Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?


There are available. Dunno what you are doing, but I met many 109s with gunpods. Maybe you mean the Fw 190 A-5. If you do its probably not available due to depot damage or so.

 

2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 


Yes. That is the obvious conclusion. Not that Ju88 1k bombs are locked now for like 2 years on TAW.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Question: With the A-20 in circulation, why isn't the 20MM x2 Gun Pods not available?

G4 is with gunpods, I flew it the other day. Nothing to do with A-20.

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Because =LG= is flying RED  this campaign? :banned:

 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Venturi I would be happy if you wouln't shoot me next time as I try to clear your six.

image.thumb.png.7246a96662f45408d82020147e270ddc.png

But congrats, clean kill

Edited by DerSheriff
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was mentioned before but the red plane sets in late maps needs some love in future TAWs. The critism might be obsolete with coming changes to TAW, but I thought I mention it anyway.

image.png.4d8f752c0103ad0822300b625e037000.png



we have to many types of planes. The airfields look more like the flying circus and not an airfield of the eastern front in 1943.
But thats not even my core critism. 

Lets say you want the La-5FN but you have no P-39, no Yak1-b and no Spitfire.
In such a case you need 12 CMs to the FN. That's very tedious and annoying. Furthermore its super hard to get a squad in the air which are all flying the same plane.
Everybody in the group is like "oh I have no 1B, I take the spit" "oh I have no Spit I take the 39".
Resulting that your squad looks like a kindergarten at toys r us. everbody picked something different.

maybe let the player pick one of the base planes (La-5 (F), Yak7B, or the LaGG) which get 2/2 with CM+1 And let him choose two-three higher tier or special planes. with 0/1-2.

So in the end we have something like this
Yak-7b 2/2 CM+1 (can be swapped for the LaGG or La-5(F))

Yak1b 1/2
La-5 FN 0/1  
Spitfire 0/1

one of the three can be swapped for the P-39.

This way we have a core eastern front plane as a base fighter and a solid plane to fall back to and a more condensed planset. And we have the La-5 which is a pity that it gets fully removed with the introduction of the FN. the current late red planeset feels to broad.








 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

I know it was mentioned before but the red plane sets in late maps needs some love in future TAWs. The critism might be obsolete with coming changes to TAW, but I thought I mention it anyway.

image.png.4d8f752c0103ad0822300b625e037000.png



we have to many types of planes. The airfields look more like the flying circus and not an airfield of the eastern front in 1943.
But thats not even my core critism. 

Lets say you want the La-5FN but you have no P-39, no Yak1-b and no Spitfire.
In such a case you need 12 CMs to the FN. That's very tedious and annoying. Furthermore its super hard to get a squad in the air which are all flying the same plane.
Everybody in the group is like "oh I have no 1B, I take the spit" "oh I have no Spit I take the 39".
Resulting that your squad looks like a kindergarten at toys r us. everbody picked something different.

maybe let the player pick one of the base planes (La-5 (F), Yak7B, or the LaGG) which get 2/2 with CM+1 And let him choose two-three higher tier or special planes. with 0/1-2.

So in the end we have something like this
Yak-7b 2/2 CM+1 (can be swapped for the LaGG or La-5(F))

Yak1b 1/2
La-5 FN 0/1  
Spitfire 0/1

one of the three can be swapped for the P-39.

This way we have a core eastern front plane as a base fighter and a solid plane to fall back to and a more condensed planset. And we have the La-5 which is a pity that it gets fully removed with the introduction of the FN. the current late red planeset feels to broad.








 

I´m most than agree with you, here always said about "close to historical" but please try to give us some balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DerSheriff yeah it's a problem with the variety of planes the VVS used, and if we had a more complete late war set up it would be worse even (with all those Yak-9s xp).

Instead of choosing (which would negate the possibility of using the planes you didn't choose) I think what we could have is a split up in the fighter hangar so the players can prioritize which group of planes they want to have their CM allocated to in their profile page (like when the attacker category was created). If at some time they want a plane from the other category they change the priority in their profile and start unlocking those.

So we could have "Indigenous fighters"  and then "Lend Lease fighters".

