Project Gun-Val AAR

Last weekend I hosted the "Hagerstrom's Intercept" scenario from my Project Gun-Val scenario booklet. We actually ran the game twice, because in both instances, while the Soviet...er, em...the North Koreans have the jump, the Americans were seemingly invincible. In the first game the American reversed on the first turn, and the Soviets got into a turning fight, which did not bode well as the F-86F-2 Gun-Val machine came on and was able to dispatch a MiG rather easily. The game was over in seven turns!

So, we revered sides and tried it again. The Soviet players started a bit father away which made the Americans wary of doing a reversal, but again the MiGs had a rough time of it. Of course, in both games, a couple of different die rolls and the games would have been much different.

We played with my modified MiG armament as well as used a new rule (to us) - if one dives one cannot shoot at a higher target, and if one climbs one cannot shoot at a lower target. While both games were short, this actually prevented the games from ended even sooner.

Not a lot of detail in this one, but here are some pics!

Second game setup with a little PR

First game setup - those Sabres are going to reverse and create some havoc

And now the MiGs try turning

But even though this looks ideal, it doesn't end well

Mat - Deep Cut Studio

Planes - Raiden and MSD Games

Progress on the Project Gun-Val Front

As I have but little left to do on the Slovakian-Hungarian War scenario booklet, I thought I would start work on another self-published booklet, this one on the Project Gun-Val F-86F-2 Sabre used during the Korean War in 1953. I have fourteen scenarios in the can for this one, ranging in size from four to fourteen planes on the table, with two to seven players. This project should be ready for publishing within a couple of weeks as I go through and update the formatting for the scenarios.

There are a few special rules in this one, mostly dealing with the gun system on the Gun-Val Sabre, but also some changes I felt that were needed for the MiG-15. I have read a slew of first person accounts, and I believe the weapons system on the MiG needs a little tweaking (you can read about my thoughts on this topic HERE).

This will make two scenario books that will be ready for the Check Your 6! gaming crowd, with more forthcoming!

P-47N Scenarios

The first MiG-15 kill

I detailed the P-47N in Taiwanese service in a previous post, and now have been working on scenario creation. The encounters over the Taiwan Straits during the 1950s saw a variety of aircraft and mission types, but the following all feature the final version of the Thunderbolt. None of the scenarios are large, ranging from two to six players, and only twenty-seven miniatures are needed (if one doubles up the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis). I've not been able to locate La-11s or Curtiss Commandos in 1/285 or 1/300 scale so if you know of a source for either please comment below!

"Fixing" the MiG-15

I am digging this late war scheme used by Soviet pilots

Recently I was doing some research on muzzle velocities, rates of fire, projectile weights, and rounds carried for a few Korean War aircraft. While one does not want to bog down the simplicity of balance of the Check Your 6! Jet Age rules, the historical data is telling an interesting story. Comparative analysis shows some interesting facts about the MiG-15s armament when looked at in the context of other weapons, even its own.

The two versions of the 23mm cannon, the Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 and Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23, have the same projectile weights (6.2 ounces) and similar muzzle velocities (2300 and 2264 feet per second). What is interesting is the muzzle velocity of the 37mm N-37 is nearly the same, yet the 23mm cannons are rated as MC, while the 37mm cannon is rated as LVHC with a low rate of fire. The effective ranges for these guns are all around 600 yards, and with the same muzzle velocities they should all be rated as having a low velocity weapon. How to handle? One could rate the pair of 23mm cannons as LVC since the effective ranges are the same as the 37mm cannon, rated as LVHC in the rules with a six hex range. The penalty at medium range would be appropriate since the guns also had a wide dispersion and a decreased chance to hit at longer ranges. 

The rates of fire for the two type of 23mm Soviet cannon are lower than the .50 caliber and American 20mm cannon, but probably not enough so to make the 23mm a low ROF weapon, or only the earlier NS-23 version. The data comes in at 7.08 rounds per second (RPS) for the 37mm, and 9.17 RPS for the NS and 11.25 RPS for the NR versions of the 23mm. To compare, the .50 caliber is 20 RPS and the 20mmAN/M3 is 12.5 RPS. Okay, now I do think that the NS-23 should have a low rate of fire.

