The early air war

[RforRush]

ORIGINAL: morvael
Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!)

?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

I stand by what I said. Plus you aren't flying night missions & you were destroyed on the ground it looks like. Again I don't agree with the night bombing results that is being given in the game. It is "way" too generous and I have posted that a few times already.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain




100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

I stand by what I said. Plus you aren't flying night missions & you were destroyed on the ground it looks like. Again I don't agree with the night bombing results that is being given in the game. It is "way" too generous and I have posted that a few times already.

I had a night bombing as a Soviet that destroyed 25 German fighters in one of my games. Again night bombing and interception is "way" too generous.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: RforRush

ORIGINAL: morvael
Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!)

?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing

Long range, yes, but not strategic. It had no such effect. As % of tactical sorties and compared to Allied strategic bombing this was pure propaganda. As can be seen directed at city, not industrial targets.

[morvael]

Night bombing was nerfed once, it can be evaluated again.

[M60A3TTS]

I've always enjoyed this BBC series, the World at War.

This one in particular discusses strategic bombing and includes the practical difficulties of flying at night particularly by the RAF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P8Xu3nDAdw

[Kantti]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

I don't think city bombing is too effective. Soviet player can create airbases to defend key production cities as needed, and also build more AA to protect them. The effect of a well-placed airfield with reasonable fighter force on an unescorted German bomber sortie is dramatic.

It's another question how realistic are 500-mile night bombing runs to Siberia...

I don't think that building more AA solves anything. Like said, AA-losses are nigh non-existant. Bombing run to Tula was met with 70(!) 85mm AA guns and 25 of other types. Result: 1 bomber shot down...

[RforRush]

ORIGINAL: morvael
Long range, yes, but not strategic. It had no such effect. As % of tactical sorties and compared to Allied strategic bombing this was pure propaganda. As can be seen directed at city, not industrial targets.

Then Germans didn't conduct any strategic bombing either. Bombing was focused on destroying civilian infrastructure. So having strategic bombing in the game (= choosing industry as target) is ahistorical.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Kantti

ORIGINAL: Nix77

I don't think city bombing is too effective. Soviet player can create airbases to defend key production cities as needed, and also build more AA to protect them. The effect of a well-placed airfield with reasonable fighter force on an unescorted German bomber sortie is dramatic.

It's another question how realistic are 500-mile night bombing runs to Siberia...

I don't think that building more AA solves anything. Like said, AA-losses are nigh non-existant. Bombing run to Tula was met with 70(!) 85mm AA guns and 25 of other types. Result: 1 bomber shot down...

Ya, there was another post stating how "ineffective" Soviet AA really is. Especially compared to German AA. I believe a post by M60 sparked this conversation then a thread made on it.

[Stelteck]

One point about the Air War. Exceptional results are good to analyze.

But a normal battle with air support looks more like this :



The air force is not always successfull.
(Maybe an explanation, only 25 planes are IL-2, 50 are PE-2 1943 and 25 old SB2).

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: RforRush

Then Germans didn't conduct any strategic bombing either. Bombing was focused on destroying civilian infrastructure. So having strategic bombing in the game (= choosing industry as target) is ahistorical.

Yes, I agree. Question is - should this be allowed in game or not? How good it should be?

[morvael]

It's possible to reduce impact of experience on AA strength, but it shouldn't be much. What's interesting is that ammo also matters, and Soviet units have special penalty that reduces ammo available to them in 1941 and 1942.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: morvae

Yes, I agree. Question is - should this be allowed in game or not? How good it should be?

