Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air power

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Air power Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air power - 10/15/2011 6:13:57 PM   
ParaB

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I'm really enjoying WitE but one thing that bothers me a bit is the air war in general and the effectiveness of interdiction missions in particular.

In my current Grand Campaign as Germans I've encircled a large number of Red Army formations in March '42. The Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front is in good shape, low casualties have preserved its fighting force rather well, with close to 3.000 aircraft operational.

Now, I regularly see stuff like this happening: a tank brigade is attacked by 39 FW-190s and 19 Ju-87s and loses 1 tank, 1 artillery piece and 19 men. Another brigade is attacked by 27 109s and 190s and 34(!) Ju-87s and loses 1 tank and 1 artillery piece and 15 men. The next brigade is hit by 40 FW-190 and 12 Ju-87s, causing 18 casualties. A rifle brigade is hit by 30 109s and 190s and 24 Ju-87s and suffers 15 casualties.

Those casualty numbers IMO seem extremely low, especially considering the experience of the Luftwaffe units involved.

Post #: 1
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 7:24:12 AM   
xmas

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline 		You are right. I don´t play at WiTE since 4 mounths, waiting to change this stupid "routine".

I have read a lot of books about eastern front: "Das Reich" (James Lucas), Panzer-Division1935-1945 The Eastern Front 1941-1943, Sven Hassel romances (not historically but ...), The 6th Panzer Division 1937-45, etc. etc. etc.

All histories say that 30 Jabos attacking (Fw 190 F/G or Stukas) a group of 30-40 moving tanks or armoured veichles (without air protection) means 15/25 tank/av destroyed or dameged !!!!

In the game you bomb a RU armoured unity, with 200 or more jabos and bomber, and SU lose 1 tank 1 art and 150 men ... ridicolous !!!!!!!!!!!!

Luftwaffe work only on untill 15th turn as airfield target, or to weaker morals, different it isn't usefull.

I hate every thing unhistorical.

LUFTWAFFE DON´T WORK (and if you know the historical role of jabos, it a very big problem for WitE).

(in reply to ParaB)
Post #: 2
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 10:29:47 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline 		Yes there is a general consensus that the air war is'nt running right, and that the devs are looking into it.

But one thing to bear in mind with bombing units is that they also disrupt units to a greater or lesser degree, in effect damaging or badly damaging men and equipment in the strike.

This you do not see, but when you follow up with your planned attack, hey presto!! that level 4 fort stacked to the gunnels with troops and tanks ( that you were gritting your teeth with as you initiated the attack!! ), suddenly collapses like a house of cards. All those disrupted tanks, squads and artillery pieces have'nt contributed to the defence, and have now been destroyed by your advancing troops who instead of being slaughtered, are now recreating the Marianas Turkey Shoot on the ground

My gripe about the air war does concern bombing units though. Each bomber squadron is a one shot wonder at the begining of each turn, and after they have been used once to do anything ( they only need 1% added to their fatigue level ), then they can't bomb another unit for the whole turn. They can of course still be incorporated into many ground support missions and and interdiction missions etc, but I feel that its a bit improbable that even 1% Fatigue stops them bombing a unit twice in one turn. I think it would be far more realistic if the fatigue cap for 'unit' bombing missions is set at 15/20%

Right, I'll get off my soapbox now



< Message edited by Empire101 -- 10/16/2011 10:31:27 AM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 3
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 11:01:27 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101
My gripe about the air war does concern bombing units though. Each bomber squadron is a one shot wonder at the begining of each turn, and after they have been used once to do anything ( they only need 1% added to their fatigue level ), then they can't bomb another unit for the whole turn. They can of course still be incorporated into many ground support missions and and interdiction missions etc, but I feel that its a bit improbable that even 1% Fatigue stops them bombing a unit twice in one turn. I think it would be far more realistic if the fatigue cap for 'unit' bombing missions is set at 15/20%

Right, I'll get off my soapbox now




This game mechanic is probably in place to prevent exploiting the air war. You would be able to disrupt units by using a few aircraft over and over again on the same target rendering the target unable to defend. You get one shot per group to attack and then you have to count on ground support action (actually a decent representation of actual close support by the luftwaffe/VVS)

The air war needs work....

