Unkillable aircraft!!!

[chuckfourth]

Hi Mobhack
I see,
So I gather then that it is actually "easy" to decrease airstrike spotting from a coding point of view?
All that remains is to establish wether it should be done or not.
Maybe you and I are are talking about two different mission types. Im talking about the mission where the ground FO calls in the plane to hit the enemy armour concentration hes identified in just the same way as he would call in an artillery strike. In both cases the information flow is one way. You may be talking about the "roaming" fighter bomber looking to identify its own targets. I think the roaming fighterbomber isnt really within the scope of the game as the maps arnt large enough. Opperating as close to the front line as it must to stay on these "small" maps he is just as likely to straff his own troops as the enemies, or get hit by friendly AA.
So I would think that most of the missions called in the game are Fo controlled and hence require no spotting ability from the airstrike plane. Assuming the target can be kept in FO sight.
I agree that the airstrike planes do need some spotting ability to pick up vehicles near to there targets or ones that may have just moved out of the FOs view, but I think they need less spotting ability than they now have, ie currently doubling as recce planes.
Another point I would add is that as pointed out by Deputy bombs are very inaccurate. For fighter bomber bombs there is probably an equal probability that the bomb will land in the hex before or after the target hex or even the hexes on either side of these, as on target.
Best Regards Chuck.

[DRG]

chuckfourth said:
Another point I would add is that as pointed out by Deputy bombs are very inaccurate. For fighter bomber bombs there is probably an equal probability that the bomb will land in the hex before or after the target hex or even the hexes on either side of these, as on target.
Best Regards Chuck.

We have already established that the aircraft in the game are not carrying "death ray bombs and rockets" and "Deputy" has already retracted his comments. Ordnance dropped and fired from aircraft already do frequently land in the hex before or after the target and it's not unusual for them to land two hexes on either side of the target.

Don

[chuckfourth]

Hi DRG
My apologies I am indeed sounding like a troll, bomb ordinance does miss and often. I stand corrected.
I also did a small test you may be interested in.
I mobhacked a sturmovic to carry 16 rs 82 rockets, with no other armamant and fired them all at 20 pz 3 spaced out one hex apart.
Now I got 48 hits from 320 rockets and this may be a big underestimate as the yellow message doesnt seem to refresh properly after a hit, so I discounted consecutive hits unless the little nearby "pen comparison" white message changed.
That gives a hit rate of 15.0 per cent the reference I sited in my origional post says this rocket has a hit rate of 1.1 percent, so maybe RS82 and possible other rocket accuracies are a little high?
Best Regards Chuck.

[Shan]

I believe that - considering all the arguments brought up - planes should be left as they are. AA guns may need improvement but this would have to include all autocannons so better leave them alone too.

Planes can be painful if they're turned against you. It depends a great deal, however, from which direction you're being attacked. If it's a frontal attack a tank will only be immobilized, which IMHO is reasonable if a bomb explodes close by, while even cannon shells can be lethal if they hit your rear. Also, the AI always seems to find great targets and blow up my loaded trucks, ammo dumps, etc... just my bad luck.

On the other hand - if I heavily bet on air and buy a squadron, I am almost always disappointed- if I use them carefully I get no effect and if I let them overfly the rear zone even the AI will get some of them down with massive AA... so I'd only buy a few and use them carefully, as well as take advantage of the spotter effect.

And yes, flak seems to be quite ineffective. First thing, rookies dont hit anything - but if you've ever tried to operate a manually aimed AA gun and tried to track an aircraft coming in low + fast then you'll understand... Only after gaining veteran status during long campaigns they become a little more useful and might even hit+disable something - but hardly ever shoot down. (And veterans dont build up quickly either for towed flak units - how do you get them making kills without getting them killed? Expose them to direct or indirect fire and they're gone).

Its the mass that counts. Playing the Soviets, for instance, I dont buy 37mm AA any more, I go for cheaper 3xDshK AAMGs to cover the whole area with them. If a unit fires, it has 3 shots... you can do the maths. Damage is less but the 37mm also doesnt shoot down a lot with 1 hit - I'm satisfied if the damn planes dont gome again anyways.

