All aircraft were improved. Why?

[JJKettunen]

Here's a reality check from "Flying Guns: World War II" by Tony Williams:

"The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great
courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK
which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units
(one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month
period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as
good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank
killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British
operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised
for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. As the Allies
were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a
battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered
causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian
Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue
in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During
the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched
sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six
hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500
sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a
total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just
46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air
attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from
the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391
armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was
examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of
which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the
retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left
behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only
thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out
by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101
knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack,
compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing
circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the
German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions,
in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks
abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were
lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.
In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence
of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air
Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no
surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not
suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and
20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but
insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance.
The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks
but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

[mattenhoff]

The other side of the coin: I'm annoyed to have, say, three bomb hits to a hex with a truck - and with no damage at all! Shouldn't it be like a seave after all those splinters raining on it? The hex is after all only 50 yards!

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Human factor is missing from all that.

If you are one of two persons, one in a tank being shot at by a typhoon, or the guy in the typhoon doing the shooting, who do you want to be?

The guy in the tank is probably aware deep down, that a machine gun round can not do the same as an anti tank round fired from an enemy tank.

But the reality is that the guy in the tank will be quite terrified as his tank is shot up with more or less impunity and while several large explosions from rockets are going off.

In the end. If the tank is blown up, or the crew is convinced to bugger off out of the tank, the end result is about the same (in game terms). The tank is "eliminated" from the battle.

I have never been a tanker, but I am fairly confident no amount of training would keep me in it under those conditions.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: mattenhoff

The other side of the coin: I'm annoyed to have, say, three bomb hits to a hex with a truck - and with no damage at all! Shouldn't it be like a seave after all those splinters raining on it? The hex is after all only 50 yards!

Tough luck. [;)]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Human factor is missing from all that.

If you are one of two persons, one in a tank being shot at by a typhoon, or the guy in the typhoon doing the shooting, who do you want to be?

The guy in the tank is probably aware deep down, that a machine gun round can not do the same as an anti tank round fired from an enemy tank.

But the reality is that the guy in the tank will be quite terrified as his tank is shot up with more or less impunity and while several large explosions from rockets are going off.

In the end. If the tank is blown up, or the crew is convinced to bugger off out of the tank, the end result is about the same (in game terms). The tank is "eliminated" from the battle.

I have never been a tanker, but I am fairly confident no amount of training would keep me in it under those conditions.

So it's preferrable to tweak the game according to armchair psychology instead of (more or less) hard facts? [&:]

[JJKettunen]

Ideally, air units wouldn't cause that much damage againts hard targets, but would cause *a lot* of suppression to the target and hexes around it. I don't know yet if the game/units can be tweaked so though.

Anyway, efficiency of Tac Bombers against armor is one of the many myths of WWII...

[o4r]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Human factor is missing from all that.

If you are one of two persons, one in a tank being shot at by a typhoon, or the guy in the typhoon doing the shooting, who do you want to be?

The guy in the tank is probably aware deep down, that a machine gun round can not do the same as an anti tank round fired from an enemy tank.

But the reality is that the guy in the tank will be quite terrified as his tank is shot up with more or less impunity and while several large explosions from rockets are going off.

In the end. If the tank is blown up, or the crew is convinced to bugger off out of the tank, the end result is about the same (in game terms). The tank is "eliminated" from the battle.

I have never been a tanker, but I am fairly confident no amount of training would keep me in it under those conditions.

Imagine urself in a thick tin can and somebody use a hammer and knocked on it hard....that is a MG fire... a bazooka and a anti tank gun would be.... a sleige hammer on that tin can would be good.

The problem with sound proof material is that they are not highly fire rated so until someone can invent a sound proof material and is highly fire rated (meaning withstand high heat without combustion) than u may have a tank that is as quiet as in a mercedee.....

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Keke

Ideally, air units wouldn't cause that much damage againts hard targets, but would cause *a lot* of suppression to the target and hexes around it. I don't know yet if the game/units can be tweaked so though.