For the MiG-15s, I suggest the following revisions, which do not hinder game play:

GunVal Scenario

While the details are hazy, I was able to host a scenario featuring a pair of 20mm cannon equipped F-86 Sabres in the cold skies over MiG Alley recently (called Moore's Double Down and can be found on the Downloads page). The player running the 20mm Sabres had a lot of issues as he kept failing crew checks when firing the 20mm cannons, causing the Sabres to flameout, requiring additional crew checks to restart the engines. However, the American players did a number on the Soviet-piloted MiGs, even though outnumbered eight to six. The first four MiGs on the board did not wait for their reinforcements and instead went at the Americans, which allowed the Imperialist Yankees to swarm the four MiGs. By the time the next four MiGs were able to close in, the odds were not looking good. It was an overwhelming American victory!

No after action report this time as I waited too long to write it up and the feeble mind does not quite have all the details.

Miniatures - A mix of Raiden and GHQ
Game Mat - Deep Cut Studio with 1.75" hexes.

Baltic Encounter After Action Report

I have been trying to get this game on the table since October! Finally it happened.

I did a thing - I purposely scheduled a game for the group knowing that the planes were not ready to use. This was an effort to push me to take care of the chore of adding decals to planes that were mostly painted. Applying decals is not what I call an enjoyable task, and I think it is mostly from a time perspective that I dally when it comes to this stage of completing planes for the table top. I have my system worked out fairly well - put a little gloss finish where the decals will be applied (this makes it easier to move the decal into proper position), apply Vallejo decal fix, cut the decal, soak in hot water while holding a non printed corner with tweezers, and after about thirty seconds of soaking slide into place with a brush end. Roll a Q-Tip over the decal to absorb the excess water, and adjust the decal so that it is perfectly placed. Once dry, I brush on Vallejo decal softener which "melts" the decal so as to adjust into ribbing or panel lines.

Anyway, this post is supposed to be an after action report, so let's get to it!

I hosted my hypothetical Baltic Encounter scenario (found on the Downloads page) that features a flight of Swedish Saab J 29s vs. a half dozen East German MiG-15s and MiG-17s in 1958. The Swedes receive a little U. S. Marine support in the form of a pair of Fury FJ-4s. This scenario eases one into the use of early air-to-air missiles as the Furies are carrying AIM-9B Sidewinders. It also adds afterburners, found on the J 29s and MiG-17s. One can easily swap out the Swedes and East Germans for other nationalities so feel free to mix it up, 1950s Cold War style.

One movement in, and the Tunnans are flying neatly

Four Swedish Tunnans were scrambled to watch the approach of the East Germans, who were making a political statement on Swedish's National Day. Both sides had to maintain level flight and only plot forward turn codes until spotting occurred. The Tunnan aircrews were all skilled, and the Tunnans had afterburners and an agility of 3.

The "bad guys" after a move or two

The East German force consisted of four MiG-15s and a pair of MiG-17s. My pair of MiGs are the two at the bottom of the picture. We had three skilled and three green aircrews.

One thinks that one is in a good firing solution, but those Tunnans are agile!

After a few turns, spotting checks were successfully made, and the two sides turned to engage. 

The Marines have arrived!

On Turn 3 a pair of Marine FJ-4Bs approached from the west, bearing gifts in the form of four AIM-9Bs on each Fury.

The furball

The shot of the game occurred early. One MiG-15 needed boxcars to hit a Tunnan head on - SUCCESS! And we know the firepower on the MiGs, but the Tunnan's robustness is a 2, so a good chance to survive...but not when the robustness roll is a pair of ones. BOOM! Tiny pieces of Tunnan scattered across the sky.

