Few glitches and few units to add(?)

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Thu Jun 08, 2000 10:53 pm

I have a few glitches here, if someone likes to fix those..

When infantry retreats when suppressed by heavy shooting at them, they might run 5 hexes or as many as they can before dissapearing, surrendering or dying.

I lost body of Valentine II from the screen after it blew up, only saw its crew and fire.

British Siskin Mk.III has two times 20 * .303 caliber MGs?

Retreating infantry (not in the end game sequence) lays huge smoke cover when they retreat (alot more smoke than if you put smoke manually or in the end game sequence)

And then to another things:

I noticed that Finnish Blenheim Mk.I had Lewis .303 machinegun, which Finns usually tend to remove due to lack of use and to reduce some weight.
But then British Blenheim Mk.I doesn't have Lewis in SP.
Blenheim Mk.I original design had 1 lewis mounted in wing (pilot operated, which ones finns removed) and 1 lewis turret. (I doubt this turret were used against ground targets)

I Would also like to see Bf109G-6 in Finns troop list, because it was more common in FAF (Finnish Air Force) than Bf109G-10 (There shouldn't been many G-10's).
FAF also had received their own Ju88 and He111 planes from germans. (Some of those Ju88's had 20mm nose gun mounted into the nose)
There were also SB-2's from russians.

Lahti ATR "Norsupyssy"

"Here kitty kitty"

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 06-08-2000).]

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu Jun 08, 2000 11:01 pm

I echo one of Fishu's issues. For what little I've used smoke, the retreaters always lay smoke thick enough not to be seen through (are they throwing one or two grenades?) that hex, and yet when I do it manually it takes two grenades to block LOS for that hex. In close quarters, the first grenade only being half thick enough results in the hapless unit only being fired upon, which for this type of situation usually results in never being able to throw the 2nd grenade._

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 10:37 am

Fishu, your comments about Finnish OOB have been noted

There is a *very* modified Finnish OOB in the works and the Ju-88 will be there. Also the Blenhein and G-6 will be checked.

I have a bit of a problem with bombers with nose guns...if they are left in place then it's possible they will come back for strafes, right? This is a bit unnatural behaviour from a level bomber, IMHO. So it might be best to remove mg's/cannons from such aircraft.

Voriax

Ilja Varha · Post by **Ilja Varha** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 10:52 am

What about giving the nosegun of a bomber so few ammo (2) that it may bust a tank, but on 1st flight it would run out of ammo, nad would not come back strafing?

------------------
Ilja Varha, maker of the SPIII: Moderna

Arralen · Post by **Arralen** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:36 am

Originally posted by Ilja Varha:
What about giving the nosegun of a bomber so few ammo (2) that it may bust a tank, but on 1st flight it would run out of ammo, nad would not come back strafing?

I can't recall that a nosegun of a bomber was to be used against ground target - in fact, as these level(!) bombers where flying high enough to escape shrapnel from their own bombs (most times, at least), I seriously doubt that the gunner even could aquire any target during the bombing run.

Dive bombers are another matter - but their pilots had most times enough troubles aiming the bombs to fire the (wing) MG at a ground target - and in the rare case of dual-engine dive bombers (Ju88 one of these?!) the bow gunner wouldn't fire at a ground target ahead to obscure the sight for pilot and ?? (Bombenschütze - can't find the word in my dictionary, sorry).

That leaves straffing by fighters and ground attack planes - but these mostly havn't got "nose guns" in such sense ...

So I would suggest for deleting all those guns from the OOB alltogether ..

Arralen

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 2:15 pm

Ju-88 variations had alot differences, there were one with 20mm nose gun, and FAF had couple of those or so...
Its handy strafing panicking troops on a strafe run, also for opportunity shots on fighters (Ju-88 is fairly agile bomber when empty)

Also 7.7mm Lewis in Blenheim was meant for strafing I think... but finns had those removed, and only left turret lewis there.

