Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Dive bombers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Dive bombers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dive bombers - 8/8/2000 8:56:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline 		Am'I right there are no dive bombers in SPWAW? I know there are Ju87B and Ju 88, but they are not DIVE bombing, they are LEVEL bombing, right? I am not speaking about some fancy graphic or sound effects, but about accuracy. Ju 87 has FC of 10 ( or is it 15??) I don't know I fiddled with planes a lot. But It's used just for strafing. So bombing accuracy is just the atribute of bomb. But JU87 uses same bombs as He111, with same "TO HIT" Would the idea of creation of "Divebombers bomb" ... just a 500kg and 250kg bomb with several times bigger accuracy cause a problem? Usual "to hit" for 120kg bomb is 6%, "divebomb" may well get 24%. Are there any code limitations on accuracy as such? 255? Just a thought Renwor

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 8/8/2000 9:14:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		It's a good idea. Divebombers should be much more accurate than level bombers.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 2
- 8/8/2000 10:20:00 PM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		..and correspondingly MUCH more vulnerable to low-medium altitude AAA. That slow dive does wonders for solving the target tracking problem.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 3
- 8/8/2000 11:21:00 PM   
Hornet

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't dive bombing used only against buildings and targets which were not moving (or moving slowly like ships)?

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 4
- 8/9/2000 12:00:00 AM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		I think it was used against anything. If you think about it, most tanks actually move a lot slower than a destroyer running flat out. Of course, the DD is a bigger target, but you're still able to get really good accuracy from a high speed dive (where did anyone ever get the idea that planes dive slowly?). We're talking really steep diving here, not that kind of shallow dive that was used by fighter-bombers, etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 5
- 8/9/2000 12:36:00 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		In theory. In practice, pilots don't like to bring bombs back. While there will always be exceptions, in most planes it's dangerous to land with the same weight that you took off with. So pilots tend to drop on something. A Sherman going flat out across ok ground will crank out around 6 meters per second. So depending on release point, it could be in the next hex by the time the bomb gets there. Which leads to one of my favorite features, ie bomb damage in adjacent hexes. By the way, warships are for the most part faster then the tanks of this period. 31 knots is around 36 mph, I think, which would be around 58 kph? did I get that right, divide by 5 multiply by 8? T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 6
- 8/9/2000 1:06:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Dive Bombers certainly 'did' dive on targets other than buildings and such. DB'ing as a general rule, is far far more accurate than level bombing and the Stuka excelled at it. Many many early war accounts of those screaming plans attested to the plane's effectiveness against a myrid of tactical based targets (vehicles, guns, etc) and the Stuka was the weapon of choice for the ground support devoted Luftwaffe. Even the Ju-88 got into the act and was such a strong versitile airframe that some versions could also preform dive bombing runs. Air superiority was a must of course, as the Stuka proved abysmally vulnerable to any decent fighter protection, but of course thats outside the scope of the SP series.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 7
- 8/9/2000 1:29:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		The stuka in the early years of the war was more effective then it really was becouse it was the first time troops incountered something like this. In this game you cant model something like the effect that the sound of the stuka had on troops morale and fighting skill. The numbers of stukas in the early war played a imported role to. In the first week on the invation of Poland, 1634 sorties were sent out to support one tank corps alone. The Stuka was not all that effective against targets like tanks. Their is a lot of factors to take into account when diving on a target and hitting something the size of a tank is not easy.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 8
- 8/9/2000 1:50:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		true, it would take alot of experience and a bit of luck, though 'statistically' the to-hit % would be far higher than a level bombing attack (American 'carpet bombing' techniques excluded (i'd love to see THAT effect on the map....the whole monitor would be one big smoke screeen ;-)...) the advent of the 'tankbuster' version of the venerable Junker greatly increased it's tank killing prowess.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 9
- 8/9/2000 2:39:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tomanbeg: In theory. In practice, pilots don't like to bring bombs back. While there will always be exceptions, in most planes it's dangerous to land with the same weight that you took off with. So pilots tend to drop on something. T.
My father did 50 missions as a waist gunner in a B-17, based in England. He said they dropped any ordinance into the Wash, which is an arm of the E. Channel. If I can ever get a web site together I'll post his pictures of missions and shot up 17's. They've never been published. As a side note here in the States there is a National War Plane museum about a half hour from my home. They have a working B-17 that flys over my house sometimes, something to see Before they moved the museum here my cousin was a member and I've flown in a bunch of the eras planes. I did a private tour with just my Dad on the 17 it was very perssonal for both of us. I was shocked at how small it was, guess I was thinking more in terms of what I saw in the military and it's famous reputation. Oh by the way you can get to fly on the B-17, but very expensive and there is a waiting list. E-mail me if you're interested and I'll try to get their address. Sorry to carry on so. ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 10
- 8/9/2000 3:28:00 AM   
Pave

