Why strafing is so useless ?

[Gaspote]

Hi,
I'm not complaining just asking if anybody know why strafing is so useless (or totally under historical efficiency).
I understood quickly that strafing was useless and just a way to lose plane but I still don't know why devs (or perhaps bug ?) make the strafing totally unprofitable.

Just some numbers ,

130, it's the number of planes destroyed in Pearl Harbor (according to 8 december scen), the true number is something like 180 but some squadron aren't full at the begining so.

30, it's usually what I got from the first turn as Jap (in PH).

Even considering that dive bomber worked well, the A6M2s are suppose to be really effective as historically. There are not a lot of flaks too so nothing is suppose to reduce their efficiency. But the result is really disapointing.


Flak is anormaly effective too, even with 16 bofors in a hex, you lost half of your squadron in strafing attack. A good strafing attack is suppose to avoid flak, flying a low alt, radar or spotter don't see the attack coming so flak don't shot or don't get efficient result.

In my opinion, even if you don't destroy a lot of planes on the ground, you at least don't lose a lot of planes too.
It mean that fighter become useless in case of air superiority or if ennemy fighters stay on the ground waiting for some bombers to attack.

I've not made a lot of test but it's the same for ground attack except it's effective on disruption.

ps : I don't play AE early so I don't know if peoples complain about it or something else. Although I tried to search but found nothing.

[Feltan]

Pearl Harbor (07 Dec 41) is probably not the best yardstick to measure game strafing versus real life strafing results. The results there were an abnormality due to the disposition of US aircraft.

Regards,
Feltan

[geofflambert]

In a different take, the Pacific is not the ETO where (if you're the allied player) you have Thunderbolts. It's a bad idea (almost always) to waste those well trained fighter pilots to some clown standing on land with a submachine gun. If you have a squadron with the appropriate ground attack aircraft, by all means train some pilots to do that.

[mind_messing]

The games code does a poor job of representing strafing attacks.

You can send P39's and whatnot after troops, but the impact is minimal and the losses to flak makes it a waste of aircraft.

Pretty much the only time I've used strafing attacks have been against PT boats or Chinese troops in the open.

The only worthwhile exceptions might be the US Marauders armed with excess machine guns and cannons, and perhaps some Japanese two-engine fighters.

[rustysi]

In AE you have to train pilots in different roles, and one of them is straffing. Now I know the early Japanese pilots have this capability, but these naval fighter jockeys are just too valuable to waste on a ground pounder. I believe you need to be at 100' too in order to get them to straff at all. When I train my fighter pilots the only reason I train in straffing at all is because it seems to bring up the defensive role as well. Still not sure if this is due to training in the secondary role or just the longer length of the training. As far as to the effectiveness of the straffing attack I won't be able to tell until I start playing as the allies. They have higher pilot numbers so I'll check it out when I get to them. Anyway my real point is that as the Japanese player I doubt I would waste any pilots performing straffing.

[Alfred]

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.
 
2.  The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.
 
3.  Very few airframes are classified as FB.
 
4.  AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.
 
5.  Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.
 
6.  Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.
 
Alfred 

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred 

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

2.  The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

3.  Very few airframes are classified as FB.

4.  AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.

5.  Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.

6.  Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.

Alfred 

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

Point number one raises the question : Is there a correlation between radar and CAP effectiveness? I'm hoping the answer is yes.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred 

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred 

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

Only commenting on game treatment as OP wanted to know why game results are as they are.[:)]

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

2.  The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

3.  Very few airframes are classified as FB.

4.  AB do suppress flak and can therefore emulate the straffing role.

5.  Pointless attempting to straff if pilots lack that skill.

6.  Benefits of radial v inline engine not picked up in the abstraction.

Alfred 

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

Point number one raises the question : Is there a correlation between radar and CAP effectiveness? I'm hoping the answer is yes.

I'll take your point on spelling on advisement.[:)]

As to CAP effectiveness, in that instance, yes there is a correlation between the presence, and type, of radar and CAP effectiveness.

Alfred

[rustysi]

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

It takes a Gorn.[:D] Thanks for the correction. I got into a technical field because I can't spell, and there's no spell checker here. Also I refuse to look up every other word up in the dictionary.[:)]

[zuluhour]

It looks sexier with two F s.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

It looks sexier with two F s.

More teutonic, with perhaps some lederhosen?[:)]

Alfred

[geofflambert]

These days, with the demise of the printed word looming, dictionaries which were inadequate to begin with may simply cease to exist. We will have to fall back on the OED. I'd like to credit the history of most American dictionaries in their attention to etymology. It is rather difficult to find dictionaries of other than English but European languages that even include any etymologies at all. I find this appalling. If you don't know the etymology of a word, you really don't understand the meaning of the word, either currently or in the past. English is truly a great language, in my view the greatest of all in part because it blends Greek and Latin and German and Celtic and Arabic and every other language on Earth. Seriously, the people we call great authors today will seem like silly fools because we no longer understand the meaning of words. I raise my glass of Pinot Grigio to words!

[erstad]

The Urban Dictionary definition of "straff" uses words I don't, and which would not be consistent with forum rules in any case. Despite that, the definition could be considered consistent with Alfred's usage [:D], especially

The abstraction loses most of the historical soft skin targets which were straffed.

I'm all for "soft skin", but using terms like "targets" seems a little ungentlemanly.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred 

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

Well, training strafing itself for strafing might not be so useful, but training sweep at 100ft is the quickest method to improve defensive skill in fighter pilots.

[Encircled]

Vital for training in defensive skill.

Would strafing still have an effect on the supply of the unit being strafed?

[Barb]

And on top of that - you can effectively strafe only small amount of troops - because in existing code every single squad in a 40-mile hex will shoot (albeit not very effectively) at your strafing planes. And with several thousands of squads you will eventually get way too many damaged planes ...

That said, I would not try it with Japanese planes (without armor and low durability), but only with allies, with planes as P-39s or attack bombers, and against small enemy garrisons - at best case already without supplies [:D]

In game terms: it is generally not very advisable to fly at 100ft against enemy CAP, flak and fully supplied troops ... [;)]

[CT Grognard]

strafe (v.), 1915, "punish, attack, bomb heavily", picked up by British soldiers from German strafen "to punish", in slogan Gott strafe England "May God punish England," current in Germany c. 1914-16 at the start of the Great War. The word was used for many kinds of attacks at first; the meaning of "shoot up ground positions from low-flying aircraft" emerged as the main sense in 1942.