Yak-7B as +1

Yak-1B
La-5
La-5FN

P-40E
P-39L
Spitfire MkV

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@DerSheriff yeah it's a problem with the variety of planes the VVS used, and if we had a more complete late war set up it would be worse even (with all those Yak-9s xp).

Instead of choosing (which would negate the possibility of using the planes you didn't choose) I think what we could have is a split up in the fighter hangar so the players can prioritize which group of planes they want to have their CM allocated to in their profile page (like when the attacker category was created). If at some time they want a plane from the other category they change the priority in their profile and start unlocking those.

So we could have "Indigenous fighters"  and then "Lend Lease fighters".

Yak-7B as +1

Yak-1B
La-5
La-5FN

P-40E
P-39L
Spitfire MkV

 


ok as well. was just one idea of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about this idea,

 

For a give fighter unit, they usually stuck with a single manufacturer - less training time when it came time to upgrade.

 

JG52 flew only messerschmitts. Until the late war when they converted to Fw 190D-9s.

3 Gv. IAP flew only Lavochkins. 

 

So if I were given 8 fighters at my disposal, I can choose between what make I want i.e. Bf 109 or Fw 190 or both even (...not model because an Bf 109F-4 in 1944 is just stupid. Not to say I wouldn't want one, but that is a different discussion).

 

Giving someone access to 2/2 of an aircraft they won't fly/own is really a waste.  I will not buy the MC.202 so having 1 isn't important to me  let alone 2.

 

Giving us have the  ability to select our own aircraft set would be great - but that also requires programming which takes time effort. 

 

 

 

  

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

How about this idea,

 

For a give fighter unit, they usually stuck with a single manufacturer - less training time when it came time to upgrade.

 

JG52 flew only messerschmitts. Until the late war when they converted to Fw 190D-9s.

3 Gv. IAP flew only Lavochkins. 

 

So if I were given 8 fighters at my disposal, I can choose between what make I want i.e. Bf 109 or Fw 190 or both even (...not model because an Bf 109F-4 in 1944 is just stupid. Not to say I wouldn't want one, but that is a different discussion).

 

Giving someone access to 2/2 of an aircraft they won't fly/own is really a waste.  I will not buy the MC.202 so having 1 isn't important to me  let alone 2.

 

Giving us have the  ability to select our own aircraft set would be great - but that also requires programming which takes time effort. 

 

 

 

  

 

It depends on the Gruppe and Staffel you are referring to as the 4./JG52, for example, stayed with 109s throughout the whole war and never converted to a 190 but I get what you are saying. I think is a good idea and I'm pretty sure Kathon has suggested something like that. Having the player pick a line of fighter models ... For example: If you pick the LaGG3 line you would fly i16 in the first maps, LaGG3s, La5s, and finally La5FN. Pick a lend lease line and you would be with a P40, P39, and Spitfire later on.  Lets see what the others think ...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

It depends on the Gruppe and Staffel you are referring to as the 4./JG52, for example, stayed with 109s throughout the whole war and never converted to a 190 but I get what you are saying. I think is a good idea and I'm pretty sure Kathon has suggested something like that. Having the player pick a line of fighter models ... For example: If you pick the LaGG3 line you would fly i16 in the first maps, LaGG3s, La5s, and finally La5FN. Pick a lend lease line and you would be with a P40, P39, and Spitfire later on.  Lets see what the others think ...

 

Cheers

 

If you aren't able to change lines this is going to be horrible in my opinion and will make VVS even less attractive to play.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There was a proposal by Tumu some time ago in the same lines you're talking about, which was IMHO very interesting:

 

PLANETSET LINEAS.jpg

 

Edited by HR_Tofolo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

If you aren't able to change lines this is going to be horrible in my opinion and will make VVS even less attractive to play.

 

Note: I said there are would be options:

1 Fighter Line

2 Bomber Line

 

Fighter Line (Blue)

1. Bf 109

2. Fw 190

4. Mc 202

3. Mix

 

Fighter Line (Red)

1. LaGG

2. Yak

3. Lend Lease (per Riksen)

4. Mix

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathon although the campaign didnt ended yet I want to say thanks for this another superb campaign. I have so much fun flying it, partly also due to the fact that the skill level of the pilots has really risen and the flying is so competetive and so fun

Also the decision to limit the players for each side was I think one of the best which were made.