Much maneuvering was forthcoming - the Free World planes were all rated Hx and the players took advantage of that fact. But another Tunnan fell from the sky (sorry, Bill, Scott had a good night with a pair of kills). Personally, I tried to boom and zoom as I could, but Check Your 6! does not model B&Z tactics that well, so while I was able to dive out and build massive speed, the climb back, even to half the level of my dives, ate a crap ton of speed. I got a few shots in - all misses. And then it happened - the tails of a few MiGs showed themselves to those Sidewinder carrying FJ-4s. Uh oh.

The fruitless missile attack

Now that is my pair of MiGs immediately in front of the Furys - I was safe as I was nearly on the low end of the CAB and waaay too close to be fired upon, but Bob's MiG-17s were in the ideal position - unleash the beasts! Four Sidewinders launched. But the dice were not in Jamie's favor - two malfunctions, one miss, but wait, one proximity hit! Robustness check time - passed! Four missiles fired, four futile efforts.

However, those two MiG-17s, having turned towards the missiles by using evasive action, were shot down the next turn. In retaliation, Bob knocked a Fury from the sky. Meanwhile, the other four MiGs were able to exit the north edge of the board, embarrassing the Swedes on their national holiday. The East Germans won the game.

Communist

Two Tunnans and one Fury were lost (skilled crews) - 12 victory points

Four MiGs exiting the north board edge - 4 victory points

16 points total

Free World

Two MiG-17s shot down (one skilled and one green aircrew) - 8 victory points

In hindsight, the MiGs could have simply dropped altitude and made a run for the north board edge exit and just went for VPs. However that might have provided too many tail shot opportunities to the Free World forces so perhaps that is not such a bad victory condition.

The Free World players had the advantage in aircrew quality and having Hx planes. The Tunnans used the A maneuver chart and had 3 agility with afterburners. The MiGs had mixed aircrew quality, but a heavier armament and a height advantage at the start. Overall I think it came out to be a balanced scenario.

For details on the miniatures, click HERE.

Mat - Deep Cut Studio

The P-47N - Over the Straits of Taiwan

I am guessing the blue used on the top of the fuselage to reduce glare really should be flat black as I have never seen blue used for that purpose.

I have been working on a series of scenarios for the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, which featured the first combat use of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, fired by an F-86F Sabre and shooting down either a MiG-15bis or a MiG-17. Details are a bit confused as I have come across a couple of encounters that took place on September 24, 1958 that were part of a large Republic of China fighter sweep which was providing cover for recon missions. Seemingly the first encounter involved MiG-15s, and then shortly thereafter a group of MiG-17s appeared and more Sidewinder, as well as gun kills, occurred. But more on the 1958 crisis in future posts.

What I also found interesting was the mention of P-47Ns being engaged against Communist Chinese MiG-15s just a few years before.  I like the P-47N, the enlarged yet clipped wings gives it a bit of a different feel. Also, it is the plane the 332nd Fighter Group used after World War II to win a gunnery competition. But I digress.

While most of the Republic of China P-47 encounters (and hence losses) occurred against Communist anti-aircraft fire, there are a few air to air combat events. Here is a list of those encounters that resulted in a shoot down (taken from the "trusty" source WikiPedia, but in turn sourced from the Prop Wash Gang website so hopefully accurate):

• 29 July 1950 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by anti-air fire from Xiamen, killing its pilot.
• 16 June 1953 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by anti-aircraft fire from Dongshan Island, killing its pilot.
• 17 December 1953 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by anti-aircraft fire from Jejiang, killing its pilot.
• 22 May 1954 – In an engagement involving six PLAAF MiG-15, RoCAF pilots Chien and Yen shoot down one of the MiGs with machine gun fire from their P-47N Thunderbolts.
• 3 June 1954 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by a La-11 of the PLAAF, killing its pilot.
• 6 July 1954 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by cannon fire from a MiG-15 of the PLAAF, killing its pilot.
• 21 January 1955 –A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt was shot down by anti-air fire over the PRC, killing its pilot.
• 1 July 1957 – A RoCAF P-47N Thunderbolt is shot down by anti-aircraft fire over the PRC, killing its pilot.

