Tactical Air War

[Cpt_Siddy]

Is there possibility to remove gunners from Ju-88, ME 110 and Pe-2 but leave them on rest of things? 

 

If you take a statistical analysis on how much fighters die to said plane back gunners, i think we can improve the historicity of this server a bit. Yes, the pilots of these planes will cry bloody murder, and then they will adapt and ask for escort.

[Kobi_LW]

The concept of advancing columns (tanks, arty, trucks) against defenses is definitely very interesting and should be a separate subject to discuss.

Few points though.

The idea of single or few bombers (Pe2 for i.e.) attacking a defense/tanks in one raid with little chance for the other team to stop it should not exist, and it doesn't matter if they can escape or not after the attack.

Tanks can be set in columns when far away from AF/City (maybe 2 or even 3 columns to make them tougher to attack), great idea might be  if they are hidden when they are far from AF so the opposite team should search in some area it order to find the column(s) and make a damage while it moves in columns, and get spread out when they advance closer to AF. Also, the speed of advancing tanks should be slower (in the last campaign 2 missions could be enough). Probably we don't need 3 defenses but 1 right in front of advancing tanks, and much tougher and bigger/scattered on a larger area so that it would take much more risk and time  for bombers/attackers to destroy or weaken it. That would lead to more dependency on the bomber's cover so that they must stay on the target for some time to destroy tanks/defenses and use more of the attackers to find and destroy well scattered and covered targets. Tanks can still be static so it shouldn't impact the server's performance. At the same time the defendant team will have a chance to repel the attacking force before they can make some damage.

If the main concept of the server is the war simulation then the battle(s) should be around the strongholds (AF(s)/city(s), etc). Some fighters can still be hunters for stats, shooting down damaged bombers on their way back to base, but they won't change the outcome, and they will know while they are looking for easy and non-risky targets, their bombers will be shot down trying to complete the mission so that the mission will fail and that's what really matters.

In November I believe a big release is coming with some very cool features so TAW admins should have enough time to think of it))) 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by 72AG_Obi

[Retnek]

2 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Any bomb bigger than 250 kg was used very rarely

You're right - for the Luftwaffe there are numbers published, posted here:

 

 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

32 minutes ago, JG4_Retnek said:

You're right - for the Luftwaffe there are numbers published, posted here:

 

 

 

From that table, 500kg was fairly common at 7k pcs/month in 1941 vs 27k pieces for the 250 kg. So roughly 1:4 ratio. 

[AKA_Relent]

1 hour ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

 

From that table, 500kg was fairly common at 7k pcs/month in 1941 vs 27k pieces for the 250 kg. So roughly 1:4 ratio. 

And in the same time frame only ~700 1000kg bombs and ~100 >1000kg bombs, so you see what I was getting at :).  With TAW (and other servers I’m sure) it seems there is an unlimited supply of the bigger bombs :).

Edited September 18, 2019 by AKA_Relent

[Chivas_Regal]

7 hours ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

 

From that table, 500kg was fairly common at 7k pcs/month in 1941 vs 27k pieces for the 250 kg. So roughly 1:4 ratio. 

Now compare 145000 and 7000. 

20:1 ratio

Edited September 19, 2019 by =2ndSS=Lawyer1

[Pict]

On 9/16/2019 at 5:58 PM, SCG_Faerber said:

Literaly laughing my ass off here. Every campaign is the same thing, one side does well the other cries its heart out. Like clockwork. Last TAW the reds completely steamrolled with the same "inferior" aircraft they have now, what was different? I do not know, I just know that all of this is pointless since every campaign will be different from the other, this one the blues are winning and so what? Damn, and everytime is the same old people complaining, sometimes frustration does get the better of you but the arguments are tiring. No side can win taw, because if it does then the other is going to complain; why not make TAW a more friendly server? nobody wins anymore, it is all a draw and what matters is participating 

 

There's a lot of accuracy in what you say, in that there is plenty of moaning and every campaign is different (up to a point) for many reasons including the fact that many people switch sides, which adds a real dynamic to the whole thing.