Well, throw a ground attack *bomber* against tanks and you rarely cause anything else except suppression. And like in a recent game, you can hit a tank with a 500 kilo bomb and cause no damage [X(] Though it does havoc if there's infantry nearby.

Use aircrafts armed with rockets and two times out of three you kill a tank when the realistic rate should be one time out of 40-50.
But, if this would be the case in the game then we could delete all rocket carrying aircraft because they'd be utterly useless and definitely not worth purchasing.

Voriax

[JJKettunen]

But, if this would be the case in the game then we could delete all rocket carrying aircraft because they'd be utterly useless and definitely not worth purchasing.

They should be cheaper then. It's kinda stupid to tweak the performance according to desires of shoplist-commanders, if you get my drift.

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Keke

They should be cheaper then. It's kinda stupid to tweak the performance according to desires of shoplist-commanders, if you get my drift.

Sure. But not much cheaper as they'd still be quite good against gun positions. But as most of the time units are priced according to, shall we say, potential capability accuracy being just one factor. Thus an accuracy difference of 10 might not necessarily give that much purchase points difference.
That said, this is still a game and just about all games sacrifice reality to playability. Only the degree differs. Just to find the middle road that satisfies the largest audience.
Wonder where the formula is for that???

Voriax

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Guys
hassle with these intell reports, is the intell reports

we get the same thing out of desert storm, we didn't kill any tanks in that war either, air to ground missle hits the tank, blows the turret off, and when you look at it, looks like fire damage, not air attack did the work

strange how, poorly Air did vs AFV, but though out the war, major changes were being made all the time to AA to travel along with the AFV's

funny that people who knew what they were doing, would be so worried about something that did no damage

plus the numbers these guys are comeing up with, sure seem different then what was going on, on the Eastern Front

HARD_Sarge

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi Guys
hassle with these intell reports, is the intell reports

we get the same thing out of desert storm, we didn't kill any tanks in that war either, air to ground missle hits the tank, blows the turret off, and when you look at it, looks like fire damage, not air attack did the work

strange how, poorly Air did vs AFV, but though out the war, major changes were being made all the time to AA to travel along with the AFV's

funny that people who knew what they were doing, would be so worried about something that did no damage

Note that SPWAW models WWII combat, not modern warfare...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
plus the numbers these guys are comeing up with, sure seem different then what was going on, on the Eastern Front

So you got some accurate information for the Eastern Front...or more myths?

[JJKettunen]

This quote is from Zetterling's "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness":

"The German attack at Mortain is frequently cited as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. Actually, this engagement is an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area from 7-10 August, while the 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact, no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons."

Then he points out that the Allied airpower achieved indirect results like forcing German troops to take cover, limiting road movement to hours of darkness or bad weather, diminishing command and control functions, and reducing the ability of the German command to transfer troops to the front by rail.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

To respond to Keke (late in getting to this).

Cold hard facts are not the total picture though.

In a wargame, you have to simulate the cold hard facts, but you have to address the fuzzy areas as well.

I am not sure where you were going with the armchair psychology though.

I am more than willing to sit here and claim to be an expert in 20th century warfare. And I have never once set foot on an actual battlefield.

I am also more than willing to accept a good swath of my fellow forum mates here are equally as expert in many areas.

The problem with a game simulating an aircraft shooting at a tank, is there really isn't any aircraft, and there really isn't any tank. Nor is there really anyone being shot at.
And their really isn't any human element, nor is "shiit happens" ever going to occur during it.

So it is virtually impossible for any sum of "cold hard facts" to ever mean anything to something that really isn't happening.

That is essentially the biggest burden of any simulation.

It's all just someone trying to make you "think" its happening. And that is partly psychology. Even if sometimes it appears blatantly in contradiction of the "facts".

[mattenhoff]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: mattenhoff

The other side of the coin: I'm annoyed to have, say, three bomb hits to a hex with a truck - and with no damage at all! Shouldn't it be like a seave after all those splinters raining on it? The hex is after all only 50 yards!

