Anyone had any luck with air attacks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Spunkgibbon -> Anyone had any luck with air attacks? (5/16/2000 10:13:00 AM)

I've had no luck with air attacks at all. My planes always get shot down and if they reach their target their attack goes all over the place except where I want it. I'm all for increasing the effectiveness of AA fire, but it seems a bit harsh to make planes more expensive and (seemingly) less accurate as well. I might just have been unlucky in the games I've played but it does seem to nullify the historical advantage the Allies had with air superiority after the invasion of Europe. After all a lot of Tiger and Panther kills were attributed to fighter-bombers and lets face it, a British cruiser is unlikey to stop one of those monsters. SPWW2 felt right with the accuracy of air attacks although AA fire was always a bit dodgy. I'm going to miss my beloved Typhoons... Have I been unlucky so far or has the accuracy of air attacks been lowered?



Wild Bill -> (5/16/2000 11:44:00 AM)

It has, but I argue with you and for you and I will in the patch. I miss the Typhoons too, and of course, they miss everything (G)! We'll see what we can do... WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Voriax -> (5/16/2000 3:12:00 PM)

I just played the tutorial from the US side to test the air attacks. I managed to get a total of 9 strafing runs from the two P-47D's in that scenario with the following results (target - result) Wirblewind(WW) - rocket hit, no damage Halftrack - rockets missed WW - miss WW - killed GrW(mortar HT) - miss WW - miss GrW - Hit, no damage GrW - miss GrW - miss I'm nost sure about those two hits that caused no damage. I had fast arty on so I just heard a 'clunk' [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] So they may have caused some damage. Attacks after the first two were MG runs and neither of the aircraft received any damage. Perhaps I was lucky (or skilled...) but all air attacks went almost exactly where I wanted them to go. If an ac 'strays' and attacks a vehicle that is a 2-3 hexes away from the then empty target hex that is not bad [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Now I'm not certain how good result this is? Based on the posts on the 'bug or feature' thread this sort of result would have been realistic. And considering the effectiveness of the AA fire, I've always thought that it is underrated in such way that a heavy flak does not make the ac drop it's bombs and abort. There should be some sort of moral check involved. Voriax



Pack Rat -> (5/16/2000 4:15:00 PM)

I just don't feel I've played enough yet to get a proper feel for the AA fire,aircraft success, and artillery fire. ------------------ Peace, Pack Rat



IivilSmai -> (5/16/2000 5:14:00 PM)

I have been playing German campaign at eaast front for two days (day and night) and getting MULTIPLE airstrikes from the opposition, Russians seem to take all the fun out of the strafing, it seems. In one (I had delay) it had four airstrikes with airacobras and some Lagg-plane, making well over twenty strafes in approximately ten turns. They totalled at one destroyed fallschirmsjaeger (they targeted the panther in the next hex) and one burning tiger. I have had many similar experiences with russian airstrikes in defend or delay, they miss immovable targets even with FO present within ten hexes, and never accomplish anything. With that kind of barrage, SOMETHING should happen, no matter what defences.



Voriax -> (5/16/2000 6:28:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by IivilSmai: I have been playing German campaign at eaast front for two days (day and night) and getting MULTIPLE airstrikes from the opposition, Russians seem to take all the fun out of the strafing, it seems. In one (I had delay) it had four airstrikes with airacobras and some Lagg-plane, making well over twenty strafes in approximately ten turns. They totalled at one destroyed fallschirmsjaeger (they targeted the panther in the next hex) and one burning tiger. I have had many similar experiences with russian airstrikes in defend or delay, they miss immovable targets even with FO present within ten hexes, and never accomplish anything. With that kind of barrage, SOMETHING should happen, no matter what defences.
I'm not certain of this but a FO unit should not have any effect to the firing accuracy of the aircraft, only to how well it'll find the target hex. After all the aiming device is the Mk 1 eyeball of the aircraft pilot. In the 'buying time' scenario the two Russkie Sturmoviks made about 7-8 strafes, at least 3 times they targeted a tank but missed, once they caused a casualty for an AT-gun and the only thing they killed was a horse cart [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]THey also attacked once their own troops (missed) and once did a flyby with no attacks. Oh and both Sturmoviks were shot down. Voriax