 

That said one thing remains consistent that I can see and that is the Kuban map is always dominated by the blue team. This last one was getting closer to a balanced fight, but that's kind of ironic in my view as historically the Kuban map was always going be a blue loose scenario while Moscow & Stalingrad were known to be a close run thing.

 

The Kuban map comes down to the location of airfields more than any other of the many variables involved. For this reason I opted to avoid in the last two campaigns. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Pict
Spelling error

[SCG_OpticFlow]

6 hours ago, AKA_Relent said:

And in the same time frame only ~700 1000kg bombs and ~100 >1000kg bombs, so you see what I was getting at :).  With TAW (and other servers I’m sure) it seems there is an unlimited supply of the bigger bombs :).

 

The biggest bomb on TAW is 1000kg. But even if you ban it, it would only affect the 111 and the 87, both of which are rarely used after map #1. On 110 and 88 its more efficient to carry twice as much 500 kg ones.

[Cpt_Siddy]

15 minutes ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

 

The biggest bomb on TAW is 1000kg. But even if you ban it, it would only affect the 111 and the 87, both of which are rarely used after map #1. On 110 and 88 its more efficient to carry twice as much 500 kg ones.

 

110 can mount 1k kg bomb too if i remember correctly, and i see them quite often dropping nukes. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Cpt_Siddy

[SCG_OpticFlow]

6 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

110 can mount 1k kg bomb too if i remember correctly, and i see them quite often dropping nukes. 

 

The G-2 yes. But 2x500 do more damage than 1x1000 (if aimed well). The nukes are more useful from high altitude against the depots.

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

22 minutes ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

 

The G-2 yes. But 2x500 do more damage than 1x1000 (if aimed well). The nukes are more useful from high altitude against the depots.

I should prefer 2x 500 plus 4x50 for a more splitered blast area.

[JG4_Widukind]

...and why we talk over Blue Bombs?

[Cpt_Siddy]

11 minutes ago, JG4_Widukind said:

...and why we talk over Blue Bombs?

 

Because killing 190 with 500kg is fun.

[BubiHUN]

3 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

110 can mount 1k kg bomb too if i remember correctly, and i see them quite often dropping nukes. 

On TAW, 1 ton bomb is good against artillery or bridges, soft targets, thats all.

[HR_Tofolo]

59 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

On TAW, 1 ton bomb is good against artillery or bridges, soft targets, thats all.

 

Or Depots, or convoys, or defenses...

 

Anyway, I think we need to focus more on other more urgent points such as the single-side air capturing feature or the Kuban layout which is highly unbalanced for instance.

[Cpt_Siddy]

2 hours ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

On TAW, 1 ton bomb is good against artillery or bridges, soft targets, thats all.

 

thats like 70% of targets...

[Ropalcz]

1 hour ago, HR_Tofolo said:

 

Or Depots, or convoys, or defenses...

Depots - yes

Convoys - no,  you kill max 4-5 cars

Defenses -  again no, one ton is almost useless. We dropped like 3 or 4 SC 1000's covering the whole area of strongpoint and no one of us got a single kill. This happened two or three times.

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

24 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

Depots - yes

Convoys - no,  you kill max 4-5 cars

Defenses -  again no, one ton is almost useless. We dropped like 3 or 4 SC 1000's covering the whole area of strongpoint and no one of us got a single kill. This happened two or three times.

 

I guess the dugouts were protecting the targets. If they are thinking the heavy loadouts are responsible for winning the map it's not. They will lose next. 1000 kg was not doing a great effect. Its better to pick more of less heavy bombs.

They're complaining about the "fucked" 110 and stuka gunners but nobody in axis wants to attack the cheater PE anymore. Everytime you attack PE is almost certain engine killed or PK, even at high speed. I would like to compare PE gunner code with the another gunners to verify the existence of special lines of codes. Imagine if you are a russian coder coding PE hehehe.