Admittedly unless one really wants to game anti-aircraft actions, there are only three that might be turned into Check Your 6! Jet Age scenarios. However, through the use of AI, I believe I have come up with enough details to add a few more historical scenarios into the mix - and yes, more on this in future posts.

Rating the P-47N for Check Your 6! and Check Your 6! Jet Age is as follows.

Obviously the P-47 will have its challenges against MiGs, but if a hit can be made, the eight .50 caliber machineguns should wreak havoc. The agility difference will also help with obtaining a hit. In defense, the agility again gives the Thunderbolt an assist, as does the robustness rating. While I followed the conversion process found on Page 39 of the Jet Age rules, I might add the Hx back in for low to medium altitudes. I understand that the D rating for World War Two means the Hx is lost when converting, but this is pretty much the penultimate version of the P-47, and those clipped wings and improved engine should translate better.

Artificial Intelligence, which sourced numerous documents and articles, also generated the following analysis, which I find interesting (my comments in italics):

5. Tactical Analysis and Doctrine

5.1 The ROCAF "Turtle" Tactic

ROCAF pilots, aware of their aircraft's limitations, often flew in a defensive "weaving" formation. When attacked by jets, they would turn into the attack, forcing the faster MiGs to steepen their dive or overshoot. The P-47's ruggedness allowed pilots to risk head-on passes, knowing their radial engine offered substantial armor protection compared to the MiG's delicate nose intake. Does this mean that the MiG-15 should have a robustness of 1 when attacked head-on, or for that matter any jet with a large intake?

5.2 PLAAF "Boom and Zoom"

Soviet advisors drilled the PLAAF to avoid turning fights. The standard doctrine was to dive from altitude (High/Very High CAB), fire a burst from the heavy 37mm cannon, and use the zoom climb to reset. In Check Your 6! this is represented by maintaining high energy states. After a recent game the group talked about this very thing, that boom and zoom, and in general aircraft that have a superior dive or climb rate, really does not have a good representation in Check Your 6! The climb and dive rates are lost within the maneuver charts, so any plane with B maneuver chart has the same climb and dive capabilities against any other plane rated as a B, no matter if the first plane had a superior climb and/or dive rating. 

5.3 Gunnery Considerations

The P-47N's eight .50 caliber machineguns (3400 rounds total) allowed for long bursts and "spray" tactics, increasing hit probability against small, fast jets. The MiG-15's heavy cannons (two 23mm and one 37mm) had low muzzle velocity and different ballistic arcs, making deflection shooting difficult for inexperienced pilots. In game terms, the P-47 should have a higher "To Hit" chance but lower damage per hit, while the MiG has low hit probability but catastrophic damage potential. The damage is taken care of by the dice type used for the various weapons, but one might consider giving a green MiG aircrew an additional -1 to hit when firing a deflection shot, while adding a +1 for all P-47 attacks due to the amount of lead being discharged.

Final Thoughts

Flight Deck Decals happen to offer the P-47N so sourcing the miniature is not a concern. I will be creating a few scenarios as well - they are all rather small (the largest is about a dozen aircraft), but include MiG-15s, Yak-9s, and La-11s, along with a variety of American aircraft. 

The F-86F-2 Sabre

The air war over the Korean Peninsula between 1950 and 1953 represents a singular moment in the history of aerial warfare, a violent transition period where the tactical principles of World War II collided with the developing technologies of the jet age. For the United States Air Force, the conflict was defined by the struggle for air superiority over "MiG Alley," the strip of airspace along the Yalu River where American F-86 Sabres dueled with Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean MiG-15s. While the F-86 Sabre is often remembered as the victor of this contest, contemporary analysis and pilot reports from the era reveal a deep-seated anxiety regarding the Sabre’s lethality. The standard armament of the F-86 - six Colt-Browning AN/M3 .50 caliber machine guns - was increasingly viewed as insufficient against the rugged, armored airframe of the MiG-15. This lethality gap spurred a classified operational test program known as Project Gun-Val, an initiative that placed experimental 20mm cannon-armed Sabres into the freezing skies of Korea in early 1953.