Voriax -> (5/16/2000 6:38:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Spunkgibbon: After all a lot of Tiger and Panther kills were attributed to fighter-bombers and lets face it, a British cruiser is unlikey to stop one of those monsters.
I once read a funny story about the above situation..probably an urban legend but here it is: - A green tank commander has arrived into a British Churchill unit and goes to ask the veterans about the opposition. "What kind of tanks we are likely to come up against?" "Well..there are Panthers and Tigers mainly" "Oh, how do you kill a Panther?" "You drive to 100 yards in front of it, and then fire at the gun shield. The round will then ricochet thru the hull top killing the driver" "Gee...has anybody done it?" "Yes, Lt. Smith from the 2nd platoon, he is now in the hospital suffering from nervous breakdown" "oh...and how do you kill a Tiger?" "You drive to 50 yards in front of it and shoot through the driver's vision slit" "Anybody done it?" "No" [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Voriax



Larry Holt -> (5/16/2000 7:57:00 PM)

In another thread here, this has also been discussed. Due to my recent US Army experience (I used to be a targeting officer) I was surprised at the ineffectiveness of aircraft in SPWAW. In Paul Vebber's post on the bug/feature thread 5-11-2000 04:53PM he said
quote:

The study I read ( I will try to find teh name - basically an analysis of groundattack aircraft from WW2 through the Arab Isreali wars) showed something on teh order of one vehicle (not tank but vehicle) killed on average per 5 sorties in WW2.
This would seem to bear out the ineffectiveness of aircraft in one short engagement modeled by SPWAW. Then again, this is a game, not a true simulation so use the editor and hack away, I did. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one.



Wittmann44 -> (6/8/2000 9:38:00 AM)

Well, I have had nothing but positive experiences with aircraft. I took a generated campaign in Russia, 1943. I selected the Wehrmacht, and the Russians brought 6 aircraft in each of the first two battles. 88's splashed two, 20mil got two more. I lost one Tiger and a pair of SPW's. When in the third battle, I got aircraft, I chose HS-129's and went on the attack. I brought them in from the rear of the map, struck a concentration of t-34/41 and KV-1's from the back, got 3 kills in two attacks (four sorties). The Russians didn't buy much AAA and it was way out of the battle, since he was using them to harass my SPW's. I quit the campaign when, after getting to the repair screen I hit fix all, moved on to the next engagement, and found that my damaged tanks stayed damaged. The repair screen fixed suspension damage, but missed fixing gun optics.



RobertMc -> (6/8/2000 10:08:00 AM)

I also have had positive experiences with aircraft. At first I thought the hit chances were awfully low, but then I went to the library and started reading everything I could find about air power (i.e. low-level bombing/rocketfire/strafing attacks) in WW2. I found that aircraft weren't nearly as effective in real life as I'd thought. Sure, they scored hits but not nearly as many as you'd think. Even that famous attack by rocket-firing Typhoons was not as deadly as you might imagine. That particular attack went on for four or five hours, involved several hundred Typhoon attacks and only destroyed (if the final records are to be believed) only about twenty or so tanks and then that includes the destruction of already-abandoned tanks as well. Low level flying was a real challenge to an aviator, and most missed the mark altogether. However, collateral damage from exploding bombs or rockets could play havoc amid trucks and infantry. Factor in smoke and dust from previous attacks and it's chaos for all involved. On the other hand, when tankers saw aircraft coming oftentimes they jumped out and ran for the woods or a ditch because they feared being attacked by something they couldn't fight back against--and in that case they wanted to get as far away from the tank as possible, it being the center of the aviator's attention. It seems to me in light of the reality of history (WW2 fighter aircraft history, far different from the fighting aircraft of today) that an airplane hit should be fairly rare but catastrophic for material and morale when it does happen. Again, what I learned in my reading surprised me because I'd always thought airplanes in WW2 were so powerful *and* accurate.