 

For next campaign to balance the Ju52 paradrops could we have something similar with PO2?

For example if You dont want to go with landing on the roads, you could use the same mechanic/script which is used with finding of the enemy supply columns, but you would set a partisan/guerilla camps which had to be located to trigger the attack. Due to the fact that po2 is half as "fast" as Ju52, You could set up 3 or 4 camps (areas) of partisans to be found around airfield so to simulate the dropping of dispatches with order to attack the airfield by the guerillas.

 

 

P.s.

A hotfix was just released by the devs.

 

 

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:24 PM, HR_Tofolo said:

There was a proposal by Tumu some time ago in the same lines you're talking about, which was IMHO very interesting:

 

PLANETSET LINEAS.jpg

 

Frankly speaking I prefer current plane set without those limits. I like to try all planes depending on my actual mood and not to be limited to just few. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at this point I think that is really disappoint is the poor fast AAA on AF and depots, I saw many times how only 1 Bf/Fw or 2 or 6 attack  and AF full of AAA and not even one was shoot down, I believe if you want to attack an AF or Depot you can do with heavy bombers but no with only one shooting down all AAA that is a Joke.

On planet set for example on map 7 how is possible that we have a Lagg3, give us 2 Yak 7B.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

On plane set for example on map 7 how is possible that we have a Lagg3, give us 2 Yak 7B.

 

I agree - the Lagg3 was introduced in map #3 along with the F4, and that aircraft (F4) is no longer in the inventory in map #7.  The G2 is a +1 like the Yak-7b and it has a max of 2.

 

Also, since map #7 is supposed to be a Russian offensive map (based on the max aircraft losses possible in each side), shouldn’t the Russian side have equal or more max fighters than the German side?  Currently the Russian side has a max of 6 fighters and the German side has a max of 7 fighters.  Seems backwards.

 

Just my observations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German loose

Trucks 2109 / 2000

how can german lose 109 more trucks than he has....

BTW german side still creating attacking convoys, whit AAA = gun+truck

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cookie-Monster said:

At least map7 is still going on and hasn't ended in  like 4 days like the other maps.

 

True but then again LW nearly pushed back the whole progress VVS made in 5 days in 2 missions by bombing airfields and capturing them with paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be great to

 

1. add +1 Yak7b to the map No6

2. add +1 La5F to the maps No7, No8

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RedEye_Miji said:

German loose

Trucks 2109 / 2000

how can german lose 109 more trucks than he has....

BTW german side still creating attacking convoys, whit AAA = gun+truck

 

 

9 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

True but then again LW nearly pushed back the whole progress VVS made in 5 days in 2 missions by bombing airfields and capturing them with paras.

anything but the red team's victory in at least one mission. apparently Fatherland "sends a transport from the Western front". honestly, this situation is already freezing my brain out. all progress 5 days killed off in 2 missions by paratroopers. if not capture, then severe damage up to non-working condition...... while the red tanks have a near-zero chance to get somewhere..... and the blue team easily plans to attack where they want - clean the airfield, throw parachutists-profit!! the red team depends on randomness - tank attack in the desired direction may not appear 2-3-4 mission.... I don't know how to play in such conditions.

 

"I'm tired. I'm leaving"(C) until the next company. my chair burned to the ground. perhaps in future it will be more balanced (sry for googletrans)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

Well at this point I think that is really disappoint is the poor fast AAA on AF and depots, I saw many times how only 1 Bf/Fw or 2 or 6 attack  and AF full of AAA and not even one was shoot down, I believe if you want to attack an AF or Depot you can do with heavy bombers but no with only one shooting down all AAA that is a Joke.

On planet set for example on map 7 how is possible that we have a Lagg3, give us 2 Yak 7B.

I agree with you that the lagg3 is obsolete and that should not be on this map But if you take out this plane a lot of people on the red side is going to complain because they use it for tanks or they just like the 23mm to take out bombers etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I agree with you that the lagg3 is obsolete and that should not be on this map But if you take out this plane a lot of people on the red side is going to complain because they use it for tanks or they just like the 23mm to take out bombers etc.