Dave R · Post by **Dave R** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 3:01 pm

The Lewis guns in the Blenheims both the wing mounted and the turret was for air defence only.
When it first came into service with the RAF it was an advanced design, and was able to outfly all inservice fighters, though these were the last generation biplanes. By WW2 it was then out performed by Bf109's and 110's. The guns were a left over from earlier day's and with the RAF were left in place more as a 'crew comforter' then being practical weapons, they were never intended for ground attack, so I would go with the argument that they all should be removed as they just were not used.

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 5:28 pm

Originally posted by Voriax:
Fishu, your comments about Finnish OOB have been noted There is a *very* modified Finnish OOB in the works and the Ju-88 will be there. Also the Blenhein and G-6 will be checked.

I have a bit of a problem with bombers with nose guns...if they are left in place then it's possible they will come back for strafes, right? This is a bit unnatural behaviour from a level bomber, IMHO. So it might be best to remove mg's/cannons from such aircraft.

Voriax

Hmmm, just make sure I'm told about making a graphic for it, you don't want one with German markings!!

------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

Dean Robb · Post by **Dean Robb** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 8:22 pm

I can't recall that a nosegun of a bomber was to be used against ground target - in fact, as these level(!) bombers where flying high enough to escape shrapnel from their own bombs (most times, at least), I seriously doubt that the gunner even could aquire any target during the bombing run.

Methinks you're mixing heavy bombers and tactical (medium) bombers here. The US B-25 Mitchell, A-26 Invader, etc. were specifically designed to use their guns in the ground attack role in addition to their bombs. One mod of the Mitchell even had a 75mm howitzer in the nose for more effective ground attack. I'd never use the B-17 this way, though

I think the JU-88 was used in the same role, but am not sure.

I like the return strike possibility for the tactical bombers - makes them worth their cost. If they were only good for one pass, then their cost needs to decrease significantly.

BTW: For Matrix: Could you take a look at the air strike code and see if the alternate target code is working right? Many times, I've called in a strike against infantry only to have the aircraft veer off to attack my tanks *several* hexes away from the target. Maybe their diversion window is too large? Especially when fighting against the Japanese, any armor on the battlefield is likely to be mine...

That leaves straffing by fighters and ground attack planes - but these mostly havn't got "nose guns" in such sense ...

So I would suggest for deleting all those guns from the OOB alltogether

Take away my beloved P-38s?!?!?!?! My Forked Tail Devil??!!?? I'll call in an airstrike on YOU...

Many WWII aircraft had nose guns. I know at least one major aircraft in each of the major air forces had them. FW-190, AM-6, P-38...the cannon were usually mounted in/on the nose to reduce vibration from their firing by putting them in line with the fuselage. The recoil could do some serious damage to a wing.

So I'd disagree with this idea...

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Jun 09, 2000 9:20 pm

I think he probably meant nose guns in the sense of a flexible mount in the nose. Offhand, I can't think of any fighters that had such a thing.
It seems to me from what I've read/seen that any strafing by bomber gunners was incidental, and that they'd never call for a second pass JUST to use the guns. Sometimes other guns were used, especially tail turrets and ventral guns, but it's not really what they were meant for, and I agree with those who want them left out.

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 2:07 am

AT-teams could have rifles instead of pistols.

Two men teams, another holds launcher and pistol, but assistant usually has rifle with him..
Would be more idea to put that rifle as self defense weapon.

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 2:11 am

Originally posted by Voriax:
Fishu, your comments about Finnish OOB have been noted There is a *very* modified Finnish OOB in the works and the Ju-88 will be there. Also the Blenhein and G-6 will be checked.

I have a bit of a problem with bombers with nose guns...if they are left in place then it's possible they will come back for strafes, right? This is a bit unnatural behaviour from a level bomber, IMHO. So it might be best to remove mg's/cannons from such aircraft.

Voriax

That could be wise for those big bombers that has low number of .303's.
But if theres B-25J, with 5x.50cal forward firing, of course those must stay

Or B-26 with 5 also.

schmoe · Post by **schmoe** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 2:41 am

Hi Fishu,

Wow, have you actually fired that thing? Looks amazing!

