Destroyed tanks due to unknown reason

[Denniss]

if the game uses anti-armor (HE) rating the penetration does not change with combat range, if it uses (AP) penetration rating it varies actual penetration with combat range. Both is correct for using the respective ammo type (HE or AP).
If penetration is not to be used in A2G combat maybe change the routines to permit using HVAP instead; leaving penetration to A2A only. This would require Jim and myself to re-do/add those ratings. Or we need to update the Anti-Armor ratings to reasonable penetrations assuming AP penetration at reasonable combat ranges. This would still require a max range reduction for A2G combat as thats currently by far too high
Does the Anti-Air value have an effect at all in A2A?

[Joel Billings]

The saves are from the Soviet turn, but the scenario does give me a good test bed for Pavel to run the 37mm through its paces. Thanks.

[Wiedrock]

The saves are from the Soviet turn

For me they are German

load_game.png (464.18 KiB) Viewed 673 times

[Joel Billings]

My mistake, I got confused which saves were which. Anyway, the scenario file gave me what I needed to send to Pavel. Thanks!

[Vermin]

So without being trite, I should elect large bomb loadouts instead of A2G AT cannon if I want to cause significant tanks losses?

[Wiedrock]

So without being trite, I should elect large bomb loadouts instead of A2G AT cannon if I want to cause significant tanks losses?

Currently, yes. Bigger than 50kg though. And once the Ju 87G is being produced, do not use it (since it has no bomb loadouts) and you'd only waste pilots.

[Rexzapper]

Are you telling us that, as the game is implemented, the AT Guns used in A2G combat (Ju-87G and Hs-129B with AT Gun, for example) are completely useless and are not capable of destroying anything?

My God! And here I thought they were the ultimate anti-tank weapon!

[Vermin]

Is the issue on list of upcoming fixes - if not then I can edit the device file for A to A weapons - I'm just concerned that may screw up air combat.

[Joel Billings]

It won't be in the 1.02.52 official version, but it's at the top of the list to fix now and we hope to get a fix in for the next public beta to appear after .52 goes official. Can't say exactly how soon that will be as we are also starting to test the OB 2.0 changes.

[Wiedrock]

Is the issue on list of upcoming fixes - if not then I can edit the device file for A to A weapons - I'm just concerned that may screw up air combat.

I am not 100% sure about A2A war and how it is processing the numbers, all I can say is that every plane anyways only has 1 or 2 armor, no matter what armor they partially had in real world. Added to this it's questionable if the penetration value is used/processed in A2A at all. One may find out all of this but it takes some effort.

[Joel Billings]

It turns out that interdiction in a hex can generate losses at the end of the air combat phase that is separate from the losses generated during the air strike. So the extra losses you see in the losses screen are from this interdiction. This is WAD, although there is no way to see it from the air directive summary screen or the battle reports. I will try to note this in the next update.

As for the cannon, Pavel found the part of the code that was using penetration and he and Gary decided on a change that should correctly have the anti-armor rating come through in these air to ground attacks. In your sample scenario, the losses went up to around 400 AFVs from the 2000+ sorties. This change will be in the next update. Thanks for reporting these issues.