 

it does seem odd to have a useless early war  fighter in map 7.    The P39 is available if you want to 'one shot' bombers and, tricky as it is to dogfight with,  the IL2 will kill tanks as easily as the Lagg (and probably dogfights better 🙂 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's clarify a bit - Germans did not push back RED advance in 2 missions.

First in preparation it took several missions to destroy all three RED front line AFs enough to be closed - AFAIK this started at #365 (or 366). Then the situation of the front line AFs culminated at last night (EU time) in 2-3 missions with fierce fighting from sides.

By the time I stopped flying last night (#372), Gromoslavka had been captured by paras, Ventsy was still RED but German tanks were poised for a breakthrough and most of the defenses around it had been destroyed during the last 2 missions.

Also Kalach was still RED during mission #372.

After that, I don't have a clear picture how things evolved. But in summary - it's not 2 missions, but conscious effort of BLUE in 7+ missions.

 

I do agree though that RED should have Paras capability - maybe PE2 with a number of paras inside? And I would argue that the number should smaller than in JU52 due to physical size, and for balance (speed difference and defensive capability).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

After that, I don't have a clear picture how things evolved. But in summary - it's not 2 missions, but conscious effort of BLUE in 7+ missions.

 

LW took around 7 missions to damage the airfields (which you can't do anything about it) and only another 3 (!) to capture 3 (!) airfields. 

 

It is a broken mechanic that needs a serious overhaul and i am sure the devs are already working on something. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why ?????????

Tried many times now , every times my plane is started I loose the server contact 

Why ?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Steinbaur said:

Why ?????????

Tried many times now , every times my plane is started I loose the server contact 

Why ?????????

 

Have you registered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

it does seem odd to have a useless early war  fighter in map 7.    The P39 is available if you want to 'one shot' bombers and, tricky as it is to dogfight with,  the IL2 will kill tanks as easily as the Lagg (and probably dogfights better 🙂 )

I dont care too much really. I just know some people that really likes the lagg3. I can have some good performance as well when flying over my target. The 23mm is just the best gun red have on a fighter and it is easy time to cap over some column just to see a 110 or a low fighter and to dive on him with 2BS and 1 23mm. Lagg3 is very good on that. And on scissors it can fly retardedlly slow so you can make overshoout anyone just to put the nose up on 70kph just after your stall spin to put some rounds on the other. 

 

As I mention I am with you. Lagg3 should be removed but because is too old for this map not because is a bad fighter. Is the favourite fighter of a lot of reds for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

LW took around 7 missions to damage the airfields (which you can't do anything about it) and only another 3 (!) to capture 3 (!) airfields. 

 

It is a broken mechanic that needs a serious overhaul and i am sure the devs are already working on something. 

 

Both RED and BLUE have capability to close AFs, so I would not call that broken. Unbalanced yes, due to RED not having Paras.

 

AF attacks are historical fact and as such they should be part of the war game we play here. Adjustment though could be needed for the flak - I would suggest re-spawning flak strength to minimum 50% at the start of every new mission and normal resupply rules should apply to higher levels of AA strength. As one could assume that fixing flak is a high priority.

 

Just curious - how many of the 3 AFs were captured by Paras - does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LLv24_Kessu said:

 

Both RED and BLUE have capability to close AFs, so I would not call that broken. Unbalanced yes, due to RED not having Paras.

 

AF attacks are historical fact and as such they should be part of the war game we play here. Adjustment though could be needed for the flak - I would suggest re-spawning flak strength to minimum 50% at the start of every new mission and normal resupply rules should apply to higher levels of AA strength. As one could assume that fixing flak is a high priority.

 

Just curious - how many of the 3 AFs were captured by Paras - does anyone know?

 

It is broken because VVS has no option to defend against it realistically which results in the current result of 6:0.

 

As i have already stated before, i am against invulnerable airfields but the current mechanic is simply not working no matter how much AA you put on it simply because AA is easy to avoid as everyone knows. Part of the problem is that there are multiple targets on the Airfield that can be destroyed by bord cannons. A static plane counts as much towards the destruction of an airfield as a big hangar.