Alastair at Work -> (6/8/2000 4:14:00 PM)

Spunk/Yeti I agree with you wholeheartedly and raised this in a thread a few weeks ago. I think the hit percentages are ok really - it is the easy way planes are shot down that gets me. However Paul has confessed in an earlier thread that plane vulnerability was an error on his part and that it will be fixed in the patch. As soon as the patch is out we will meet again over a smoky field. Prepare for a hiding my friend... :-))) Cheers Al



schmoe -> (6/8/2000 5:53:00 PM)

Just a couple comments ... I remember a case I read about in Vietnam where 2 F-4's got multiple 20mm strikes on some NVA tanks, blowing off lots of external equipment incluting antennas, but no kills. From a Tanker's viewpoint that would be very discouraging since most of your personal gear is stored externally, but you are still alive ... Somebody commented that a British cruiser wouldn't be much help against a tank attack, but IIRC an American light cruiser absolutely devastated a German Tank attack in Italy with it's 15 6" guns. That's about 90 rounds per minute in the target area ...



Paul Vebber -> (6/8/2000 8:20:00 PM)

He HE once in a while you will notice the "tool box" on a tank gets destroyed...maybe that should have the kind of morale effect as "stunned crew ;-) The new suppression effects make airstrikes more effective at suppression anyway. If a five hundred lb bomb goes off even in an adjacent hex, you will get a fair bit of suppresison now...



Charles22 -> (6/8/2000 9:24:00 PM)

On the other hand, from what I've read from pilots who did any strafing runs, that their biggest fear of being shot down was ground support mission's return fire. The enemy may not had shot down the aircraft but perhaps damaged it enough for the plane to return to base. It's not exactly an easy thing to target an object when you're going hundreds of miles per hour, as you're liable to be hit. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-08-2000).]



Spunkgibbon -> (6/8/2000 10:10:00 PM)

My first opinions on this were tempered by frustration and bad luck in roughly equal amounts and now I've had more chance to practice I've got a better overall picture of air power in W@W. The accuracy does seem fair enough in the wider scheme although planes remain far too rubbish in the face of AA fire. It's good to know that this is being addressed in a forthcoming patch. A note on accuracy: the 1 kill per 5 sorties is not bad at all when you consider that on a shot for shot basis in 1944 you're probably getting a lesser ratio with a Sherman against German armour. I know it's not an exact comparison but it does put it in some sort of perspective. Schmoe: When I was talking about British cruisers I meant the class of British tank. I daresay the boat-type cruiser could see off a Maus with the firepower at it's disposal. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Al: If you think you're hard enough, mate! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]



schmoe -> (6/8/2000 11:00:00 PM)

Oops ... cruiser TANK! Sorry! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] My feeling about AA fire is that aircraft should be hard to hit, but should suffer suppression if taken under fire by AAA. They should suffer much more suppression if fired at by dedicated AAA. By that I mean "flak" units as opposed to an mg34 on a halftrack. On the other hand, 88's shouldn't be very effective against low level aircraft, since they don't have the rate of fire necessary to hit a target like that. Chance to hit should be directly related to rate of fire. A quad 50cal would be best, followed by a quad 20mm, twin 20mm, etc. Damage and range of course are another thing ... a quad 20mm would get to fire at the target much longer than a quad 50cal. I think almost twice as long in RL. I also think AAA should be MUCH more effective than they are now against infantry. Historically, AAA has been extremely effective in that role. That brings to mind an exercise where a 20mm Vulcan AAA TC saw movement in a treeline and told a mediator he was going to hose it down. He was told his weapon couldn't be used for that purpose! I suspect anyone on the receiving end of a few hundred rounds of 20mm over the space of a few seconds might argue that point!



