Air power

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: xmas

Hi Rafo, hi ComradeP,

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 ?

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/Forum ... 00010.html

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

[Flaviusx]

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.

[Mike13z50]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

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: 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.

[ComradeP]

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.

[DBeves]

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.

[xmas]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

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).

[Denniss]

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) ?

[Helpless]

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".