Dive bombers

[JR]

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

[Nikademus]

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

[Wild Bill]

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

[Seth]

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).

[Musti]

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!

[Owl]

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.

[victorhauser]

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.

[Larry Holt]

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.

[Pave]

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.

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

[Ed Cogburn]

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.

[renwor]

Originally posted by victorhauser:
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

I don't want to create a tankbuster from Ju 87B, I just think, that that single 500kg bomb from stuka should be more accurate, than any of He111 bombs. But I don't propose stuka should be able to take out a moving tank on regular basis.

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.

higher FC rating? So what? And a MG or two to use with it! FC rating really doesn't influence bombing, just strafing. So it's good fighters have generally higher FC rating , than bombers.
To make dive bombers more vulnerable to AA fire??? I am rather clueless in this aspect. Long straight, relatively slow dive doesn't really seem as a good evasive maneuver, but no accurate bombing run is. Maybe lower speed off divebombers? But then again, is speed a factor in computing AA fire "to hit"?
Aw, one more thing: Did you notice the shadows for planes? Where is the sun at the moment? I guess SPWaW is a game made for kiwis

Renwor.

"Dive bomb with a nuke? Whats the point?"


[This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by renwor (edited August 10, 2000).]

[Grumble]

The vulnerability to AAA has to do with type of weapon. Level-bombers (B25/He111) NORMALLY flew at 8000+ AGL to avoid small arms/MG's and 20-40mm guns. Dive bombers due to their preferred mode of attack have to fly through that threat ring, relatively slowly, to deliver their ordnance. Part of what contributed to the effectiveness of the Stuka etal, was the lack of suitable AAA defenses on the part of its targets. One of the reasons the FW190 took over from it was its speed over the target, combined with an awesome armament. Less time in the threat, higher probability that you're flying home-instead of walking.
Plus ca change: The reason NATO aircraft in Allied Force bombed at 16,000+ was to avoid, yup, the gun threat; and the IR SAM ring.