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 4
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 11:10:23 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


This game mechanic is probably in place to prevent exploiting the air war. You would be able to disrupt units by using a few aircraft over and over again on the same target rendering the target unable to defend.


I never thought of that.....good point. Unscrupulous players would milk that exploit dry.

quote:

....... and then you have to count on ground support action (actually a decent representation of actual close support by the luftwaffe/VVS)


I agree, it does show the that co-operation is required by both the Air Force and the Army.

quote:

The air war needs work....


It sure does, but I still think a cap on fatigue would be a good idea. As you have pointed out the exploitation of this by some players then 15/20% is probably to high then......how does 10/15% sound??


_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 5
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 11:52:39 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

The air war needs work....


It sure does, but I still think a cap on fatigue would be a good idea. As you have pointed out the exploitation of this by some players then 15/20% is probably to high then......how does 10/15% sound??



That might be fine for the luftwaffe but not the VVS. They get a lot more (small) regiments to play with. They could seriously screw over spearhead divisions... Especially if you consider nightbombers at short range...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 6
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 5:26:27 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		The airwar is without doubt in serious need of a complete overhaul. Everything from the interface and up needs to be redone imo. Atm I just ignore it.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 7
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 5:42:11 PM   
ParaB

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Thx guys. If I know the devs will eventually take a closer look at the air war that's fine for me.



(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 8
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 10:54:29 PM   
Panzeh

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline 		Fighter-bombers were a lot less effective against armor than people think, though.  They were typically more disruptive than destructive.  It was indeed very difficult to actually hit tanks, and especially to identify ones that aren't already gone or are decoys.

(in reply to ParaB)
Post #: 9
RE: Air power - 10/16/2011 11:07:45 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Aircraft disrupt a lot more than they damage/destroy in the game too. When the Luftwaffe shows up in force during a Soviet attack, disruptions can fairly easily be over 1000 men.

Interdiction had its ups and downs in terms of causing casualties since release, now casualties don't seem to be particularly high, which is fine I'd say, but as the disruptive effect doesn't last beyond the battle aside from possible causing fatigue, its real impact is limited to reducing MP's. Interdiction of naval transports can still be fairly deadly, but the days when a handful of Luftwaffe aircraft could hit a unit pretty hard with interdiction are over.

Previously, Luftwaffe interdiction was good but attacking units was pretty much pointless. Effectiveness during ground combat was good too.

The VVS wasn't good at interdiction but good at bombing units, with reasonable performances during battles as long as enough aircraft were involved.

Now, both sides seem to gravitate towards causing few losses when interdicting. I haven't tried bombing units yet, but I expect that results won't be stellar with the new limits to the amount of aircraft that will generally fly in the average attack in place. That limit also has an effect on the performance during battles, as you shouldn't see swarms of hundreds of tactical/medium bombers in battle anymore.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Panzeh)
Post #: 10
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 8:44:12 AM   
xmas

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzeh

Fighter-bombers were a lot less effective against armor than people think, though.  They were typically more disruptive than destructive.  It was indeed very difficult to actually hit tanks, and especially to identify ones that aren't already gone or are decoys.




Hi panzeh,

sorry but I and ... Hans (Rudel - 519 tanks and 800+ destroyed) have different opinion.

More Rudel was best, but he´s not the only one ...

... from wikipedia ( as generic source):


"... Elsewhere on the Eastern front, the Junkers assisted Army Group Centre in its drive toward Moscow. From 13–22 December, 420 vehicles and 23 tanks were destroyed by StG 77, greatly improving the morale of the German infantry, who were by now on the defensive.[134] StG 77 finished the campaign as the most effective Sturzkampfgeschwader. It had destroyed 2,401 vehicles, 234 tanks, 92 artillery batteries and 21 trains for the loss of 25 Ju 87s to hostile action.[135]

At the end of Barbarossa, StG 1 had lost 60 Stukas in aerial combat and one on the ground. StG 2 lost 39 Ju 87s in the air and two on the ground, StG 77 lost 29 of their dive-bombers in the air and three on the ground (25 to enemy action). IV.(St)/LG1, operating from Norway, lost 24 Ju 87s, all in aerial combat."

...