Edited September 19, 2019 by III./SG77-G_Boelcke

[JG4_Widukind]

So let all Bombs aviable for next TAW and give the Ju88 free from Map 1?

Edited September 19, 2019 by JG4_Widukind

[AKA_Relent]

1 hour ago, Ropalcz said:

Depots - yes

Convoys - no,  you kill max 4-5 cars

Defenses -  again no, one ton is almost useless. We dropped like 3 or 4 SC 1000's covering the whole area of strongpoint and no one of us got a single kill. This happened two or three times.

 

I’ve seen the same thing when dropping 2x500kg on a def pos, I doubt it’s because of the “useless” 1000kg lol.  Depends on the health of the def pos, and of course if anyone hit it before you.  If it is avg or poor, and you hit it first, it may look like a normal target but it’s not. You can observe hits and see fires and get no credit in your TAW sortie log.  IMO this is something that could use some adjustments.  I.e., if a def pos is poor, it would be nice if only a small portion of the def pos spawned, and everything that was there could be destroyed and you got credit for - instead you get a complete looking def pos but trying to find the actual healthy part of the target (where you get credit for destroying objects) is impossible without dropping bombs all over it.

1 hour ago, III./SG77-G_Boelcke said:

They're complaining about the "fucked" 110 and stuka gunners but nobody in axis wants to attack the cheater PE anymore. Everytime you attack PE is almost certain engine killed or PK, even at high speed. I would like to compare PE gunner code with the another gunners to verify the existence of special lines of codes. Imagine if you are a russian coder coding PE hehehe.

 

Same story on both sides (it’s not just the Pe-2), although it’s hard to predict.  Sometimes I’ve gotten away clean when attacking a Ju-88, 111 or 110, but more often than not, my plane is chewed up and often the engine quits.  And I’ve flown the Pe-2 enough to know that more often than not, attacking 109/190s are doing more damage to me than I to them.

[Creep]

Gunners can be deadly in this game. A few tips that help me:

• never saddle up on the six of a bomber (unless you are at shooting at VERY long range)
• make slashing attacks as close to a 90 degree angle as you can
• after the making a pass, keep the nose low and do not climb until you are out of gunner's effective range
• if at all possible, attack with a wingman in tandem coming in with slashing attacks from opposite sides

Following these rules will avoid PKs entirely and will significantly limit damage taken (even against the mighty Pe-2). The only downside is that it takes much longer to kill a bomber in this way, which means situational awareness suffers and the target has more time to call for help. 

[=WoVi=cercataa]

3 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

The only downside is that it takes much longer to kill a bomber in this way, which means situational awareness suffers and the target has more time to call for help. 

 

That's not a downside, more fun doing it

Thanks for the tips

[RedKestrel]

14 minutes ago, III./SG77-G_Boelcke said:

 

They're complaining about the "fucked" 110 and stuka gunners but nobody in axis wants to attack the cheater PE anymore. Everytime you attack PE is almost certain engine killed or PK, even at high speed. I would like to compare PE gunner code with the another gunners to verify the existence of special lines of codes. Imagine if you are a russian coder coding PE hehehe.

Here's one of only about two air kills my gunners got all campaign - I probably flew about 30-40 sorties total in the Pe-2. Can't access my older sorties. This is a 110G-2 who slash attacked and critically wounded me, then dropped on to my six and tried to finish me off and got PKd for his trouble. .https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=71281&name=RedKestrel

109 F-4 attacked me twice, attacked another Pe-2, and a MiG-3, and landed safe and sound. https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=42811&name=JGr8_Krechet

Fw-190 and 109G-2 attacked me. Both lived, G-2 got minor damage. https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=79668&name=RedKestrel

110E-2 attacked me. Shot me down, only minor damage. https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=43355&name=RedKestrel

For everyone afraid of attacking Pe-2s...its obviously not suicidal. The gunners may be too good but its not the death sentence its made out to be. Out of these 6 attacks on Pe-2s, 1 PK, no other kills and only minor damage.

