What boardgames have you played recently?

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
the solitaire Downtown/EV rules were formally published in a C3i magazine. Lee got permission from GMT to host them after that issue went out of print.
I understand Red Storm now - yes, it is an outgrowth of Downtown in the first place. More importantly, it is an outgrowth of an idea created and bantered together by a group of the Downtown play testers, Lee, and some GMT guys over on the GMT Downtown CSW webpages from the year after the original Downtown game was released. I am glad to see this one finally take the light of day, Lee himself was finally convinced a market for such a game existed by the commentary on CSW - but his plans for expansion were already rooted in the research efforts to grow the system into WW2 era air combat, rather than forward. So it is nice to see another lead designer and development team take the ball on this one. It will be on the top of my "to buy" list as well.

KRL, Jon H
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
I have the best opponent in Witchbottles amongst other things. No solo'ing anytime soon!! :D
By the by - VASSAL has several modules for this - different versions. You want version 3.14 to get all the add-on counters and charts in the counter tray in case you decide to expand Downtown for the extra stuff from the old C3i issues.

This means you can FTF Downtown much like VASL using Skype or P2P - or even PBEM Downtown. Oh, and by the by, the Downtown VASSAL module means once you lock your player choice into one side or the other, you cannot access the enemy player's information screens at all until they unlock them for you to see. There is a choice for "Solo" play that unlocks screens on your "opposing" side as required for the solitaire rules to function, so you are still in fog of war.

There is also an excellent Cyberboard module for Downtown, allowing both FTF via a P2P connection or PBEM.

Both can work to increase your ability to find opponents as well. (smile)

KRL, Jon H
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Yes, but the Phantoms has their own capabilities. Indeed, it was not all that uncommon to be able to outrun some of their air-to-air missiles in real life. At least that was what was related to me at the time. In addition, the Mig-21 had some real reliability and endurance problems at the time.
The major issue with the Phantom was two-fold over North Vietnam.

#1 it was a purpose-designed fast interceptor with a single mission profile - to shoot down unmaneuverable large nuclear bombers before they could release. It did so by carrying a full complement of both radar mid-range and heat seeking short range missiles, with no cannon capability whatsoever. The design was not meant or created to be a dogfighter, so its own maneuverability below 10,000 feet sucked (we accurately called our Phantom fighters in VMFA-312 and VMFA-333, "sky-pigs" because of this). The models fielded over DRV were the F-4B, RF-4B, RF-4C, F-4D. The Linebacker missions finally saw the F-4J and F-4G models come into the field. In a closing engagement even at the North Vietnam standard of a US "loose Deuce" 2 v 1 for one enemy closing MiG- the approach vectors mean even a slower MiG-17 is going to create a head on closure at over 800 K.I.A.S. No AIM-7 or AIM -9 model at that time could field a shot like that effectively, so the first burst often went to the 23mm armed MiG on a down the throat vector. Then the MiG goes into a low a altitude turning fight, the F-4 loses capability to compete without stalling out (bad design required high speed for airflow), and the MiG gets rear quadrant position for an easy deflection shot, or the F-4 is forced to zoom climb away (effectively disengaging) in order to prevent being shot down. The effective Phantom driver would reverse on the zoom, and enter what Bellevue did, inserting the Mig and the Phantom into a position called a vertical rolling scissors. The MiG is incapable of maintaining energy on the vertical climb, so each pass means the F-4 is at less risk of a rear quadrant low deflection cannon shot, and each pass ,the AIM-9 has a better chance of reversing into a rear quadrant lockup on a tailpipe heat signature.

Of all the USAF pilots in Vietnam, only a handful ever understood they had to fight their Phantom to its own strengths to defeat a MiG. Hence the 2.6 (+/-) to 1 Air to air losses from 1965-1971. By Linebacker I, the rate dropped to below 2.5 to 1, so Robin Olds stepped in personally to intervene. (The man behind the 1967 Bolo massacre of MiGs that gutted the MiG 17 air pilots of DRV).