Kursk and decline; 1943

The Stuka was also heavily involved in Operation Citadel, the Battle of Kursk. The Luftwaffe committed I, II, III./St.G 1 and III./StG 3 under the command of Luftflotte 6. I., II, III. of StGs 2 and 3 were committed under the command of Hans Seidemann's Fliegerkorps VIII.[143] Hauptmann Rudel's cannon-equipped Ju 87 Gs had a devastating effect on Soviet armour at Orel and Belgorod. The Ju 87s participated in a huge aerial counter-offensive lasting from 16–31 July against a Soviet offensive at Khotynets and saved two German armies from encirclement, reducing the attacking Soviet 11th Guard Army to just 33 tanks by 20 July. The Soviet offensive had been completely halted from the air.


...


Operation Bagration to Berlin 1944–1945

Towards the end of the war, as the Allies gained overwhelming air superiority, the Stuka was being replaced by ground-attack versions of the Fw 190.[30] By early 1944, the number of Ju 87 units and operational aircraft terminally declined. As the Soviet summer offensive, Operation Bagration, got underway, 12 Ju 87 Gruppen and five mixed Gruppen (including Fw 190s) were on the Luftwaffe's order of battle on 26 June 1944.[152]Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey, a mixed aircraft unit, which included large numbers of Stuka dive bombers, was rushed to the Finnish front in the summer of 1944, and was instrumental in halting the Soviet fourth strategic offensive. The unit claimed 200 Soviet tanks and 150 Soviet aircraft destroyed for 41 losses."


I repeat my opinion 1 mission of 40 jabos attacking 30 T-34, not fortified, not air protection, historically was 12-15 tanks destroyed or heavy damaged.

Good work to devs.



(in reply to Panzeh)
Post #: 11
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 9:14:14 AM   
Rafo35

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 2/22/2011
Status: offline 		All the "historical" figures cited here have little to no value. They are "claim", nothing more. And the airmen always made huge overclaims since the begining of air power, whatever the target.

Destroying a tank with plane was something difficult in WWII, especially with bombs. When the Germans made some tests in the the east, they discovered how ineffective the Stuka were in this exercice. Hence they developped the Ju87 G. Studies made on the battelfied in Normandy also showed that the allied air forces were not huge tank killer. Granted, the east front might have been a lot more favorable (a lot less camouflage, huge part of the front with little cover, less flak), but the point remain.

"1 mission of 40 jabos attacking 30 T-34, not fortified, not air protection, historically was 12-15 tanks destroyed or heavy damaged."

It certainly hapenned once in a while, but making this the average would be like taking the partisan's claims as face value. You would not even need the Red army

(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 12
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 2:21:07 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		Rudel did indeed disable that many tanks, how many of them were repairable later is not known.
There's also a difference between attacking with high-speed fighter-bombers at a slight angle from above and low-speed attacks by dedicated ground-attack aircraft like the Ju 87 attacking with a steeper angle from above. The latter had far more chances to hit and penetrate the thinner deck armor.
The effectivness of fighter-bomber attacks also depends on their weapon used, do they use dedicated anti-tank weapons or just high-explosive content.

(in reply to Rafo35)
Post #: 13
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 2:34:21 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		xmas, in game terms StG 77 would consist of a maximum of 124 Stuka's, whilst your statements as to how effective the Stuka's should be are based on a single gruppe. A theoretical maximum of 124 Stuka's (probably far fewer, but still) can cause 23 AFV's to be disrupted/damaged/lost with relative ease in the game in one turn.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe vehicle claims more than AFV claims as it's much easier to see whether a vehicle is destroyed than a tank, as the damage is likely to be far more visible.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 10/17/2011 2:39:54 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Rafo35)
Post #: 14
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 4:43:36 PM   
Rafo35

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 2/22/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss
Rudel did indeed disable that many tanks, how many of them were repairable later is not known.


There is no way to know for sure. When figures are available from both sides of an encouter (claim from 1 side, losses recorded from the other side), the total of the claims are always a lot higher than the recorded losses.

I agree with you that it seems logical that the claims of the Ju87G were both higher and more reliable than the claims of the fighter bombers though.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 15
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 7:27:41 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline 		Anyone else notice that some German airbases do not reset their support have/need display? I've emptied them out and they still "need" 400+ support three turns later.