A minor nit with your last comment. Your argument is of course correct, but the B26 actually had 8 50cal guns in the nose. One aforementioned model of the B25 actually had a 75mm Howitzer AND 8 forward firing 50 cal! I think the howitzer was loaded by the copilot and that a/c was mainly used against Japanese shipping.

It was also very common for all flexible guns in these aircraft to participate in strafing attacks, including but not limited to the rear gunner. I don't know how effective they were, but I've heard from one individual who was there.

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 4:28 am

Originally posted by schmoe:
Hi Fishu,

Wow, have you actually fired that thing? Looks amazing!

A minor nit with your last comment. Your argument is of course correct, but the B26 actually had 8 50cal guns in the nose. One aforementioned model of the B25 actually had a 75mm Howitzer AND 8 forward firing 50 cal! I think the howitzer was loaded by the copilot and that a/c was mainly used against Japanese shipping.

It was also very common for all flexible guns in these aircraft to participate in strafing attacks, including but not limited to the rear gunner. I don't know how effective they were, but I've heard from one individual who was there.

Thats not my gun though, just thought it would look cool there

Thats A-26 you're talking, because B-26 is bomber version which has 4 .50 calibers in the sides of cockpit and one in the nose nearby bombadier.
And thats B-25H, which is ground assault plane and B-25J is bomber version, with norden, as well as B-26, when A-26 does not have norden bombsight.
You better take note on A's and B's.. plus on versions

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 5:53 am

You can see how Fishu was getting plastered in paint war (notice the yellow spots on the clothes), so he decided to up the ante a bit.

Wait a minute!!! Those aren't paint splotches, those are daisies. I guess he don't like flowers either.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-09-2000).]

Hauptmann6 · Post by **Hauptmann6** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 7:22 am

Ummm... Guys, the A-26 and B26 were totaly different Aircraft. the A26 was the A20s replacement. and the B-26 was a medium bomber like a B25. The standard mode of attack for the B25 and B26 was level bombing of operational targets(bridges, ammo dumps, ect) and not battlefield support(normaly). Battlefeild support was the realm of the A20 and A26b(the A26a(IIRC) was a glass nose light bomber) The A26b had a hard nose for strafing, and was used in closer support.

The hard nose B25 was a special case i nthe pacific and wasn't normaly used for CS work.
The Guns on a medium bomber(25-26) would have been WAY out of range for strafing, an the ammo was better saved if fighters showed up.

HTH
Haupt

Fishu · Post by **Fishu** » Sat Jun 10, 2000 4:15 pm

Originally posted by Hauptmann6:
Ummm... Guys, the A-26 and B26 were totaly different Aircraft. the A26 was the A20s replacement. and the B-26 was a medium bomber like a B25. The standard mode of attack for the B25 and B26 was level bombing of operational targets(bridges, ammo dumps, ect) and not battlefield support(normaly). Battlefeild support was the realm of the A20 and A26b(the A26a(IIRC) was a glass nose light bomber) The A26b had a hard nose for strafing, and was used in closer support.

The hard nose B25 was a special case i nthe pacific and wasn't normaly used for CS work.
The Guns on a medium bomber(25-26) would have been WAY out of range for strafing, an the ammo was better saved if fighters showed up.

HTH
Haupt

Under air superiority and seeing poor helpless enemy troops attacking own soldiers, I would really like to use my 5x.50cal on those guys, would really change their mind about attacking.

Arralen · Post by **Arralen** » Sun Jun 11, 2000 12:54 pm

Could all of you guys mail me your suggestions concerning aircraft ?

Address is: Arralen@freenet.de
(.. and don't sell it to the spammers

)

I'm trying to compile the "necessary" OOB changes at the moment, and as I don't have too much spare time, I can't really dig through all my books

- especially, as some to of those seemingly got lost when I moved last year

.

Thanks,
Stefan

[This message has been edited by Arralen (edited 06-12-2000).]