Tough luck. [;)]

LOL! You sure hit me where it hurts! Auch! [&o]

[Warrior2]

ORIGINAL: Keke

So it's preferrable to tweak the game according to armchair psychology instead of (more or less) hard facts? [&:]

PLEEEZE! Let's not open this can of worms. Accept that we're playing a GAME and enjoy it with all it's faults and shortcomings.

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Kete
Note that SPWAW models WWII combat, not modern warfare...

oh are we not the smart one, yes I do know that fact, I was compareing your intell reports with modern intell reports, and since we know how the modern smart weapons work, it should show that "some" intell reports are not worth the paper they were written on

and for the East, I guess by your reports, Rudel never killed a tank in his stuka, it was all press releases, to keep the folk back at home happy

the IL-2/Il-10's were a scam just to keep the US sending Spam to the Russian troops

now I will agree, that I doubt many "tanks" were ever knocked out by 20 mm or 50 cal gun fire, but bombs and rockets did at times hit the target, and if not, if close, they tended to damage or flip the tank onto it's side (strange, wonder what the intell report would make out of a tank that was near missed by rockets that had been overturned, it was not destoryed, so a plane didn't "kill it")

but I do believe that the planes with 23 mm, 37 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm guns, may of knocked out a few tanks while they were flying by

and as somebody else tried to say, killing tanks is not the whole story, troops, transports, support, without those, the Tank is useless

since we are in a game, I think the effects are seen to be much larger then they would be in real life, but then so are most of the fights in the game

HARD_Sarge

[Charles2222]

Try to use a little imagination here. Suppose you're in a Typhoon and fire off all your rockets hoping to knock out a vehicle or two. Suppose one of more of them miss. Does the dust that kicks up obscure your judgement any from the misses? And, if you're flying some 200MPH+ over the target, do your really have the ability to access the damage IF you bothered looking. From the looks of the films, the only hope you have of hitting anything any smaller than a buliding was to fire at it from quite close in, thereby limiting even more your power to figure out a kill.

Now, suppose that watching the target getting hit is too bothersome or difficult to access the damage, that you don't make an accessment until you make another pass. If you're the only plane in spotting the kills probably won't be too difficult, but, then again, if you're the only plane in, even when you have air superiority, you're unlikely to hang around very long. Now, if there's other planes in the strike, and there's no ground forces fighting these units, particularly if the accessment is done on any subsequent passes, then you 'might' be able to note a few probable knockouts, but whether you yourself had knocked out your target may be quite a different issue, when you consider that a lot of the targets will have scattered and that the more ammo flying with more planes, the more seeing through dust/smoke will be difficult.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Warrior

ORIGINAL: Keke

So it's preferrable to tweak the game according to armchair psychology instead of (more or less) hard facts? [&:]

PLEEEZE! Let's not open this can of worms. Accept that we're playing a GAME and enjoy it with all it's faults and shortcomings.

Please do note that I'm not complaining about the game engine etc. I'm just worried about where this game is heading to with these latest unit updates, which doesn't seem to have any correlation with reality.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

To respond to Keke (late in getting to this).

Cold hard facts are not the total picture though.

In a wargame, you have to simulate the cold hard facts, but you have to address the fuzzy areas as well.

I am not sure where you were going with the armchair psychology though.

I am more than willing to sit here and claim to be an expert in 20th century warfare. And I have never once set foot on an actual battlefield.

I am also more than willing to accept a good swath of my fellow forum mates here are equally as expert in many areas.

The problem with a game simulating an aircraft shooting at a tank, is there really isn't any aircraft, and there really isn't any tank. Nor is there really anyone being shot at.
And their really isn't any human element, nor is "shiit happens" ever going to occur during it.

So it is virtually impossible for any sum of "cold hard facts" to ever mean anything to something that really isn't happening.

That is essentially the biggest burden of any simulation.

It's all just someone trying to make you "think" its happening. And that is partly psychology. Even if sometimes it appears blatantly in contradiction of the "facts".

Well, I think everybody knows what happens in the game is not reality. If some do, they have some serious problems. [8|]

Now, if we know that Tac Bombers were not as efficient against hard targets as have been traditionally claimed, why should we accept 'updates' to the game that enhance that very efficiency?