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by renwor: Am'I right there are no dive bombers in SPWAW? I know there are Ju87B and Ju 88, but they are not DIVE bombing, they are LEVEL bombing, right?
My opinion is that they are not doing either. They seem to be doing some kind of strafing runs. I suggested some time a go that level bombers(like He-111) would not do dive bombing(or strafing) and they wouldn't have any MGs or cannons. I also suggested that planes would have a special code which says if they are level or dive bombers. As usual the problem with this kind of message boards is that people are posting same things again. Well, good that the issue is getting more attention this time.
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: The Stuka was not all that effective against targets like tanks. Their is a lot of factors to take into account when diving on a target and hitting something the size of a tank is not easy.
To speak about Ju-87, they really did hit tanks often. At least at the Finnish front, Russians liked to have large formation of tanks before an attack. Those formation were favorite targets for both artillery and German Stukas. The results could be seen as columns of smoke and flames. This happened in summer 1944 and the Stukas were D-5 model, which carried bombs, not AT cannons. With bombs you don't have to have a direct hit to take it out action. This D model is missing totally from the SPWAW. -- Pave

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 11
- 8/9/2000 3:45:00 AM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		Actually, the picture for the B model is a D, but I know what you mean.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 12
- 8/9/2000 4:16:00 AM   
Pave

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline 		To point with the code is of course to tell the game which kind of bombing procedure to use - just in case somebody didn't understand it already The code could have actually three modes for a dive bomber(like Stuka B,D), level bomber(like He-111) and a strafe bomber(like Il-2, Stuka G). I don't know the situation in v3, but I think the game should have all the usual aircraft, which had above minimal effect in ground support. Only after that add these interesting what ifs, experimental and rare types, like Me-262, Ar-234 or Ju-88P-X(replace the X with your favorite number), if there is still space in OOBs. Please make it so that those rare types are not available in campaigns, at least not for the AI. Same goes for all the other units, not just aircraft. ...just my opinion. -- Pave

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 13
- 8/9/2000 7:19:00 AM   
Owl

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/4/2000
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I'd like to see some kind of factor in the unit cost tied to how common a unit is. The origingal squad leader series had a multiplyer you could use one the cost to which would make it easier or harder to buy units. That multiplyer varied from year to year. That would tend to force the IA and players to choose more realistic mixes of units. As for the dive bomber issue in general, the Ardo Jet and ME 262 were about all that flew on the western front in 1944-45. The 262 was Hitler's "Blitz Bomber" which is a good thing. Had he seen Adolf Galland's common sense and started building them as fighters in 1943 as they could have... Last thought... Is it me, or does the AI seem to choose way more AA then would be typical? Wonder if that AA has more problems with faster aircraft? ------------------ (.) (.) ...V...

_____________________________

(.) (.)

...V...