#2 - The plane lacked a cannon. Pod cannons were tried later, but it was not until late model F-4Es came along that it got an internal cannon, and any pod mounted version jammed frequently, had severe limitations of ammo, and caused excessive drag, affecting dogfighting performance.

Overall, and I used to work on and love F-4s in all shapes and sizes, the F-8 crusader was a better dogfighter and better plane for North Vietnam.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,594
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I discovered Runebound these last times.
A really excellent adventure game, still simple but with a really challenging system.
The coming Unbreakable Bonds expansion, which allows solo and coop gaming will make it hit my table quite often.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
The major issue with the Phantom was two-fold over North Vietnam.

#1 it was a purpose-designed fast interceptor with a single mission profile - to shoot down unmaneuverable large nuclear bombers before they could release. It did so by carrying a full complement of both radar mid-range and heat seeking short range missiles, with no cannon capability whatsoever. The design was not meant or created to be a dogfighter, so its own maneuverability below 10,000 feet sucked (we accurately called our Phantom fighters in VMFA-312 and VMFA-333, "sky-pigs" because of this). The models fielded over DRV were the F-4B, RF-4B, RF-4C, F-4D. The Linebacker missions finally saw the F-4J and F-4G models come into the field. In a closing engagement even at the North Vietnam standard of a US "loose Deuce" 2 v 1 for one enemy closing MiG- the approach vectors mean even a slower MiG-17 is going to create a head on closure at over 800 K.I.A.S. No AIM-7 or AIM -9 model at that time could field a shot like that effectively, so the first burst often went to the 23mm armed MiG on a down the throat vector. Then the MiG goes into a low a altitude turning fight, the F-4 loses capability to compete without stalling out (bad design required high speed for airflow), and the MiG gets rear quadrant position for an easy deflection shot, or the F-4 is forced to zoom climb away (effectively disengaging) in order to prevent being shot down. The effective Phantom driver would reverse on the zoom, and enter what Bellevue did, inserting the Mig and the Phantom into a position called a vertical rolling scissors. The MiG is incapable of maintaining energy on the vertical climb, so each pass means the F-4 is at less risk of a rear quadrant low deflection cannon shot, and each pass ,the AIM-9 has a better chance of reversing into a rear quadrant lockup on a tailpipe heat signature.

Of all the USAF pilots in Vietnam, only a handful ever understood they had to fight their Phantom to its own strengths to defeat a MiG. Hence the 2.6 (+/-) to 1 Air to air losses from 1965-1971. By Linebacker I, the rate dropped to below 2.5 to 1, so Robin Olds stepped in personally to intervene. (The man behind the 1967 Bolo massacre of MiGs that gutted the MiG 17 air pilots of DRV).

#2 - The plane lacked a cannon. Pod cannons were tried later, but it was not until late model F-4Es came along that it got an internal cannon, and any pod mounted version jammed frequently, had severe limitations of ammo, and caused excessive drag, affecting dogfighting performance.

Overall, and I used to work on and love F-4s in all shapes and sizes, the F-8 crusader was a better dogfighter and better plane for North Vietnam.
Decent and concise summary of the F-4 in Vietnam.

The info in #2 is right in line with what I read in Old's autobiography, 'Fighter Pilot '. I absolutely agree with your opinion re the F-8.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
I served under Lt Gen Drax Williams, who as 1st Lt Drax Williams had flown the RF-8 Crusader over Cuba in 1962, and as Capt Drax Williams had flown the F-8 gunfighter out from Yankee Station over RP 4 and 5 in 1965 and again in 1967. He did a "walkaround" video of the RF-8 we put together for 3rd MAW Museum in the summer of 1995, I noticed it can be found on Youtube now if you look long enough for it. Runs about 40 minutes, and describes the overall matchup of the "fates" vs the MiG's.