 

Only gromo was captured by them but there were 3 possible dropzones (kalach, ventsy and gromo) and paratroopers were landed at the other airfields and damaged them further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

Just curious - how many of the 3 AFs were captured by Paras - does anyone know?

 

Found it...

#371 Gromoslavka captured by Paras

#372 Ventsy captured (Tanks)

#373 Kalach captured (Tanks)

14 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

It is broken because VVS has no option to defend against it realistically which results in the current result of 6:0.

 

 

OK - I agree that we disagree.

 

I think that it's not broken as VVS can as easily destroy blue AFs, and LW has only the same options as VVS to defend the airfields.

 

14 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Only gromo was captured by them but there were 3 possible dropzones (kalach, ventsy and gromo) and paratroopers were landed at the other airfields and damaged them further.

 

Are you sure Paras were used? I was around Ventsy at #372 and the air was pretty thick with RED fighters - I did not see a notification of paras being landed, but I happily admit that I do not notice everything but please set me straight if you have data on this.

Usually Blue dont fly any Paras unless we can get the full 60 to area, preferably in one go.

16 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

As i have already stated before, i am against invulnerable airfields but the current mechanic is simply not working no matter how much AA you put on it simply because AA is easy to avoid as everyone knows. Part of the problem is that there are multiple targets on the Airfield that can be destroyed by bord cannons. A static plane counts as much towards the destruction of an airfield as a big hangar.

 

I agree that this could be improved - though I still would not call avoiding AA easy... or maybe I have a flak-magnet hidden somewhere in my plane 🤣

Edited by LLv24_Kessu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

OK - I agree that we disagree.

 

I think that it's not broken as VVS can as easily destroy blue AFs, and LW has only the same options as VVS to defend the airfields.

 

 

Ok VVS has the same ability to destroy and defend AFs as you say but "easily" destroy AFs is incorrect. The chances are about the same if not less considering the level bombing capability of the VVS is limited until the A20 comes around. Second, where is the VVS capability to capture AFs by a mechanism similar to the Ju52? There is none. LW is able to rely on both tanks and Paras to capture territory whereas VVS has to depend on the tanks only. We need some balance on that front: Either remove the paras' ability to capture territory (which is something nice to have IMHO so Ju52 players can enjoy the plane) or also give the VVS a similar feature (perhaps something related to the U-2).

 

Cheers

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Ok VVS has the same ability to destroy and defend AFs as you say but "easily" destroy AFs is incorrect. The chances are about the same if not less considering the level bombing capability of the VVS is limited until the A20 comes around.

 

Okay - possibly. Then again IL2 brings certain advantages in low level attacks to balance out the LW level bombing capability. But as discussion started about yesterdays events - A20 is available.

10 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

Second, where is the VVS capability to capture AFs by a mechanism similar to the Ju52? There is none. LW is able to rely on both tanks and Paras to capture territory whereas VVS has to depend on the tanks only. We need some balance on that front: Either remove the paras' ability to capture territory (which is something nice to have IMHO so Ju52 players can enjoy the plane) or also give the VVS a similar feature (perhaps something related to the U-2).

 

As said above, this is the unbalance issue I agree to above. We agree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

Are you sure Paras were used?

 

Yes it says so in the mission events.

 

2 hours ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

OK - I agree that we disagree.

 

I think that it's not broken as VVS can as easily destroy blue AFs, and LW has only the same options as VVS to defend the airfields.

 

 

Let me explain - LW is in all capabilities better then VVS.

 

Some of it is due to historical accuracy (better aircrafts) some due to player balance and some due to mission design (para drops for example). All of it currently favors LW. 

 

The biggest advantage this campaign is the ability to attack airfields without much risk. Why is the risk so low?

 

- The Defender has no way to predict the attack

- VVS does not have the aircrafts to stop a Bf 109/Fw 190 hit and run attack until the La 5 fn appears

- VVS does not have enough players to try to defend a remote airfield based on a guess.

 

Now you are saying that VVS has the same abilities and chances to destroy LW airfields but this is not correct. 