Meanwhile, here's a sortie where an He-111-16 got attacked by 5 La-5FN, shot two down and damaged two others. https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=84147&name=AdmiralReesR5
 

All the gunners are simultaneously idiots and savants.  There's a random chance that at any moment your gunner is going to be possessed by the spirit of Simo Hayha and headshot the nearest enemy fighter, the rest of the time he's going to be off his nut on Vodka/ Schnapps.

 

[SCG_Limboski]

11 hours ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

 

The G-2 yes. But 2x500 do more damage than 1x1000 (if aimed well). The nukes are more useful from high altitude against the depots.

 

For attacking defensive fortifications and other targets with high levels of soft targets for the 110 G-2, the 1000kg + 250kg loadout is very much superior to the 2x500kg loadout in my experience.  A well placed 1000kg bomb can easily net you 15-20 kills.  Buildings and buckers in TAW require direct hits due to their high hitpoint value so you are better off having MORE small bombs versus one or two large ones if your target is like airfields or depots and you're aiming for buildings.

 

5 hours ago, Ropalcz said:

Defenses -  again no, one ton is almost useless. We dropped like 3 or 4 SC 1000's covering the whole area of strongpoint and no one of us got a single kill. This happened two or three times.

 

You guys must have attacked an already bombed out strongpoint with just bunkers left.  The bunkers require direct hits and a 1000kg will not take one out if it does not land directly on it.  In general, attacking the bunkers in defensive fortifications is a huge waste of time and effort.

 

22 hours ago, Ala13_elchinodecai said:

I also must say a 50/70kg bomb in real life was way more deadly than the ones here.  You don't need to hit a tank, a near miss with one of those did the job, same for buildings, hangars, etc, nevertheless a bomb near a parked plane left it most of the time as a junk for spare parts.

 

What makes you believe that exactly for the tanks?  Sources please?  Historically, bombs were notoriously bad for killing tanks and basically required direct hits as the energy in the explosive radius dissipates quickly.  For a good read on the topic, try: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26512-a-quick-look-at-bomb-effectiveness-vs-armor/?fromsearch=1

 and following Finkeren's link to the technical study.  There are many treatease discussing that tank busting from planes was vastly exaggerated during the war (e.g., https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/myth-of-combat-aircraft-destroying-tanks.27496/). I'd be willing to bet that Ruddel's actual tank kill count was vastly exaggerated.

Edited September 19, 2019 by SCG_Limbo

[Retnek]

Given the limited mission builder options any BoX-server-setup will remain a struggle for some kind of realism within large scale IL2-BoX-campaigns. Both sides had specific advantages and TAW takes this into account already.

 

The Soviets focussed on "battlefield-aviation" and short-range battlefield interdiction usually no longer than maybe 20 km behind the front lines. IL-2 was the well suited mainstay, but Rata and LaGG-3 fit well into this way of operations, too. They were able to attack any kind of front-line-targets, even spread out moving tank formations. It might be a western preconception, but I read lot's of German sources wondering about the Soviets not (or very rarely) harassing the mostly unprotected German supply lines and rear-depots, at least until mid-1944. 50 km behind the front-line the German usually operated without much trouble except other factors like partisans or generally weak infrastructure. While having and using the means to do an effective close air support, Red Army missed the chance for battlefield interdiction. Anyhow - all in all I find this part of history well presented on TAW.

 

The Luftwaffe in contrast had no effective concept to defeat the Soviet tanks. Dropping bombs didn't really hurt until until a wider introduction of cluster-ammo in 1944. Stukas diving down on tank hordes were often used as a propaganda motive, but finally the German army units had to deal with most of the Soviet armour. Ju-87-gunships and Hs-129 came too late and remained rare birds.

But the Stuka was a very effective close-air-support instrument for pin-point attacks against supporting troops (arty, front-line depots, troop concentration etc) and for interdiction against transport infrastructure (bridges, marshalling yards, rail-road stations). Without emergency situations along the front line the Luftwaffe used the medium bombers for battlefield interdiction and deep air support, too. Here the Luftwaffe had an operational advantage.