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 14
- 8/9/2000 7:49:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Owl: [B]I'd like to see some kind of factor in the unit cost tied to how common a unit is. The origingal squad leader series had a multiplyer you could use one the cost to which would make it easier or harder to buy units. That multiplyer varied from year to year. That would tend to force the IA and players to choose more realistic mixes of units. This was talked about quite a bet some time back. Their is a factor that will make the computer pick some units more then others but as for doing this for human player you would you have a lot of complains becouse you could not play a fair game anymore. Like the allies produced upwards of 8 tanks for everyone that the Germans made and this number is even higher in other areas. Like who would want to play a online battle as the Germans if they new that the wound have to face 8 T-34s for every one panther or tiger. [This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited August 08, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 15
- 8/9/2000 10:33:00 AM   
Beantown

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: newton, MA USA
Status: offline 		Could be the real German Panzer crews felt the same way...sure, it's uneven, but a Panther or Tiger is a powerful weapon...how many T-34's (especially if not T-34/85) can take one of those out with a front shot, or sometimes even a flank shot? 8-1 may be extreme, though.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 16
- 8/9/2000 11:05:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Beantown: Could be the real German Panzer crews felt the same way...sure, it's uneven, but a Panther or Tiger is a powerful weapon...how many T-34's (especially if not T-34/85) can take one of those out with a front shot, or sometimes even a flank shot? 8-1 may be extreme, though.
Will I destroyed 2 tigers in one Email game useing 1 US 76mm AT gun that cost me under 30 points to buy and you would want to make the tigers and other German tanks like that cost more, wound never bye tanks as the Germans again, I hardly ever even buy tigers as it is now. The only time the Tiger is really the king of the battlefield is when you have a lot of visibility and clear ground. If you dont have them factors they are just expensive explosions waiting to happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 17
- 8/9/2000 2:33:00 PM   
JR

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 5/24/2000
From: Norway
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Actually, the picture for the B model is a D, but I know what you mean.
The Stuka seems to have anti tank guns under the wings, at that should make it a G, I think. (Sorry guys, someone has to pick on minor details to make a forum like this complete, and why should not I fullfill that role?)

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 18
- 8/9/2000 7:42:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		Hmmm... I thought the G actually had a picture of a G, and the B had a D. I know the icon for the B (and thus presumably the D and G) is presently a G. Maybe you're getting picture/icon mixed up.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 19
- 8/9/2000 7:57:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Hmmm... I thought the G actually had a picture of a G, and the B had a D. I know the icon for the B (and thus presumably the D and G) is presently a G. Maybe you're getting picture/icon mixed up.
Oh, it's THAT simple really !!!! And I believe the the icon for G is still a Me109 one just to clear up things a bit. My suggestion of "divebomb" isn't meant to be perfect solution. Its just perfect in sense of time consumption/efect. No code changes, no nothing, just rearm Stukas with more accurate bombs. Anybody can do that. Also, no problem in taking away guns from level bombers. this way, without recoding, Pave may get his: a) Dive Bombers : rearmed current units b) Fighter/strafers: as it's now c) level bombers: just leave out the Mg's And Pave, sorry for stealing away your topic, I really didn't notice. Renwor [This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 09, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 20
- 8/9/2000 8:12:00 PM   
JR

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 5/24/2000
From: Norway
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Hmmm... I thought the G actually had a picture of a G, and the B had a D. I know the icon for the B (and thus presumably the D and G) is presently a G. Maybe you're getting picture/icon mixed up.
You are right. I willread better next time

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 21
- 8/9/2000 8:42:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		will have to double chk the 'stats' of the dive bomber types and their ordinances but my impression was that they already were more accurate than level bombers currently. More often than not my Stukas tend to score on enemy vehicles with varying levels of effectiveness

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 22
- 8/9/2000 10:23:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		If you gave dive bombers a special routine increasing their effectiveness, don't you think they should also be made more vulnerable? Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 23
- 8/9/2000 10:30:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		I think they should be less vulnerable. A nice fat B-25 in a shallow glide bombing dive would be an AAA man's dream, but a smaller plane in a nearly vertical dive would be much harder to hit, except by flak units that it is approaching nearly head-on (those very close to its target).