Many Check Your 6! Jet Age gamers most likely have the F-86 in their collections - I personally own F-86s painted for both Korea and the Indo-Pakistan conflicts. They are solid birds, especially the later models with improved thrust, gunsight, and a wing configuration that increased maneuverability. However it was just recently that I learned of the 20mm armed version being used in combat over Korea. I have posted the first of a handful of scenarios that will all feature the F-2 model. By the way, eight F-2s were sent to Korea, these being a combination of E-10 and F-1 models modified to the F-2 configuration. These F-2s featured the "6-3" wing as well as the improved A-4 gunsight. Speaking of gunsights, when the Soviets evaluated a captured Sabre, they acknowledged the advantage the gunsight provided, not just for deflection shooting, but for long range accuracy as well. Therefore consider using the @FF as is for deflection shots, but also add a +1 to hit for tail arc shots at 4 hexes or greater.

The F-86F-2 had its flaws, all related to the cannon armament. When the guns where fired at higher altitudes, propellant gases would emit from the cannons and could be sucked into engine air intake, causing instances in which the engine on the Sabre would flame-out - not an ideal situation when in combat, especially as the MiGs usually operated at an extremely high altitude. In addition, due to the high rate of fire of the M39 (T-106) cannons and the limited ammunition carried for these weapons, running out of ammo early in a fight was a true concern. American pilots learned to fire snap bursts to conserve ammo, and would also try dipping the nose to clear the gas. However the Air Force still lost two F-2s due to engine flame outs caused by the gases created by the 20mm cannon. It was decided to not move forward with standard equipping of the Sabre with the improved firepower.

The scenarios will include rules to deal with the F-2 model and its woes.

Baltic Encounter - Planes Completed

The bad guys - East German MiG-15 and MiG-17

This post was an effort to push me to take care of the chore of adding decals to planes that were mostly painted and just awaiting those final touches that bring a miniature to life. Applying decals is not what I call an enjoyable task, and I think it is mostly from a time perspective that I dally when it comes to this stage of completing planes for the table top. I have my system worked out fairly well - put a little gloss finish where the decals will be applied (this makes it easier to move the decal into proper position), apply Vallejo decal fix, cut the decal, soak in hot water while holding a non-printed corner with tweezers, and after about twenty to thirty seconds of soaking slide the decal into place with a brush end (although sometimes I forego the gloss and even the decal fix as I have also had good luck in not using either). If needed I roll a Q-Tip over the decal to absorb the excess water while pushing out any bubbles, and adjust the decal so that it is perfectly placed. Once the decal is dry, I brush on Vallejo decal softener which "melts" the decal so as to conform to ribbing or panel lines. To complete the process, and the plane, I spray with satin finish from Army Painter.

In this particular case I used Flight Deck Decals for the Swedish and East German national insignia and Dom's Decals for the Americans (I had a sheet I picked up in a trade for some Korean War planes years back). The blue letters on the J 29s and the red numbers on the MiGs are from I-94 as part of their Beacon range. Flight Deck's decals come as one complete decal sheet and one needs to carefully trim around the desired decal, while Dom and Beacon decals are easier to deal with since the decal is just the printed portion. Flight Deck and Dom's take a little longer to soak and loosen, while the Beacon decals are usually ready to slide off in ten seconds. 

Free world nations' FJ-4 and J 29

The blue letters came out a little light and are not very noticeable, but the red numbers on the MiGs certainly catch the eye. Overall I am fairly happy with the outcome. There are some issues on the national insignia decals on the bottom of one J 29, caused I think by too much decal fix, and even the coat of satin finish didn't really correct the haziness around the decal, but luckily it is on the bottom and really not noticeable. 

These planes are now ready for the tabletop, and to be used for my Baltic Encounter scenario found on the Downloads page.

Color Choices - Part I

While at times I do include in my posts what paint colors I use on my aircraft, I wanted to offer a short series of posts in which I do discuss some of my projects and the aircraft colors in greater detail. 