 

The missing anti-tank-capability of the Luftwaffe imho is visible on the TAW-server, too. But often camouflaged by the usually higher numbers of Blue pilots. Blue on TAW often was able to balance the AT-weakness just by numbers. An option the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front never had. Locally concentrated Luftwaffe air power came for the price of stripping wide areas from any kind of air support. TAW presents elements like trains, supporting arty-positions and rear depots the Luftwaffe was well suited to deal with, too.

 

My question is: given equal numbers of pilots on both sides: Blue side using the ability to perform more effective (deep) interdiction strikes and Red focussing on superior front line performance - would it end in a draw on TAW?

[RedKestrel]

17 minutes ago, JG4_Retnek said:

 

My question is: given equal numbers of pilots on both sides: Blue side using the ability to perform more effective (deep) interdiction strikes and Red focussing on superior front line performance - would it end in a draw on TAW?

From what we saw from some of the earlier maps, and even some of the later ones, was that when there was even numbers we had virtual stalemates. Look how long the campaign went on for, after all.

[Chivas_Regal]

8 hours ago, JG4_Retnek said:

My question is: given equal numbers of pilots on both sides: Blue side using the ability to perform more effective (deep) interdiction strikes and Red focussing on superior front line performance - would it end in a draw on TAW?

Do you want one side to always have an advantage?

It is normal and correct if there is a draw, when the forces of the parties are equal.

But you are talking about equality of opportunity in your question. It's not the same as equality of power.

With equal opportunities, personal skills of pilots and teamwork will play a big role. And the victory in the end will go to those who are really better. Just like in sports.

[BubiHUN]

19 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

thats like 70% of targets...

Uh...no. Much less than that.
Most of the targets are tanks, fortifications, and airfields. 
Against those, 1000 /1800 are almost useless because of the unrealistic durability. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

On 9/19/2019 at 12:22 AM, JG4_Retnek said:

You're right - for the Luftwaffe there are numbers published, posted here:

 

 

 

BTW, are there comparable statistics for the red side? How often were FAB-250 and FAB-500 available during different time periods of the war?

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

6 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Do you want one side to always have an advantage?

It is normal and correct if there is a draw, when the forces of the parties are equal.

But you are talking about equality of opportunity in your question. It's not the same as equality of power.

With equal opportunities, personal skills of pilots and teamwork will play a big role. And the victory in the end will go to those who are really better. Just like in sports.

What is personal skill definition? To me personal skill is to get in fast, with local advantage, explode things and get out... Send some BARCAP, CAP, a pack of stukas that can defend themselves against Kozhedubs etc. Personal skill is to build advantage and kill the guy with more skill than you... At BoB RAF indentified unprotected formations with radar and sent a sufficient (more localy) number of fighters. If covered they sent another number to deal with cover (building, at least, local superiority) etc. Goering completely ignored the advantage of radar functioning as a GCI/AWACS. If i have an AWACS and my enemy doesn't i can flank them, build local superiority, order disengage etc. Its difficult on game to simulate that kind of tactics, people are dispersed, undisciplinated, complete individualists, flying for scores, Hartmans, Kozhedubs etc Ok. its a game, but to me tactics is fun...

Edited September 20, 2019 by III./SG77-G_Boelcke

[Chivas_Regal]

1 hour ago, III./SG77-G_Boelcke said:

Its difficult on game to simulate that kind of tactics, people are dispersed, undisciplinated, complete individualists, flying for scores, Hartmans, Kozhedubs etc Ok. its a game, but to me tactics is fun...

I'm talking about the game. The blue bombers are good, and red is a good attack aircraft. Which side will be able to better realize their advantages, and that is worthy of victory on this server.

[FTC_Riksen]

1 hour ago, III./SG77-G_Boelcke said:

Its difficult on game to simulate that kind of tactics, people are dispersed, undisciplinated, complete individualists, flying for scores, Hartmans, Kozhedubs etc Ok. its a game, but to me tactics is fun...