Pack Rat -> (6/8/2000 11:40:00 PM)

I had heard we weren't suppose to use the Vulcan for ground fire as well. But I found it very odd that on the control panel there was a switch for picking your type of fire. Wonder why one of the said "Ground". With the shotgun type barrel mount and a drum full of HE it was heady stuff to hose down an area. I wanted off the missiles and on to the Vulcan just for the fact that an enemy would have had to have eaten alot of chili for the heat seeking missle to find him [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat



Romad -> (6/9/2000 2:19:00 AM)

I think Wild Bill mentioned the dilemma that air strike pose in the game. If they are too powerful the game will quickly settle around air strikes and ADA. If they are mot powerful enough, the US loses it’s major advantage against superior German armor. As for their effectiveness, well, we know that they were extremely effective. When Patton was touring France with an Army, he was overextended … not:-) When asked who was guarding his flanks, he said the Eighth AF. He knew that there would be no large, suprise, flanking attacks. I know I am probably going to take some flak from the Army ADA folks over this, but the only effective way to shoot those planes down was with another plane:-) Then, and now, it is very difficult to hit a plane on a CAS run. Sure, at five hundred feet you can hit them. At two hundred feet you may occasionaly hit them, but they are coming in at fifty to one hundred feet. The basic doctrin was to point all of the guns stright up in the air and hold the trigger down. The rational is that sooner or later the plane is going to fly into something. If we make it historically accurate those planes are going to be a lot tougher to kill than any King Tiger on the battlefield. This one is a tough nut to crack and there are no easy answers in terms of game playability.



Nikademus -> (6/9/2000 2:51:00 AM)

I'm only on my fourth battle so far, but on the Italian's first sortie with a three engined bomber, they managed to take out an L5 light tank. 3 Greek attacks with Gladiator's produced no tangible results (but no downings from AA either)



schmoe -> (6/9/2000 3:10:00 AM)

Romad, you make some good points, but I suspect that most of the undoubted success of air strikes was against relatively weakly defended targets behind the lines. Convoys, trains, and the like. They made it very difficult for the Germans to move around during the day. When a force is not moving along in column and is deployed for combat, it is much harder to see from the air. If it also has flak present, the aircraft is not able to loiter enough to find much. What we have in the game is the chance to assemble an elite force with, if we choose, highly proficient AAA. I submit that in that particular situation, it would have a significant deterent effect on airstrikes. This is an unusual situation we are attempting to create for ourselves in the Campaign version of the game.



Windo von Paene -> (6/9/2000 3:22:00 AM)

Well after getting hosed out by some Gerry planes in my first attempt at a WWII campaign, I decided I'd make damn sure I had a couple of AAA guns in my core force. So far, in Mission 3, I've shot down all of the enemy aircraft I have encountered, although it has often times taken their second or once even third pass to get them. As I haven't seen the option for any Russian aircraft, I'm happy as a clam!



Dean Robb -> (6/10/2000 12:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by RobertMc: It seems to me in light of the reality of history (WW2 fighter aircraft history, far different from the fighting aircraft of today) that an airplane hit should be fairly rare but catastrophic for material and morale when it does happen.
Yup [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]. Try flying a good WWII flight sim (European Air War, Jane's WWII Fighters, etc) sometime and try a ground attack mission. It ain't easy! In SPWAW terms, air attacks should be more disruptive than destructive. Although tank kills are HARD for aircraft (usually they're using their guns....50 cal ain't likely to kill a tank!) they're pretty effective against soft targets and suppress the living hell outa infantry units. A strafing run would(in real life) cause the troops to scatter to the winds to avoid the attack, truck drivers to bail out, armored vehicles to manuver to avoid. Although the casualties won't be high, the suppression (ie: Cohesion/combat effectiveness disruption) will be massive. Regarding the aircraft rockets: Remember that they were just fired out of a tube under the wing with no more fire control or aiming than the gunsight. The pilot had to use Kentucky windage to get them on target. This makes them (again) more effective as area attack weapons and disruptive more than destructive. Of course, 8-10 5" rockets impacting in a small area can do some serious hurt to soft vehicles and can kill armored vehicles with a tad of luck. [This message has been edited by Dean Robb (edited 06-09-2000).]



