did see service in NATO (North African Theater of Operations, not the modern NATO), and went on to service in MTO. But it's primary theater was SWPAO, where it's payload-over-range trumped the hot-rod performance of the B-26. The B-26 was the preferred medium bomber for the UK-based bombing units that flew over France. However, it is not quite true that the 75mm gun in the plane was, in itself, not useful against tanks. But as suggested, it was a question of whether the plane could expect to hit a tank. Even outside of ETO, when the B-25 was used it was deployed as a medium bomber against behind-the-battlefield interdiction targets like rail yards, port facilities, etc, rather than an attack bomber (such as an A-20). It flew like most level bombers of the period -- stable and slow. So it was exceedingly unlikely to find itself over a battlefield to begin with, must less one with tanks to shoot at. But at least when we speak of the B-25H (the factory-built gunship model, vs. earlier field-expedient B-25 gunships which carried some variety of 75mm guns) the gun itself had the same ballistic performance as the 75mm gun in the Sherman tank. In fact the concentric-recoil compact 75mm gun in the B-25H is the same gun as mounted in the M24 Chaffee tank, which did add some reasonable firepower to recon and light tank companies in ETO. Or so I've read. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Griefbringer | 10 Jul 2020 10:11 a.m. PST |
Besides the 75 mm gun, the B-25 also had rockets to shoot, bombs to drop and a whole load of .50 cal MGs, so the pilot would still have something else to keep himself busy when the big gun was not loaded. But back to the earlier topic, in Normandy campaign the western allies air superiority had a major disruptive effect on any daytime German vehicular movement. If they had to move during daytime, Germans could be ready to stop their vehicle and bail out if they detected enemy aircraft in the vicinity. |
|