I prefer, when the colors match, to utilize the Vallejo Model Air series. While designed for airbrush work, I have found these paints are good for applications via brush if one is willing to apply two coats. Some of the other acrylics go on a tad too thick, causing some "gunkiness" and loss of detail. I have not experienced that when using the Model Air range, even when I have had to use several coats.

Before painting the planes I apply a coat of primer. I have used a variety of primers in the past, but have now settled on Tamiya's Fine Surface in light grey. It provides complete coverage with a light coat that seems to enhance the details on the model. 

Korean War

• Yak-9 - I hemmed and hawed on what to paint the North Korean Yaks for some weeks before I finally settled on UK Azure Blue (71.108). To be honest, it is probably a shade too dark and a shade too azure, but once I put decals on the planes, I really liked the end result.
• F-80 - One of my favorite colors for natural metal planes is Aluminium (71.062). Metallic paint is where the Model Air range really shines as my experience with most metallic paints yields a thick and gunky result. The aluminium goes on smooth, even with multiple coats.
• F-82 - As the F-82s were night fighters, I went with NATO Black (71.251) for the Twin Mustangs. It is a hair "lighter" than straight black, and while it took three coats (over light gray primer) there are no issues with loss of detail. 

In various stages of completion

1950s Jets

• Saab J 29 - I used Aluminium for these Swedish jets for the same reasons given above for the F-80s.
• FJ-4B Fury - The United States Navy had by the time of my scenario setting had gone to the scheme of upper surface and fuselage in Light Gull Gray (71.121) with under surfaces in Insignia White (71.279)
• MiG-15/MiG-17 - While I could have used Aluminium for the "silver darts" I decided to use...drum roll, please...Silver (71.063)...just to give the MiGs a slightly different look than the Saabs. However, there really is little visual difference between the two.

Need to get cracking and start adding decals

1950s Jet Age - Progress

Nothing overly mind blowing in this post, but just a quick picture of my painting progress for my 1950s jet project. Thus far I have the basic paint schemes applied to the planes. 

I used Vallejo Aluminium for the J 29 Tunnans and Vallejo Silver for the MiGs, although it is not that noticeable of a color difference between the two. I also used Vallejo on the FJ-4s, going with Light Gull Gray for the upper surfaces and Insignia White for the undersides. The Tunnans have a band of Foundry Bavarian Cornflower Blue (Shade 73A as the base and then coat of Shade 73C) around the intake.

Next will be to add a thin red band around the jet intake of the Furys, and then decals (which are on their way from Flight Deck) which are mostly national insignia, but also lettering (MARINES) for the American fighters and numbers for the MiGs.

I might try to source some sort of squadron markings for the Furys, even though it would not be the correct squadron, but as this project is hypothetical anyway, I guess that does not really matter much!

1950s Jet Age

One of the projects I was planning to send to Miscellaneous Miniatures to paint was a mid-1950s what-if scenario set over the Baltic Sea, featuring Soviets vs. Swedes and United States Marine aircraft (you can see that post HERE). However, with my increased confidence in my ability to paint 1/285 scale aircraft, I have decided to work on this project myself, and have changed the scenario setting a bit, swapping out the Soviets and bringing in East Germans in their place, while changing the location of the fight - I think the East German national insignia showing on natural metal MiGs would look distinctive, and really, how many of us game the East German air force?

A very simple scheme for this East German MiG-15bis

The project involves four of the Swedish designed and manufactured Saab J 29, known as the Tunnan, or Flying Barrel, facing off against four MiG-15s and a pair of MiG-17s. The scenario I have created, and created it is as the event is hypothetical, adds in a pair of U. S. Marine FJ-4s racing onto the board in to even the odds. 

The planes are all available from Flight Deck Decals, as are the decals I plan to use for both sides. Along with the national markings for the Swedes and East Germans (I have plenty of U. S. national insignia from a Dom's Decals sheet), Flight Deck also has Marine lettering and aircraft numbers. The one thing I potentially need are letter codes for the J 29s, but I am not going to fuss other that. Numbers for the MiGs will be from the World War Two Russian range - not a perfect font fit, but close enough.