 

You can say that about yourself and your previous squad Tales. Some of us actually fly more strategically and as a group ... Just because you ignore such tactics yourself does not mean others dont employ them in game. Maybe it is time to put money where your mouth is?

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I have a simple idea that would make the TAW experience more historical, more hardcore and more balanced for both sides.

 

The game developers already researched which were the typical weapons and equipment on each aircraft during the given time frame and set the less common ones as lockable modifications. My idea is to follow through and enable the locks on everything.

 

No mods would mean:

 

Fighters would be fighters only. No more JaBo. No extra cannons/heavy MGs.

 

Attacking tanks would be done with bombs and rockets, like it was in the war. One-man-airforce IL-2s taking out single-handedly an entire tank column would stop (I hope).

 

No more nuking the site from orbit. 110, 88 and Pe-2 get up to 250kg bombs, 111 up to 500kg. Stuka remains the only heavy bomb platform (up to 1000kg), but is slow and lacks the bombing sight.

 

Unbalanced teams during off-hours would make significantly less damage and it would take a lot more effort to move the front line.

[Garven]

36 minutes ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

have a simple idea that would make the TAW experience more historical, more hardcore and more balanced for both sides.

 

36 minutes ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

Fighters would be fighters only. No more JaBo.

LOL

[RedKestrel]

33 minutes ago, SCG_OpticFlow said:

I have a simple idea that would make the TAW experience more historical, more hardcore and more balanced for both sides.

 

The game developers already researched which were the typical weapons and equipment on each aircraft during the given time frame and set the less common ones as lockable modifications. My idea is to follow through and enable the locks on everything.

 

No mods would mean:

 

Fighters would be fighters only. No more JaBo. No extra cannons/heavy MGs.

 

Attacking tanks would be done with bombs and rockets, like it was in the war. One-man-airforce IL-2s taking out single-handedly an entire tank column would stop (I hope).

 

No more nuking the site from orbit. 110, 88 and Pe-2 get up to 250kg bombs, 111 up to 500kg. Stuka remains the only heavy bomb platform (up to 1000kg), but is slow and lacks the bombing sight.

 

Unbalanced teams during off-hours would make significantly less damage and it would take a lot more effort to move the front line.

Tanks were attacked with cannon armed aircraft throughout the war. Il-2s used cannons to attack tanks all the time. So did cannon-armed Ju-87s, cannon-armed Hurricanes....the actual RL impact is debatable, but then the real life ability of bombs or rockets to reliably kill tanks are in question too. 

Show me a sortie where an Il-2 actually takes out a tank column solo. Maybe its possible but with how vulnerable they are to fighters and AA I'm skeptical that it's a viable approach. Even after AA has been taken out a single Il-2 would be hard pressed to wipe an entire tank column...with the cannons that are able to kill tanks multiple hits are needed on each tank, and the ammo count is not very high.

The planes that hit the tank columns hardest are level bombers with 100kg bombs, dropping in a straight line along the column - which is less historical than IL-2s attacking tank columns, for certain. If a bunch of guys want to risk their virtual lives to hammer a tank column in  Il-2s, good for them. People always complain we don't see enough Il-2s and that people fly too many Pe-2s. 

There were entire Jabo specialized squadrons on the eastern front with the FW-190. Soviet fighters were pressed into service as ground attackers fairly frequently, especially early in the war. If we're looking at it historically, there's no reason to limit the use of fighter-bombers. 

 

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

36 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Tanks were attacked with cannon armed aircraft throughout the war. Il-2s used cannons to attack tanks all the time. So did cannon-armed Ju-87s, cannon-armed Hurricanes....the actual RL impact is debatable, but then the real life ability of bombs or rockets to reliably kill tanks are in question too. 

Show me a sortie where an Il-2 actually takes out a tank column solo. Maybe its possible but with how vulnerable they are to fighters and AA I'm skeptical that it's a viable approach. Even after AA has been taken out a single Il-2 would be hard pressed to wipe an entire tank column...with the cannons that are able to kill tanks multiple hits are needed on each tank, and the ammo count is not very high.