I think it should be to make sure Soviet airforces are deployed to rear areas from early turns to prevent it happening. As was historical. If the Soviet air forces do deploy to the rear to protect their industry you have neither city bombing nor the original problem in this thread of an overly powerful Soviet airforce.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Results of my first test:
- only one unit is bombed in a hex during a single bombing run
- that unit is selected randomly
- in case of units with greatly varying strength/size this may result in poor bombing results (small unit has little impact on total stack strength)
- target experience does not change during bombing
- stack strength increase may be the result of FoWed CV recalculation after bombing (each bombing counts as recon as well)
- single bombing run on a guards rifle division in fort level 3 by ~130 bombers (incl. ~25 Stuka) resulted in reduction of defensive Alt CV from 20.5 to 18.9 (offensive from 7.8 to 7.2).
- that unit lost 12 elements out of 1173 (~1%), in case of ready elements it was 26 elements out of 1110 (~2%)
- during bombing 248 elements were disrupted, resulting in ~21% temporary (only during that bombing run) CV loss
- average fatigue after that bombing run increased from 0 to 16, resulting in ~5% temporary (until the end of turn) CV loss
- as can be seen CV loss of ~7% roughly corresponds to fatigue and ready element loss effect (5%+2%), with most of the loss being temporary (because of fatigue)
- in the logistics phase unit strength will increase because fatigue will be reduced, while elements will be repaired and replaced (experience and morale may drop for good units, but for beaten units replacements may be actually of higher value than elements in place)
- bombing units is good if you want to increase you chances in combat, though ground support is more effective (but if you have airframes to spare it's best to combine both effects)
edit:
- obviously effects will vary depending on aircraft used, group quality, target quality, terrain, fortifications, enemy AA and airforce, but GS should yield better results than pure bombing, with both being the best choice as long as airforce can support that
- one can also imagine harrowing tactics of bombing units before combat to increase chance of victory, doing GS, and finally strafing units that have withdrawn into new hex, possibily without forts, to maximize kills (and airforce usage)

First: Thanks for actually testing this!!!

Second: Does the first paragraph mean that if I bomb a stack of three divisions with 200 bombers, they will all hit the same division?

Third: I did a turn one bombing run on Brest Litovsk (after moving units to get to detection level 10) with FOW turned off. The result was that the defensive CV changed from 1=15 to 1=18. The result can be seen in the attached file. What am I missing? Is there a way to get more info than you get by having detection level = 10?

Fourth: By what formula is disruption changed into fatigue at the end of combat?

Fifth: Can the same element be disrupted twice in the same bombing attack?

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
Fourth: By what formula is disruption changed into fatigue at the end of combat?

As far as I know it's 1/3 of disruption converted to fatigue: 30% elements disrupted => 10 fatigue.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
Fourth: By what formula is disruption changed into fatigue at the end of combat?

As far as I know it's 1/3 of disruption converted to fatigue: 30% elements disrupted => 10 fatigue.

I thought the 1/3 factor only applied to fatigue to CV transformation.

What if 30% of the elements are already fatigued?

[Kantti]

Stelteck, like I said in my previous post, that kind of result as you posted is normal for Soviets, these 3000+ disrupts are reserved for German bombers. Note that in that battle 4 (!) German fighters were able to disrupt 213 Soviet soldiers....

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

Second: Does the first paragraph mean that if I bomb a stack of three divisions with 200 bombers, they will all hit the same division?

Third: I did a turn one bombing run on Brest Litovsk (after moving units to get to detection level 10) with FOW turned off. The result was that the defensive CV changed from 1=15 to 1=18. The result can be seen in the attached file. What am I missing? Is there a way to get more info than you get by having detection level = 10?

Fourth: By what formula is disruption changed into fatigue at the end of combat?

Fifth: Can the same element be disrupted twice in the same bombing attack?

#2 Yes, one battle report means one unit was hit.
#3 I will check this, didn't happen in my case.
#4 I think it's "number of disrupted elements"*100/"number of ready elements" (so if 20 elements in a slot of 40 will be disrupted fatigue should be increased by 50), but will check code to confirm this.
#5 Elements can be disrupted only once, but will check code to confirm this.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
Fourth: By what formula is disruption changed into fatigue at the end of combat?

As far as I know it's 1/3 of disruption converted to fatigue: 30% elements disrupted => 10 fatigue.

I thought the 1/3 factor only applied to fatigue to CV transformation.

What if 30% of the elements are already fatigued?

Yeah sorry, I'm mixing things up here... fatigue = 1/3 reduction to CV.

Disruption => fatigue = don't know what's the conversion ratio.