Soviet Swansong AAR

I recently hosted the Soviet Swansong scenario from the Air War Korea scenario book for the Southwestern Ohio Check Your 6! group at the "local" game shop - as local as an hour's drive might be. 

Lining them up - crap, too high!

The setup heavily favored the equally balanced forces...while both sides had an ace, two skilled, and one green aircrew, one section of MiGs (which included the ace) starts within 4-8 hexes in the rear arc of one section  of Sabres. However, the Soviet player misread the starting altitudes a bit, and instead of having a beautiful tail shot against the Americans, started four TALs too high. Move forward a couple of turns, the Soviet player overshot the American section, presenting one Sabre with an opportunity to use its advanced gunshot on a deflection shot, resulting in an airframe hit.

That damaged MiG decided to try an special maneuver the next turn, prompting an aircrew check, which was failed. The result was one MiG tumbling out of the sky.

Giving the Americans a gift.

The other section of Sabres were slowly making their way into the fight, turning towards the center of the board while climbing for altitude. The cover section of MiGs dropped into the center of the board on turn three, and now a hairball ensued. The Soviet ace placed rounds more than once on the Americans, but my buddy Matt, known now as Mr. Robusto (with the tune of どうもありがと Mr. Roboto now dancing through our heads) kept making his robustness rolls. Another MiG took an airframe hit, and on the next turn, not learning from the previous example, that MiG also tried a special maneuver. Result? Another MiG tumbling from the sky! 

This section was coming into the action

A third MiG was shot down, and now the score was 12-0 in favor of the Americans. The Soviet ace tried to dance about to shoot down any American, but it was not to be. Realizing that they had an overwhelming victory, by turn eleven the Americans all dove out of the fight with their victory point total intact.

The Soviets had their chances, but just couldn't get past Mr. Rubusto

I liked the scenario as it was somewhat balanced, and will definitely run this one again as a small convention game.

Deep Cut Studio custom MiG Alley mat, provided for the game by Scott.

The Commissioned Projects - Part VII

And now for something completely different....

The Cold War of the 1950s, other than the Korean Conflict, really is not an era I have studied. However, that has changed a bit with this next project, and a visit last year to the National Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, Florida (see this POST). The museum has a North American FJ-4 Fury, done up in Marine livery, which I found to be a beautiful bird, and one that takes its origins from the North American F-86 Sabre. Add to that a recent eBay purchase of the Profile Publications booklet on the Fury, and I started to become hooked.

Let's add another recent Profile Publications purchase, that on the Saab J 29 Tunnan, or Flying Barrel, which has some ties to the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 (featured in this POST). The Tunnan is both sleek and ugly, which is right up my (MiG) alley. The search was on to find out more on both the Tunnan and the Fury.

The Saab J 29 Tunnan

A little internet browsing yielded some interesting results. The Fury FJ-4 was delivered to operational units in early 1955, while the Tunnan came onboard in the early 1950s. What would be the suitable opponents for a clash over Scandinavian skies? The MiG-15 was still the primary fighter for the Soviet Union, with the MiG-17 introduced in the early 1950s. These four aircraft types were operational during the same era - brilliant! 

One always needs MiG-15s!

Now readers of this blog do know that I prefer 1/285 for my Check Your 6! gaming, but I was willing to start this little Cold War project in 1/300. The next step was to find miniatures in 1/285 or 1/300 scale. Fortunately, Flight Deck Decals makes both the Fury and the Tunnan in 1/300 scale, so the Allies were covered. And knowing that if Flight Deck made these two more obscure aircraft they would certainly also carry both MiG models. A quick check on the Russian Modern Jets page yielded positive results. Now I was set!

The Sabre-like FJ-4 Fury

Here is where great customer service kicks in. Dan at Flight Deck knows I prefer 1/285 scale as I have had him custom print 1/285 scale aircraft for me in the past. I placed my order for four J 29s, two FJ-4s, four MiG-15s, and a pair of MiG-17s, expecting to receive them in 1/300 scale. But no, Dan knocked it out of the hanger and custom scaled the jets for me in 1/285! Talk about knowing your customer base...good show, Dan!