While in WinSPMBT, 2-4 radar-controlled guns 'deny' the whole airspace to helos + are a serious threat to planes, manually aimed guns are a different matter. You will need several batteries to cover that same map and still get a lower hit chance. I experimented a lot and have never been able to completely 'deny' a certain map area to enemy plases, which is quite easy to do in MBT.
Also, they're really relatively ineffective against infantry in the open (even if infantry is moving)- might score some damage once in a while but all said, not much better that a MMG or HMG squad. I tend to use SP flak to soften up the hordes of infantry but it's a risky job - you have to keep out of range and the effect is small... but as I said, this is true for all autocannons so changin that is kinda impossible.

[Deputy]

Shan said:

Also, they're really relatively ineffective against infantry in the open (even if infantry is moving)- might score some damage once in a while but all said, not much better that a MMG or HMG squad. I tend to use SP flak to soften up the hordes of infantry but it's a risky job - you have to keep out of range and the effect is small... but as I said, this is true for all autocannons so changin that is kinda impossible.

And this is a MAJOR difference between WinSPWW2 and SP:WAW. Flak guns in SP:WAW are devestating against infantry targets. And well they should be. Turning those flak cannon onto targets that have only skin and uniforms and thin helmets should turn them into hamburger quite effectively. That's WHY the MkII tanks with 20MM cannon EXISTED. Even troops in foxholes shouldn't have much protection, since the flak is air burst and the shrapnel would fly in ALL directions, including down.
Quite honestly, I don't think it's worth it to expend points on flak weapons in WinSPWW2. As you pointed out, they are relatively useless against enemy planes. And they are about equal to machineguns against infantry.
Better to just buy more tanks that are more resistant to bombing and artillery damage and are armed with machineguns.

Dep

[Marek_Tucan]

Deputy said:
That's WHY the MkII tanks with 20MM cannon EXISTED.

They existed because 20mm offered better AP performance than 7.92mm machinegun and because it had at least some HE shell, but I won't say it was some kind of meat chopper like multiple - barrelled mounts. For one, even though the gun allowed for automatic fire, clip loading limited it significantly (there's somewhere a long thread about the matter whether the burst fire was SOP for Pz II at all). Useful, but definitely not some ultimate infantry killer.

Even troops in foxholes shouldn't have much protection, since the flak is air burst and the shrapnel would fly in ALL directions, including down.

Depends on flak, to my knowledge all small caliber AA of WWII was contact-primed, ie no airburst, and small-caliber airburst comes as late as now. Except for some constructions (German 20mm had it, dunno how many others), where the shell exploded upon impact OR upon tracer burnout. But then it provides you extremely unuseful airburst as it happens in a fixed distance and moreover over a range where your fire is woefully inaccurate. So trenches or almost any cover would be most helpful - the stories with flak mowing down helpless soldiers come mostly from either short-range ambushes or from flat terrain with little cover.
Another edge of flak comes from heavier shells, and thus better performance against cover and various soft or lightly armored targets - as it should have in-game due to bigger warhead rating.

Quite honestly, I don't think it's worth it to expend points on flak weapons in WinSPWW2. As you pointed out, they are relatively useless against enemy planes.

Then, in real life, flak was most significant threat in high concentrations, like around crucial targets or roads, and that was usually behind the scope of frontline SP covers. That's also why there's no heavy flak in SPWW2/SPMBT. In frontline area, flak served more like an attempt to shoo away enemy than to shoot him down (after all, the same as with convoy escorts - their primary task was not to sink submarines but to keep them away from cargo ships).

[chuckfourth]

Hi Marek
There is also a very short thread called "New info re KWK30/38" that supplies a reference stating that the 20mm as mounted in the pz 2 only fires semi automatic.
One point I would like to make about flak is that if the plane is actually shooting at the flak gun, then the flak gun no longer has to estimate lead. I think this makes it much easier for the flak gun to hit the plane, especially if you have a rangefinder and so know the correct elevation for your gun. This in combination with the much longer effective range of Flak compared to an aircraft. For 20mm flak 38 vs spitfire, the flak can start firing at the spitfire from about 2 klms away while the spitfire has to close to about 300m before he can start firing. considering this, I think that in the game it is a bit too easy for planes to take out flak
Best Regards Chuck