Pity the USN went with the Hornet over the F-8 Crusader II. Look how good the USAF dogfighter for the 21st century turned out - the F-16 General Dynamics - helluva plane. Indications were the Crusader II would have done similar service until the early 2000's. The Hornet is just a plain POS substitute to save money for Congress to look good after Graham - Ruddman took effect.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
The lack of cannon was a mistake there is no doubt. However, the MiG 21 had its own issues as described above.
The MiG 21 did everything it was designed to do, and was never used outside its intended design role. Cockpit armor and a belly armored fuel tank made it damn near impregnable to cannon fire unless its control hydraulics were shot away. The design was meant to zoom it at high speed under ground control take a shot, zoom away at high speed to get the enemy to pursue so the 17s and 19s could ambush them - or run away and live to fight another day. Their pilots never tries to dogfight anyone- they understood the plane's limitations there.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Except one can not get passed reliability problems. As to run away the F4 was faster and had greater endurance.
The Kumansky R-25-series engines in the MiG21s of the 1960's and 1970s produced maximum military power thrust (without A/B selection on the throttle detents) for 41 minutes with no external fuel tanks onboard. The MiG 21 had a nominal combat efficient range with full missile and cannon load of just under 600 nm.

The twin J-79s in an F-4 at max military detent (before going around the horn into A/B modes on the throttle), gave the series F-4B,C,D,E and J models a maximum engagement time of 30 minutes at these speeds with internal fuel cells alone. To get more than that in flight time required cutting power to minimum cruise for an extended time (SOP while feet wet or over Thailand), external tanks (Centerline tanks became the standard - less drag than a wing and run off it first, then drop it when engagements begin to clean up for fighting.), or in flight refuelling (SOP for every flight once it left North Vietnamese airspace.).

The Phantoms did not have a larger endurance. Their logistical design allowed for external fuel tanks on centerline and outboard wing stations (using wing tanks limits firing points for AAMs), and IFR probes/traps (depending on service branch), with a SOP to train every pilot well in in-flight fuelling.

The only redeeming features of the Phantom were its speed in combat was unmatched. This meant they could always disengage if they got into trouble. (A lesson Robin Olds pounded into the aircrews in 1972.) The speed allowed for the high wing loading to be utilized in a dogfight to enter ascending or descending scissors, both of which favor the F-4 and its thrust to weight ratio, and leave a MiG who does this in a VERY bad place. (Bellevue's tactics became the SOP to teach pilots at Top Gun). Finally the thrust to weight allowed for the aircraft to enter a dive speed from high altitudes that when paired with a sharp lateral maneuver (we're talking like a 3 mile radius turn at Mach 1.8 here), could not be duplicated by a SA-2 missile's minimal flight surfaces at heights where there is insufficient density of air flowing over those surfaces to allow the missile to maneuver, they were almost incapable of a turn above 25,000 feet. So the Phantom could use its supersonic design features to extend and escape from a SAM (another lesson Olds brow-beat into his pilots in 1972).

Finally the MiG driver never needed range in combat over DRV. His airfields were less than 100 nm away. An F-4 needed to fly in from ranges as far as 1500 nm out, refuel in and out, use centerline tanks to get in, and then fight and survive, and then get out again, and then face either a long flight home or surviving a OK trap aboard a carrier (something sane people only ever want to experience once- trust me.), even if the plane was damaged.

The 21s, especially early models, faced some real issues with Tumansky engines - no arguments there. By 1972 and Linebacker, those were all fixed and the planes coming up to knock down the BUFFs, SLUFs and Thuds were more than ready to fight it out. Olds saw this too, and encouraged his pilots to take advantage of the rare opportunity to again gut the NVPAF of its best MiG drivers by careful planning and ambush techniques. It worked.
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
And by 1972 the F4 had internal cannon. I am not saying that the MiG 21 was a lousy plane I am just saying that the F4 could more than hold it own.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
And by 1972 the F4 had internal cannon. I am not saying that the MiG 21 was a lousy plane I am just saying that the F4 could more than hold it own.
I would agree with this statement overall. The airframes were approximately equal in their capability to shoot each other down in the 1967-1972 time frame, if both had been piloted by competent pilots capable of dogfighting to their airframes' strengths.