The MiG-17

Ratings for the Tunnan and the Fury would be the next challenge. The Fury is "basically" an advanced F-86, so perhaps using the later ratings for the Sabre will suffice. Speed and climb rates are similar for the Fury and the F-86F, and wing area is nearly identical, while the heavier Fury has the advantage in thrust. For the J 29, I compared its performance against other jet data, so what follows is my take on the planes for this "what-if" project:

Korea - Not a Good Day for the MiGs

Alas, I only remembered to snap a couple of pictures....

This past weekend I hosted a Korean War game, the scenario being The Fighting Fourth from the Air War Korea scenario book. We used the limited firing arc, which I find to be more a bit more realistic. It was a rough go for the Soviet players, with eight MiGs facing off against six Sabres, the Americans having two aces to contend with. 

One factor the Soviets did not seem to grasp was the scenario condition that if Soviet planes were shot down in certain areas the victory points for the Americans would be halved. Instead we engaged the Americans immediately instead of using our altitude advantage to race quickly to that area before taking on the Sabres. 

Soon four MiGs were destroyed. We had lined up some excellent shooting aspects, but the robustness rolls on the American side were off the charts when in most cases the amount of damage from the MiGs' cannons would have turned them into chaff. I finally was able to jump on the tail oe one skilled American and the resulting damage rolls were too much for the imperialist to overcome. In the same turn however, I lost that MiG, and with only three MiGs remaining against five F-86s (one having left due to a lack of ammunition) the Soviet players called it a game. 

I want to run this scenario again, and have the Soviets make an effort to get to the reduced victory point areas.

Planes - mix of Raiden and GHQ

Mat - Deep Cut Studio

Ace of the Motherland

My pair of MiGs

My friend Bill and I (as part of the Southwestern Ohio CY6 group) hosted a Korean War Check Your 6! game this weekend, a scenario from the SkirmishCampaigns Air War Korea book, called Ace of the Motherland. With just five players, we decided to cut two F9F Panthers from the scenario, a pair of jets the United States players would need considering the outcome.

Dan comes on and turns towards Jay's Panthers

The Americans had to stay on a southwestern course until they spotted the MiGs or until fired upon, with visibility being just twelve hexes. We thought, based on how four of the Panthers deployed, that they would simply fly off the board, but the Soviets closed and spotting checks were successfully made, From there the game became an exercise in American futility. With the Soviets having an ace and a veteran, the ability to react to the American movements played an important role, and of course gave the Soviets an edge when firing on the skilled and one green American aircrews. The Soviets also maintained good speed throughout game.

One pair of MiGs came on the board on turn two (flown by Dan), and headed for a pair of F9Fs, while my pair of MiGs, coming onboard the first turn, headed towards another pair of Panthers that was heading back to their carrier. With spotting, I turned my pair of MiGs and wound up supporting Dan. In doing so I left a pair of Panthers far to my rear, but was able to always keep them too far away for an effective shot. 

Bill's skilled pilot took a hit, rolling doubles for a failed robustness check, and then rolled a pilot killed result on the lucky hit table. That left seven Panthers on the board, against the four MiGs. My veteran was able to get a bead on another MiG, and although I rolled doubles and ran out of ammunition, the resulting hit caused no damage as a successful robustness roll was effected. However, Dan lit up another Panther, blowing it out of the sky from two hexes, the low velocity heavy cannon making the difference in the resulting robustness check. Damn, those MiGs, if they hit, wreak havoc!

The outcome was not grand for the Americans with two Panthers shot down, another damaged, with no damage inflicted on the Soviets. We remembered to shift left for long range shots, and also the fact that in the Jet Age version of CY6! one can shoot up or down two TALs. There will be more Korean War games in the future as it is a fun period to game - WWII on steroids.

My MiGs sweeping in on Bill's Panthers

Mat - Deep Cut Studio

Planes - Soviets are Raiden and GHQ