(in reply to Rafo35)
Post #: 16
RE: Air power - 10/17/2011 7:44:37 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Anyone else notice that some German airbases do not reset their support have/need display? I've emptied them out and they still "need" 400+ support three turns later.
See this thread, may happen to you as well: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2926946


(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 17
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 1:13:07 AM   
xmas

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Rafo, hi ComradeP,


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

xmas, in game terms StG 77 would consist of a maximum of 124 Stuka's, whilst your statements as to how effective the Stuka's should be are based on a single gruppe. A theoretical maximum of 124 Stuka's (probably far fewer, but still) can cause 23 AFV's to be disrupted/damaged/lost with relative ease in the game in one turn.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe vehicle claims more than AFV claims as it's much easier to see whether a vehicle is destroyed than a tank, as the damage is likely to be far more visible.



If your opinions are correct, can you explain me the western front from El-Alamen to Ruhr Final assault ?

The constant fear for germany generals in battlefield was allied air supremacy (of jabos P47 thyphoon etc. of course not bombers - B17-24 Lanc).
In Normandy PZ divs did move only on the night and fortified in the day.
Rommel (from Africa battlefield) did want stop invasion on the beach knowing the hell by allied air supremacy.
Runstedt (from Russian - 41-42 battlefield) did want stop invasion with manouvre war, he didn´t know fighting with enemy air control.


If allied jabos was unoffensive for armored target, why Pz Divs lose so many time to arrive in Normandy, why they move only in the night ?



quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafo


All the "historical" figures cited here have little to no value. They are "claim", nothing more. And the airmen always made huge overclaims since the begining of air power, whatever the target.




I have read (but as you I wasn´t there), that Germany and English Air HQ was very very severe to confirm claim (very different was Americans that in Swheinfurt ball raid did claim more 300 victories, ... to say 100% of Luftwaffe interceptors).

I have read in ex. in Clostermann memories (french ace), in the British Battle Spitfire and ME 109 had a camera making photos every "x" bullets shoted. To confirm claim was a severe process.

More, about the armored target I think that 1 bomb of 250Kg in the rear of T34, in free fall of 300 km/h, on the motor compartment ... or near the track ... was more than sufficient to stop the tank.


If anybody can post anything to help to clear the facts, I will thanks.



(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 18
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 3:54:52 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
There was somebody who did a report on the inflation of tank kills by pilots during WW2. What he did was took a known value for the number of afv's in a division before a battle, and then the known number after, and compared it to the number of 'claims' pilots made. His conclusions I found astonishing, but alas, I dont remember the report.

There was something about the Panzer Lehr, which was nailed by a carpet bombing and considered 'destroyed' only to have lost a few tanks...

I will try to find the article. Maybe it was nonsense, maybe it was fact. Perhaps somebody out there knows what I am talking about?

Hmm..not quite the article I was looking for but still an interesting read:

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html#an_4


< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 10/18/2011 4:01:32 AM >

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 19
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 1:12:24 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

If your opinions are correct, can you explain me the western front from El-Alamen to Ruhr Final assault ?

The constant fear for germany generals in battlefield was allied air supremacy (of jabos P47 thyphoon etc. of course not bombers - B17-24 Lanc).
In Normandy PZ divs did move only on the night and fortified in the day.
Rommel (from Africa battlefield) did want stop invasion on the beach knowing the hell by allied air supremacy.
Runstedt (from Russian - 41-42 battlefield) did want stop invasion with manouvre war, he didn´t know fighting with enemy air control.


If allied jabos was unoffensive for armored target, why Pz Divs lose so many time to arrive in Normandy, why they move only in the night ?


The war in the desert is a unique case, primarily due to the lack of roads which meant that the enormous vehicle column strung out on the coastal roads were an obvious and easy target for the Allied air forces operating there. The more difficult the terrain and the fewer good roads are in an area, the more effective interdiction will be both in terms of inflicting casualties and disruption. Engaging stationary targets in a long column is a lot easier than engaging individual moving ones. Most, if not all, of us have probably seen the images from Desert Storm's Highway(s) of Death.

There were also few German divisions to begin with in the desert, so interdiction could be focussed. On the Eastern Front, there were many targets and many divisions requiring ground support.

Moving at night mostly helped soft skinned vehicles. As I said before: wrecking a truck from the air is less difficult than wrecking a tank. If a few vehicles start burning, the column stops. This was as true then as it is now, and was true for both sides (Allied example: Hell's Highway).