 

- VVS fighters are way worse then LW fighters at attacking ground targets due to bomb load and performance

- LW can defend objectives with a significant lower amount of fighters due to performance

- VVS has less players then LW

 

Ground attacks on tank columns are supposed to be the strong point of the VVS however it was shown in the past that the Ju 88 with 50kg bombs is the most effective way to deal with tank columns until the A20 comes along. 

 

On top of that LW always had the advantage of level bombing (depots for example).

 

In the past VVS was able to win maps despite numerical inferiority by defending and attrition however this campaign it is not possible anymore because LW is using the airfield/paradrop tactics. 

Most of the issues stem from the fact that there is no way to predict an attack efficiently. 

 

We will never get a balanced campaign however the goal should be to change the mission design that there is an asymmetrical balance. For example, LW has better level bombers while VVS has better ground attack capabilities. This is already the case but it is not supported by the current mission design. It would help VVS a lot if the tank columns wouldn't just be a single line on the road so that they can be easily carpet bombed. However i know that TAW will get a huge overhaul so i suppose we should just wait and see how things turn out. Maybe LW players should stop a second and think about these issues before they pad themselves on the back and tell themselves what a great job they have done ;). It is true though that there also was much better teamplay on LW side which is due to most big squadrons flying LW this time.

Edited by Operatsiya_Ivy
  • Like 6
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I agree with you that the lagg3 is obsolete and that should not be on this map But if you take out this plane a lot of people on the red side is going to complain because they use it for tanks or they just like the 23mm to take out bombers etc.

To be honest with you that comment is just bxll shxt .

Now you compare a Lagg3 against, Fw A3-A5, BF109 G2-G4-G6 just because we have a limit VYA23mm on the Lagg3. What a joke.

And many red pilots dont use the Lagg3 now only if it the last plane that they have.

Edited by 666GIAP_Necathor
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Ground attacks on tank columns are supposed to be the strong point of the VVS however it was shown in the past that the Ju 88 with 50kg bombs is the most effective way to deal with tank columns until the A20 comes along. 

 

I'd like to point out that the Ju 88/SC 50 bombing technique is an advantageous single pass technique, when you don't have fighter escort and need to exit the area quickly, and/or the column AAA threat is high. It is also possible to pull off in the Pe-2, and of course the A20B. When the opportunity for multiple-pass attacks exists and flak is suppressed, the 37mm-armed Ju 87, Hs 129, 37mm-armed Bf 110G-2, and IL-2 are much more effective for column destruction.

 

As I have pointed out in the past, the technique is considerably harder for Ju 88 pilots because of the rear-facing GAZ M4 guns in the Red columns. Accuracy in the best conditions is challenging enough, but the technique also requires a 700 kph dive speed to maximize GAZ M4 fire-avoidance during the attack dive. Changes over the past year have further degraded the effectiveness of this approach. The higher wind speeds implemented in TAW have doubled the possibility of an inaccurate drop. The new tank damage model, to my knowledge the specifics of which are still largely unknown to the community, have provided me and other StG77 members many anecdotal observations that tanks on both sides are much more resilient to near-proximity bomb blasts. Even putting the bombs down the middle of the road is no longer a guarantee of tank kills - which is probably more realistic. Additionally, the new damage model has made determinations of whether a tank is destroyed highly problematic. It is difficult enough to pick out the tanks from the trucks during a high speed dive, let alone to identify the ones with a damaged track. And finally, the patch put out about a month ago has made the Ju 88 less maneuverable at high speeds, which doesn't affect the attack dive so much, but limits evasive maneuver capability/responsiveness during egress while still within column flak range. Now it just hangs in the air and gets shot to shit. While the technique can still be effective, the culmination of the above factors have made accuracy and mission survival much, much less probable.

 

To be honest, and this observation is confined to my narrow perspective of the overall TAW environment, the fact is I see this technique employed more often by Pe-2 and A-20B pilots than Ju 88 pilots. I see many making the mistake of attacking the Blue columns from the front, and getting torn a new asshole by the forward-facing Flak 38s.

Edited by TAWRed_HvB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...