The planes that hit the tank columns hardest are level bombers with 100kg bombs, dropping in a straight line along the column - which is less historical than IL-2s attacking tank columns, for certain. If a bunch of guys want to risk their virtual lives to hammer a tank column in  Il-2s, good for them. People always complain we don't see enough Il-2s and that people fly too many Pe-2s. 

There were entire Jabo specialized squadrons on the eastern front with the FW-190. Soviet fighters were pressed into service as ground attackers fairly frequently, especially early in the war. If we're looking at it historically, there's no reason to limit the use of fighter-bombers. 

 

I agree. Tanks movings on roads should diperse from roads and do defensive driving at iminence of Air attack. The attackers should go to pin point bombs or high calliber Guns.

41 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Tanks were attacked with cannon armed aircraft throughout the war. Il-2s used cannons to attack tanks all the time. So did cannon-armed Ju-87s, cannon-armed Hurricanes....the actual RL impact is debatable, but then the real life ability of bombs or rockets to reliably kill tanks are in question too. 

Show me a sortie where an Il-2 actually takes out a tank column solo. Maybe its possible but with how vulnerable they are to fighters and AA I'm skeptical that it's a viable approach. Even after AA has been taken out a single Il-2 would be hard pressed to wipe an entire tank column...with the cannons that are able to kill tanks multiple hits are needed on each tank, and the ammo count is not very high.

The planes that hit the tank columns hardest are level bombers with 100kg bombs, dropping in a straight line along the column - which is less historical than IL-2s attacking tank columns, for certain. If a bunch of guys want to risk their virtual lives to hammer a tank column in  Il-2s, good for them. People always complain we don't see enough Il-2s and that people fly too many Pe-2s. 

There were entire Jabo specialized squadrons on the eastern front with the FW-190. Soviet fighters were pressed into service as ground attackers fairly frequently, especially early in the war. If we're looking at it historically, there's no reason to limit the use of fighter-bombers. 

 

I agree. Tanks movings on roads should diperse from roads and do defensive driving at iminence of Air attack. The attackers should go to pin point bombs or high calliber Guns. Why not allow to create separate fighter, Bomber and attacker account. Give a single life for fighter, and two or three for attacker/bombers. Guys shotdown on fighters so have to jump on bombers/attacker.

41 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Tanks were attacked with cannon armed aircraft throughout the war. Il-2s used cannons to attack tanks all the time. So did cannon-armed Ju-87s, cannon-armed Hurricanes....the actual RL impact is debatable, but then the real life ability of bombs or rockets to reliably kill tanks are in question too. 

Show me a sortie where an Il-2 actually takes out a tank column solo. Maybe its possible but with how vulnerable they are to fighters and AA I'm skeptical that it's a viable approach. Even after AA has been taken out a single Il-2 would be hard pressed to wipe an entire tank column...with the cannons that are able to kill tanks multiple hits are needed on each tank, and the ammo count is not very high.

The planes that hit the tank columns hardest are level bombers with 100kg bombs, dropping in a straight line along the column - which is less historical than IL-2s attacking tank columns, for certain. If a bunch of guys want to risk their virtual lives to hammer a tank column in  Il-2s, good for them. People always complain we don't see enough Il-2s and that people fly too many Pe-2s. 

There were entire Jabo specialized squadrons on the eastern front with the FW-190. Soviet fighters were pressed into service as ground attackers fairly frequently, especially early in the war. If we're looking at it historically, there's no reason to limit the use of fighter-bombers. 

 

I agree. Tanks movings on roads should diperse from roads and do defensive driving at iminence of Air attack. The attackers should go to pin point bombs or high calliber Guns. Why not allow to create separate fighter, Bomber and attacker account. Give a single life for fighter, and two or three for attacker/bombers. Guys shotdown on fighters so have to jump on bombers/attacker.

Is possible to give prize to a successfull cover. You should get cover typing a command chat within certain range of enemy bomber or flaring. On ancient il2.org.ru bomber should deploy smoke followed by a fighter. Think a way to give best prizes to fighters that effectively do cap or barcap.