Dean Robb -> (6/10/2000 12:34:00 AM)

quote:

My feeling about AA fire is that aircraft should be hard to hit, but should suffer suppression if taken under fire by AAA. They should suffer much more suppression if fired at by dedicated AAA. By that I mean "flak" units as opposed to an mg34 on a halftrack. On the other hand, 88's shouldn't be very effective against low level aircraft, since they don't have the rate of fire necessary to hit a target like that.
Disagree here. First off, you gotta believe that the enemy ISN'T going to get you if you're a fighter pilot. If you suppressed easily, you'd be flying Gooney Birds pretty quick. Second, it wasn't until late in the war (and for the Navy) that radar-directed AA guns were developed. Land units were firing with a fixed sight and had to guesstimate proper lead - much harder to do against low-level aircraft due to the angles and smaller amount of time in the target window. The damage to the aircraft came mainly from the sheer volume of fire rather than any major accuracy - when everyone with a gun is shooting it at you, sooner or later someone is bound to get lucky. As for the 88: I believe it was effective because of the burst. With a big ol' exploding round putting lots of fragments into the air, you don't need great accuracy. Needless to say, the bigger the shell the better the chance to damage the plane.
quote:

I also think AAA should be MUCH more effective than they are now against infantry. Historically, AAA has been extremely effective in that role.
Concur here, assuming we're talking about the dual/quad MGs and the cannon. When you've got twice/four times the number of bullets coming in in one burst as a regular MG, the odds of hitting someone have GOT to increase significantly. And the cannon are basically small air-burst artillery shells, sending fragments through the troops. A pertinent side note here: The US Army is developing a new generation of standard infantry weapon. One of it's features is an integral 20mm grenade launcher with VT fuze for use specifically as an airburst weapon against dug-in troops, massed troops and for clearing rooms.



schmoe -> (6/10/2000 4:05:00 AM)

Dean, I agree that fighter pilots had to have guts, but once anyone's aircraft is actually hit by AAA the self preservation instinct takes over and the ground attack becomes secondary, to say nothing of the fact that the plane often begins to react differently to control inputs. The only real exception to the above is a Kamikaze. That is why Kamikazes were so effective, and Kamikazes were one of the reasons the US Navy rejected all AAA smaller than 3" after WWII. 3" was the smallest caliber likely to actually destroy an aircraft with a direct hit. I wasn't referring to radar directed AAA. I was referring to persons trained to shoot at aircraft and whose primary attention on the battlefield is directed at the sky. There was no VT fuse for the 88. They had to manually set range (time delay) and THEN load the round into the gun. Fine for shooting down B-17's but too slow against tactical aircraft. In addition, the weapon's rate of traverse was too slow and was often impeded by camoflage in the ground defense mode. There was also no VT fuse or even airburst for AAA in the 40mm & smaller category. You had to actually hit the airplane. That is why high rate of fire is so important.



Dean Robb -> (6/10/2000 8:37:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by schmoe: Dean, I agree that fighter pilots had to have guts, but once anyone's aircraft is actually hit by AAA the self preservation instinct takes over and the ground attack becomes secondary, to say nothing of the fact that the plane often begins to react differently to control inputs.
I agree that if you actually take damage you might break off the attack (just a chance, though...many variables), but you're original suggestion was to give suppression just because you were shot at. THAT'S the part I disagree with. Hit yes, shot at no.
quote:

I wasn't referring to radar directed AAA. I was referring to persons trained to shoot at aircraft and whose primary attention on the battlefield is directed at the sky.
And MY point remains that the Mark I eyeball wasn't a very accurate AA fire director, especially against low flying targets. Radar changed the accuracy, but before it was commonplace, even trained gunners were not very likely to hit an aircraft. Remember, too, that (although the game doesn't show it), the pilots rarely will fly straight and level. Doctrine is/was to jink randomly until you hit IP, then make your attack.
quote:

There was no VT fuse for the 88. They had to manually set range (time delay) and THEN load the round into the gun. Fine for shooting down B-17's but too slow against tactical aircraft...There was also no VT fuse or even airburst for AAA in the 40mm & smaller category. You had to actually hit the airplane. That is why high rate of fire is so important.
OK. I just said that the only reason the 88 was useful *at all* for AA was it's burst. Never said it was any good against tactical aircraft [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]. The high ROF of AA weapons also helped offset the inherent inaccuracy they had.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.828125