Anyone had any luck with air attacks?

[Windo von Paene]

Well after getting hosed out by some Gerry planes in my first attempt at a WWII campaign, I decided I'd make damn sure I had a couple of AAA guns in my core force. So far, in Mission 3, I've shot down all of the enemy aircraft I have encountered, although it has often times taken their second or once even third pass to get them. As I haven't seen the option for any Russian aircraft, I'm happy as a clam!

[Dean Robb]

Originally posted by RobertMc:
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.

Yup . Try flying a good WWII flight sim (European Air War, Jane's WWII Fighters, etc) sometime and try a ground attack mission. It ain't easy! In SPWAW terms, air attacks should be more disruptive than destructive.

Although tank kills are HARD for aircraft (usually they're using their guns....50 cal ain't likely to kill a tank!) they're pretty effective against soft targets and suppress the living hell outa infantry units. A strafing run would(in real life) cause the troops to scatter to the winds to avoid the attack, truck drivers to bail out, armored vehicles to manuver to avoid. Although the casualties won't be high, the suppression (ie: Cohesion/combat effectiveness disruption) will be massive.

Regarding the aircraft rockets: Remember that they were just fired out of a tube under the wing with no more fire control or aiming than the gunsight. The pilot had to use Kentucky windage to get them on target. This makes them (again) more effective as area attack weapons and disruptive more than destructive. Of course, 8-10 5" rockets impacting in a small area can do some serious hurt to soft vehicles and can kill armored vehicles with a tad of luck.



[This message has been edited by Dean Robb (edited 06-09-2000).]

[Dean Robb]

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.

Disagree here. First off, you gotta believe that the enemy ISN'T going to get you if you're a fighter pilot. If you suppressed easily, you'd be flying Gooney Birds pretty quick.

Second, it wasn't until late in the war (and for the Navy) that radar-directed AA guns were developed. Land units were firing with a fixed sight and had to guesstimate proper lead - much harder to do against low-level aircraft due to the angles and smaller amount of time in the target window. The damage to the aircraft came mainly from the sheer volume of fire rather than any major accuracy - when everyone with a gun is shooting it at you, sooner or later someone is bound to get lucky.

As for the 88: I believe it was effective because of the burst. With a big ol' exploding round putting lots of fragments into the air, you don't need great accuracy. Needless to say, the bigger the shell the better the chance to damage the plane.

I also think AAA should be MUCH more effective than they are now against infantry. Historically, AAA has been extremely effective in that role.

Concur here, assuming we're talking about the dual/quad MGs and the cannon. When you've got twice/four times the number of bullets coming in in one burst as a regular MG, the odds of hitting someone have GOT to increase significantly. And the cannon are basically small air-burst artillery shells, sending fragments through the troops.

A pertinent side note here: The US Army is developing a new generation of standard infantry weapon. One of it's features is an integral 20mm grenade launcher with VT fuze for use specifically as an airburst weapon against dug-in troops, massed troops and for clearing rooms.

[schmoe]

Dean, I agree that fighter pilots had to have guts, but once anyone's aircraft is actually hit by AAA the self preservation instinct takes over and the ground attack becomes secondary, to say nothing of the fact that the plane often begins to react differently to control inputs.

The only real exception to the above is a Kamikaze. That is why Kamikazes were so effective, and Kamikazes were one of the reasons the US Navy rejected all AAA smaller than 3" after WWII. 3" was the smallest caliber likely to actually destroy an aircraft with a direct hit.

I wasn't referring to radar directed AAA. I was referring to persons trained to shoot at aircraft and whose primary attention on the battlefield is directed at the sky.

There was no VT fuse for the 88. They had to manually set range (time delay) and THEN load the round into the gun. Fine for shooting down B-17's but too slow against tactical aircraft. In addition, the weapon's rate of traverse was too slow and was often impeded by camoflage in the ground defense mode.

There was also no VT fuse or even airburst for AAA in the 40mm & smaller category. You had to actually hit the airplane. That is why high rate of fire is so important.

[Dean Robb]

Originally posted by schmoe:
Dean, I agree that fighter pilots had to have guts, but once anyone's aircraft is actually hit by AAA the self preservation instinct takes over and the ground attack becomes secondary, to say nothing of the fact that the plane often begins to react differently to control inputs.

I agree that if you actually take damage you might break off the attack (just a chance, though...many variables), but you're original suggestion was to give suppression just because you were shot at. THAT'S the part I disagree with. Hit yes, shot at no.

I wasn't referring to radar directed AAA. I was referring to persons trained to shoot at aircraft and whose primary attention on the battlefield is directed at the sky.

And MY point remains that the Mark I eyeball wasn't a very accurate AA fire director, especially against low flying targets. Radar changed the accuracy, but before it was commonplace, even trained gunners were not very likely to hit an aircraft. Remember, too, that (although the game doesn't show it), the pilots rarely will fly straight and level. Doctrine is/was to jink randomly until you hit IP, then make your attack.

There was no VT fuse for the 88. They had to manually set range (time delay) and THEN load the round into the gun. Fine for shooting down B-17's but too slow against tactical aircraft...There was also no VT fuse or even airburst for AAA in the 40mm & smaller category. You had to actually hit the airplane. That is why high rate of fire is so important.

OK. I just said that the only reason the 88 was useful *at all* for AA was it's burst. Never said it was any good against tactical aircraft . The high ROF of AA weapons also helped offset the inherent inaccuracy they had.