[J37_Spyboy]

Would human gunners help with the ai sniper problem?

[SE.VH_Boemundo]

Sorry somehow i quoted message 3 times.

[RedKestrel]

15 minutes ago, III./SG77-G_Boelcke said:

 

I agree. Tanks movings on roads should diperse from roads and do defensive driving at iminence of Air attack. The attackers should go to pin point bombs or high calliber Guns. Why not allow to create separate fighter, Bomber and attacker account. Give a single life for fighter, and two or three for attacker/bombers. Guys shotdown on fighters so have to jump on bombers/attacker.

Is possible to give prize to a successfull cover. You should get cover typing a command chat within certain range of enemy bomber or flaring. On ancient il2.org.ru bomber should deploy smoke followed by a fighter. Think a way to give best prizes to fighters that effectively do cap or barcap.

Switching back and forth from different accounts seems clunky. Probably just easier to have separate "Attacker Lives" and "Fighter lives" counters since the game can detect when you use a fighter, bomber or attacker for sortie count purposes. Kind of falls apart when using fighter-bombers though.IMO its too complicated to have two sets of lives, its already pretty complex. And my mortality rate was actually higher when flying fighters...

 

5 minutes ago, J5_Spyboy said:

Would human gunners help with the ai sniper problem?

Maybe. AI gunners can get the sniper shots but they also seem prone to miss stupidly. Human players, maybe not. Some human players are absolute menaces on the gunner positions.

But it introduces a whole host of problems. In the past people have hopped into gunner positions and intentionally shot their own aircraft. They would take up spaces in the server which would be an issue at peak times. Its not even clear to me if the admins can even remove the AI gunners if they want to.

[Ala13_elchinodecai]

23 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

 

 

 

What makes you believe that exactly for the tanks?  Sources please?  Historically, bombs were notoriously bad for killing tanks and basically required direct hits as the energy in the explosive radius dissipates quickly.  For a good read on the topic, try: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26512-a-quick-look-at-bomb-effectiveness-vs-armor/?fromsearch=1

 and following Finkeren's link to the technical study.  There are many treatease discussing that tank busting from planes was vastly exaggerated during the war (e.g., https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/myth-of-combat-aircraft-destroying-tanks.27496/). I'd be willing to bet that Ruddel's actual tank kill count was vastly exaggerated.

 

I think you misunderstood my point.

In real life, most of the bombs fell way further away than in TAW, here, you can actually drop bombs within 5 meters of any target, being dropped at high altitude, or buzzing touching treetops.

You are mixing HIT stats with the OUTCOME of a hit, in real life, anything around a 50 kg bomb would get a PZ4/t34 landing on the side at least, if not belly up, the only thing is that in real life hitting something was 1000000% more difficult than in a game, and people mostly missed a lot, look for "last year of the luftwaffe" if I can recall correctly, you could read about many pilots trying to hit a bridge (big one, very big) and they missed, by far, that's why the send lots and lots of planes to assure the task is complete.

 

RAF showed that a Jabo could have a 50% the chance of dropping a bomb within 65 meters of the target, contrary to this game were you can actually put a bomb right next to it, or in front, or behind  almost every time.

There's plenty of pics on the internet of tanks upside down due to a near miss of a bomb, or a navy shell, which carries less HE than a SC500 or 1000lb bomb.

I love this sim, but flying in real life was waaaaayyyyy more dangerous and difficult than here, you'll get shot at from everywhere, AAA, small arms, machine guns, anything, so you were thinking more in coming back than in hitting that bloody pixel that moves down there.

Level bombing, that is another history, my squadron can actually obliterate a Depot in a sortie, in real life, many pilots would drop their payload somewhere else.

 

 

Many, many years ago I watched a BBC documentary (I believe it was BBC) called something with Blitz, or blitz bombing, can't remember, were they where testing the damage produced by german bombs, starting with a SC50 (around 25kg of TNT) and ending with the big ones.