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?
Anyone had any luck with air attacks?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Spunkgibbon
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Anyone had any luck with air attacks?
-------------------------
"There is nothing more
exhilarating than being
shot at without result"
- Winston Churchill
"There is nothing more
exhilarating than being
shot at without result"
- Winston Churchill
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
We'll see what we can do...
WB
------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
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'
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
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
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
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.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.
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
THey also attacked once their own troops (missed) and once did a flyby with no attacks. Oh and both Sturmoviks were shot down.Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
I once read a funny story about the above situation..probably an urban legend but here it is: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.
- 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"
<quietly> "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"
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
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
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
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.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.
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
Never take counsel of your fears.
-
Wittmann44
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Mountlake Terrace, Wa. USA
- Contact:
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.
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.
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.
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
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Taunton, Somerset, UK
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
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
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 ...
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
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
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...
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...
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).]
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-08-2000).]
-
Spunkgibbon
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
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.
Al: If you think you're hard enough, mate!
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.
Al: If you think you're hard enough, mate!
-------------------------
"There is nothing more
exhilarating than being
shot at without result"
- Winston Churchill
"There is nothing more
exhilarating than being
shot at without result"
- Winston Churchill
Oops ... cruiser TANK! Sorry!
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!
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!
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
------------------
Good hunting,
Pack Rat
------------------
Good hunting,
Pack Rat
PR
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.
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.
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.