Overall, the NVPAF failed to learn from the lessons of the 1967 BOLO operation, and lost their operational MiG 21s (and their best pilots for them) on the second day of Linebacker II.

The USAF and USN remembered to learn from Rolling Thunder and Linebacker I losses. It showed in Linebacker II. The pity was that pilots forgot how to dogfight to win using of the strength of their planes in F-4s. So they took an unnecessary beating along the way.

BTW- I've mentioned it before but Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972 absolutely one of the best references I can recommend after Olds' Fighter Pilot and On Yankee Station.

KRL, Jon H
 
Last edited:

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
In addition, another book good book is Air War -- Vietnam by Drew Middleton. Unfortunately, the only one of any of the ones mentioned available in ebook format is On Yankee Station
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
In addition, another book good book is Air War -- Vietnam by Drew Middleton. Unfortunately, the only one of any of the ones mentioned available in ebook format is On Yankee Station
It's a decent book ,but the information is a bit dated - On Yankee Station has similar issues, not quite so bad. the rest of these recommended are within the last 10 years. Clashes is well worth the money spent, the paperback is quite reasonable. Authors went to Vietnam to acquire firsthand primary source information about DRV in the "Yankee Air Pirate War" as it is termed in Vietnam. + MiG Masters is also an ebook... :)
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Iron Hand- continued.....

As Jim prepared for launch at the airfield with the other pilots for this alpha strike, he noticed one of the EB-66's running up and launching out onto the same course track the raid had been briefed for.

"God, I hope he does his job today", thought Jim. Then "Man, I forgot how much I hate these lead sleds. What a piece of junk. Still, its what I get for screaming bloody murder at the CG's office about the SAM's."

Jim was right there, no Brigadier is going to take a load of crap from a 1st Lt, especially a newbie.

"Iron Hand 555, you are cleared to commence roll out with your flight to runway 27 left. Winds are SE at 14, clear skies reported all the way to your target. Good hunting!"

Jim shrugged, well, at least the guys had nicknamed him "triple nickel" with his re-assignment to side number 555. He could have done worse.

"Roger, Takhli tower, this is 555 with flight of four Thuds, outbound to runway 27 left. See you when we get back,555 out."
Pushing the throttle past its detente and into max AB as he held the brakes tight on both rudder pedals, Jim listened to the massive engine rumble and scream its way into dash throttle. RPM good, engine temp good, fuel flow good. Radalt good, the gimbal is spinning up and centering, okay. Jim set full flaps and let go of the brakes as he called out " Iron Flight, roll."

"Roger lead"
"Three"
"okay Four"

As the massive jet lumbered and waddled, slowly accelerating to the midfield flags, Jim wondered once again how these beasts ever left the ground. finally at the 800 feet left marker, the wings took to the airflow and the stick became responsive. Jim held her nose onto the runway until the 300-foot outer marker and then rotated up into a shallow climb, now at a comfortable 295 k.i.a.s.

As the Thud climbed and his flight joined up on him the flaps came up and the flight activated their 20mm cannons on cue, clearing off to the left and right with short bursts to ensure all was functional. Iron flight tightened up and began their ingress along the flight path over Laos. "Lead strike SEAD", thought Jim, what a position name. They ought to call it "target for everyone in North Vietnam".

"Iron flight, arm up the CBUs" Jim called as they came off the tanker over the Plain of Jars and turned in towards route pack 5. One more trip up the valley...let's hope the NVA are sleeping today....

_______________________________________________________________________________

Jackson and I began D1 with the jamming rolls being only partially effective- so the VPAF and the DRV AAA and SAMs got wind of how many USAF planes are inbound, where they are coming in from, and their initial heading. The VPAF launched a MiGCAP flight over the Bien Hai orbit point for ground control, near the Laotian border. Could just be image spoofing to fool Red Crown, however.... time will tell. The rest of the VPAF planes were ordered to hold down at the ready to conserve fuel until the strike arrives closer to Hanoi or known targets.

KRL, Jon H
 
Top