|
56ajax -> RE: Flak (5/15/2020 5:42:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
In the actual real war that happened they used to say the best thing to stop a tank was another tank, or to stop a plane was another plane. Fighters shooting down other planes was the key number everyone wanted to know. Anti- something weapons were less effective. Flak was more an aerial area denial weapon - it made enemy planes divert course when they met it.
Now I know this can be argued about and there are special places where this inverted. But the general principle should be that and it would mean flak should be about disrupting planes on their final mission while enemy fighters do most of the actual killing.
There was a great thread started by @Dinglir about how the early air war left the Soviet air force overpowered. I did not agree but nevertheless this led to the great nerfing of the Soviet air force (national morale/experience etc.) Then the complaint was the Soviet air force was too underpowered, but the answer was to buff the flak instead. Each patch leads to more and newer complications. Perhaps the right answer if the thought was the old changes had gone too far would have been simply to undo them a bit rather than make new ones.
Hiya Tele,
Agree on flak, all about disruption and less about shooting down. Flak causes bombers to have engine trouble, or get lost or miss the target by 50k; (and as an aside what goes up must come down; I've often wondered how many casualties were caused by flk following the laws of gravity).
Tank vs Tank, well, it depends...attacking you need tanks, defending you need anti tank guns....as In PZ 3's meet enemy opposition and call up Pz4s to blast them out; enemy tanks attack and Pzs withdraw through prepared ATG positions; enemy tanks get absolutely spanked by ATGs; Pz3's advance....repeat.....
|
|
|
|