Actual AFV losses are a different matter. For starters, in order to accurately hit something, you'd have to be able to see it. A lot easier in the desert/on the steppes than in the bocage or woods.

As the Allies also had a smaller front to cover in Normandy than the Axis and Soviets had on the Eastern Front, interdiction could be focussed, just like it could be focussed in the desert.

Air superiority doesn't automatically equal good interdiction, though. It depends on many factors, including the presence of AA and the amount/density of (rail)roads in the area. For example, the rail network in Western Germany was so dense that it could not be completely shut down for a prolonged period, there were always detours available. That is as opposed to the rail network leading to Normandy, which was less dense and had far fewer tracks. Similarly, the Luftwaffe couldn't really effectively interdict the Dutch in the Holland provinces in May 1940, due to the presence of significant amounts of AA guns at both military and civilian installations and the density of the road network, which in turn meant the Luftwaffe was close to powerless to help the paratroopers out, which almost resulted in their complete destruction.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 10/18/2011 1:19:15 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 20
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 2:18:23 PM   
MechFO

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xmas

Hi Rafo, hi ComradeP,


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

xmas, in game terms StG 77 would consist of a maximum of 124 Stuka's, whilst your statements as to how effective the Stuka's should be are based on a single gruppe. A theoretical maximum of 124 Stuka's (probably far fewer, but still) can cause 23 AFV's to be disrupted/damaged/lost with relative ease in the game in one turn.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe vehicle claims more than AFV claims as it's much easier to see whether a vehicle is destroyed than a tank, as the damage is likely to be far more visible.



If your opinions are correct, can you explain me the western front from El-Alamen to Ruhr Final assault ?

The constant fear for germany generals in battlefield was allied air supremacy (of jabos P47 thyphoon etc. of course not bombers - B17-24 Lanc).
In Normandy PZ divs did move only on the night and fortified in the day.
Rommel (from Africa battlefield) did want stop invasion on the beach knowing the hell by allied air supremacy.
Runstedt (from Russian - 41-42 battlefield) did want stop invasion with manouvre war, he didn´t know fighting with enemy air control.


If allied jabos was unoffensive for armored target, why Pz Divs lose so many time to arrive in Normandy, why they move only in the night ?



quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafo


All the "historical" figures cited here have little to no value. They are "claim", nothing more. And the airmen always made huge overclaims since the begining of air power, whatever the target.




I have read (but as you I wasn´t there), that Germany and English Air HQ was very very severe to confirm claim (very different was Americans that in Swheinfurt ball raid did claim more 300 victories, ... to say 100% of Luftwaffe interceptors).

I have read in ex. in Clostermann memories (french ace), in the British Battle Spitfire and ME 109 had a camera making photos every "x" bullets shoted. To confirm claim was a severe process.

More, about the armored target I think that 1 bomb of 250Kg in the rear of T34, in free fall of 300 km/h, on the motor compartment ... or near the track ... was more than sufficient to stop the tank.


If anybody can post anything to help to clear the facts, I will thanks.





Any way you look at it you are massivly overestimating kill %.

Bombing hit % with a gliding aproach was below 1%, in training.
Rocket hit % was 3-4 in training.

A good discussion thread:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000010.html

Some of the reports mentioned there can be found on the internet.

(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 21
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 3:53:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Anyone else notice that some German airbases do not reset their support have/need display? I've emptied them out and they still "need" 400+ support three turns later.


You are the second person I've seen reporting this.

I have never seen this happen with Soviet airbases, for whatever reason, nor has anybody else reported it. It appears to be a German only issue.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 22
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 4:22:55 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Anyone else notice that some German airbases do not reset their support have/need display? I've emptied them out and they still "need" 400+ support three turns later.
See this thread, may happen to you as well: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2926946




Good to know they are working on a fix, and the problem can be avoided by not sending groups to reserve from commanders report.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 23
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 4:24:32 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Soviet air bases do only slowly return supply/fuel/ammo stocks and vehicles to the pool in some cases, I expect the same is true for Axis air bases. Pavel probably fixed at least part if not all of that issue, though.

The support not resetting is odd, though.