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 24
- 8/9/2000 10:39:00 PM   
Musti

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tampere, Finland
Status: offline 		Yes, dive-bombers were extremely vulnerable after performing their dive. They would have to retract their dive-brakes when they came out of the dive. At this moment their airspeed and altitude was low(a very dangerous situation in an airplane). They would have to gain airspeed and altitude and get to a flying formation...The sight of slow stukas over a dive-bombing target was referred as a "Stuka-Party" by the british pilots during the Battle for Britain. When it comes to Stuka's accuracy in the dive-bombing they we're used in the Polish campaign to bomb wires that were attached to explosives on a bridge. Stuka pilots cut these wires with their bombs just before the german armored columns would arrive, thus saving the bridge for fast advance across Polish countryside. That sounds icredible but it is true!

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 25
- 8/9/2000 10:54:00 PM   
Owl

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/4/2000
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		As far as I can tell the Stuka ruled primarily where there was a breakthrough in progress, acting as mobile and precise arty. In the campaigns where they were most effective (Poland, France, early Russia) they were faced with little in the way of AAA or air opposition. There's a book out by the top Stuka pilot (can't remember his name or the books right now) but it makes interesting reading. The Stuka was vulnerable at the end of it's dive, but there really wasn't much opposition around to threaten it. Later when the opposition got heavy they switched over largely to the FW190F which could hold its own against enemy fighters and was pretty good at gound attack - and fast/nimble enough to dodge AAA.

_____________________________

(.) (.)

...V...

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 26
- 8/10/2000 1:34:00 AM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		Attack aircraft are modeled abstractly in all SP games. Dive bombers were never particularly effective against moving targets smaller than warships. Most enemy AFVs killed by aircraft were knocked out by MGs, cannon, or rockets (although a near miss by a 500-lb bomb would work just as well, just not as frequently). Dive bombers were most effective against point targets like bridges. Veteran German (and probably Dauntless and Val, too) dive-bomber pilots could usually put their bombs within 25 yards against such targets. I don't see a pressing need to re-model air attacks since dive bombers are usually given a higher FC rating to begin with.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 27
- 8/10/2000 1:59:00 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		For a good explaination of German dive bombing see: http://www.uwm.edu:80/People//jpipes/judive.html ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 28
- 8/10/2000 2:53:00 AM   
Pave

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by renwor: No code changes, no nothing, just rearm Stukas with more accurate bombs. Anybody can do that. Also, no problem in taking away guns from level bombers. this way, without recoding, Pave may get his: a) Dive Bombers : rearmed current units b) Fighter/strafers: as it's now c) level bombers: just leave out the Mg's
Okay if there are just enough weapon slots left for those new "divebomber bombs". However this won't change the fact that level bombers drop they altitude when they approach their target. At least they could fly at a higher altitude and their bombs should scatter on a larger area.
quote:

And Pave, sorry for stealing away your topic, I really didn't notice.
That's okay. Actually it was only one suggestion in a larger list of improvement ideas. -- Pave

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 29
- 8/10/2000 3:15:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Beantown: Could be the real German Panzer crews felt the same way...sure, it's uneven, but a Panther or Tiger is a powerful weapon...how many T-34's (especially if not T-34/85) can take one of those out with a front shot, or sometimes even a flank shot? 8-1 may be extreme, though.
Oh, 8-1 isn't extreme, try 10-1. That's how badly outnumbered Tigers often were in the East. IIRC, Tigers were often used as "fire brigades" which would move to an area under attack and blunt the Soviet armored advance. I also remember a reference from a US officer who admitted they were losing 6-8 Shermans in order to kill one Tiger. Fortunately during the advance they found many Tigers either destroyed by air attack, broken down, or out of fuel. After the war, a tanker who served under Patton decided to fundamentaly change the Army's view of tanks, switching the focus to crew survivability and performance instead of reliability and the ability to mass produce them. They started their new doctrine with the Patton tank, which eventually led to the tank which carries that tanker's name: Abrams.

_____________________________


(in reply to renwor)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Dive bombers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.000