As another matter: I'm not sure if the support in air HQ's actually does something for the air bases attached to the HQ should the need be higher than what's in the air base. Currently, I'm inclined to think that's not the case. I have yet to see an air base "borrow" support like ground units do.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 10/18/2011 4:26:33 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 24
RE: Air power - 10/18/2011 10:31:44 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I repeat my opinion 1 mission of 40 jabos attacking 30 T-34, not fortified, not air protection, historically was 12-15 tanks destroyed or heavy damaged.

Good work to devs.


Yes but you dont say what it should be on average ? And should those numbers apply to ground support missions as well as bomb unit missions and interdiction ? what is materially the difference in those missions with regard to what the stukas are actually trying to do - ie blow things up ?

The number you quote at the upper rate is a 50% success rate. So lets say three gruppe at 30 JU87's each - attacking say a combined force of say 200 russian tanks

1 attack in the bomb unit phase would kill 45 tanks alone - add to that say two interdiction attacks as it moves and thats another 90 gone - then add say 3 or 4 separate ground support missions in the turn and three gruppe of JU's has wiped out a force of two hundred tanks. That just didnt happen in reality - and aside from over inflated kills - knocking out a tank didnt always mean blown to bits - it meant lost a track or killed a couple of crew - etc - which is represented by the disruptions. I think taking the extreme examples of rudel and Galland and extrapolating that into every plane and group on the front is the wrong way to go.


(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 25
RE: Air power - 10/19/2011 1:51:49 AM   
xmas

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

quote:

I repeat my opinion 1 mission of 40 jabos attacking 30 T-34, not fortified, not air protection, historically was 12-15 tanks destroyed or heavy damaged.

Good work to devs.


Yes but you don't say what it should be on average ? And should those numbers apply to ground support missions as well as bomb unit missions and interdiction ? what is materially the difference in those missions with regard to what the stukas are actually trying to do - i.e. blow things up ?

The number you quote at the upper rate is a 50% success rate. So lets say three gruppe at 30 JU87's each - attacking say a combined force of say 200 russian tanks




You are right, obviously 40 jabos attacking 30 T34 or 200 T34 result it´s same: 12-15 tanks destroyed or damaged. % it´s related to attacker not to target.

But more important I always wrote "target WITHOUT AIR PROTECTION and NOT FORTIFIED".

I say that, because I read a lot of time about the incredible precision of jabos attacking (ex.Stukas, Dauntless etc. You think hit a deck of few meters of a destroyer, tank etc, in diving !), with a quite to manouvre and attack without enemy cap and low AA (unit on move have low AA efficiency and not necessary in a moving spearhead there was AA support)...

... but after read the documents post by other users, may be that the effectives results of jabos were less than I thank.
Only I question if a group of 4/5 grenades applied by infantryman near track of T34, stop it (not necessary destroy it); how a bomb of 250 Kg was harmless and useless touching land near the track or on the rear of tank ?


In the game the problem is that I strike 1 armored SU moving unit without air support (by the report) after break through my front, with 80 stukas (3 groups), 100 level bombers (4 groups), in the summer and in theory for 1 week, and I got destroyed 1 AFV, 1 ART, 150 men ... ... (If target was infantry, result don´t change in game).



(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 26
RE: Air power - 10/19/2011 3:21:02 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		Maybe an error taken over from the old pacwar/wir combat system - casualties from attacks are only applied to active men/material (even if these attacks could theoretically eliminate more) ?

(in reply to xmas)
Post #: 27
RE: Air power - 10/20/2011 9:12:26 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

how many of them were repairable later is not known.


It is no so "not known" as may seem.

Permanent tank losses

3rd TA
20-Jan-1943 till 18-Feb-1943
Sunk: 5
AT:34
Aviation: 2
Other: 4
Total: 45

3rd GTA
28-Jul-1943 till 12-Aug-1943
AT: 337
Aviation: 13
Total 350

4th GTA (Orel operation 1943)
AT: 312
Mines: 41
Aviation: 7
Total: 360

4th GTA (June-September 1944)
AT:230
Mines:3
Aviation:6
Total: 239

...and so on (btw, these numbers include friendly fire, which wasn't rare)

So permanent AFV losses caused by aviation was very low.

Amount of hits was obviously much higher, but what is the most important in many cases aviation was dealing with the formations away from the front line, which gave good chances for the hit vehicle to be evacuated (if required) and repaired soon. With weekly turns this kind of short term "casualties" are considered as "disruption".


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Air power Page: [1]
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

3.000