Tactical Air War

[=AD=Denisik_FL]

12 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Every red player here told us it is unbalanced and they have a really hard time being outnumbered...while winning. So i guess people tried to "even" it out for you guys

have already made a lot of suggestions on the balance and improvement of the game on the server.

As for the game on the server, just one team was able to get together and organize what happened, and the other did not.

Many times I wondered how the Reds, being in the minority, managed to win 2-3 cards.

On the 7-8 map online was about the same.

[EGr8_kadett16]

22 минуты назад, Operation_Ivy сказал:

 

Every red player here told us it is unbalanced and they have a really hard time being outnumbered...while winning. So i guess people tried to "even" it out for you guys

Whining and appealing to changes on the server in their favor, this is the typical logic of the Reds in this game. You shouldn't pay attention to this one. It was and will always be, and it doesn't even matter who wins. It's just that if the blues win, there will be more whining.

[Norz]

3 minutes ago, EGr8_kadett16 said:

Whining and appealing to changes on the server in their favor, this is the typical logic of the Reds in this game. 

 Very precise analysis after only 11 hours on the server ...

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

25 minutes ago, Norz said:

Can you explain your point..?

 

I am saying, that the balance might not be so bad when the side with lower player count wins the campaign.

 

Maybe the mechanisms in already in place are doing their work.

 

That being said, i hope this will be the last campaign with the stupid Airfield meta...

[[110]xJammer]

7 minutes ago, Norz said:

 Very precise analysis after only 11 hours on the server ...

 

 

He isn't wrong though. Reds victory while in "apparent" minority and "unbalanced" fighter lineup, followed by further suggestions to buff the red lineup. And any time reds lost a map the amount of whining on the forums was quite unprecedented.

 

I'd honestly rather remove the inter-campaign META of working to buff "your side" as much as possible.

[Norz]

7 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

He isn't wrong though. Reds victory while in "apparent" minority and "unbalanced" fighter lineup, followed by further suggestions to buff the red lineup. And any time reds lost a map the amount of whining on the forums was quite unprecedented.

 

I'd honestly rather remove the inter-campaign META of working to buff "your side" as much as possible.

 

Please note where I asked once to buff the axis side. 

 

P.S: Anyway, you can try to play next time the red side. As I can remember, your words: it is boring.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[[110]xJammer]

 

5 minutes ago, Norz said:

Please note where I asked once to buff the axis side. 

 

1 hour ago, Norz said:

2. Lock some features on 109F4 for the map No3. (Head armor always on). 

 

This would significantly improve the pilot's survival rate on the blue side...

 

  

5 minutes ago, Norz said:

P.S: Anyway, you can try to play next time the red side. As I can remember, your words: it is boring.

 

P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.

Edited November 25, 2020 by [110]xJammer

[Norz]

15 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

This would significantly improve the pilot's survival rate on the blue side...

The expert said... 

My answer: wrong.

15 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.

 

I see. Can you explain where is the difference how to attack (not alone) ground targets with 110 <> Il2/Pe2.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[=AD=Denisik_FL]

7 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.

Try to play now, with a new damage and a new model of damage, believe me, you won't be bored for the red ones))

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

34 minutes ago, EGr8_kadett16 said:

Whining and appealing to changes on the server in their favor, this is the typical logic of the Reds in this game. You shouldn't pay attention to this one. It was and will always be, and it doesn't even matter who wins. It's just that if the blues win, there will be more whining.

 

20 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

 

 

He isn't wrong though. Reds victory while in "apparent" minority and "unbalanced" fighter lineup, followed by further suggestions to buff the red lineup. And any time reds lost a map the amount of whining on the forums was quite unprecedented.

 

I'd honestly rather remove the inter-campaign META of working to buff "your side" as much as possible.

 

13 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

P.S. The red side was boring because of how trivial it was to ground pound in IL2/Pe2.

 

Guys, please spare us your toxic mess. On the previous page, this thread started to resemble a constructive discussion. Now you bring your ingenuous trolling attempts about whining and whatever. Please take them somewhere else.

Edited November 25, 2020 by mincer

[[110]xJammer]

9 minutes ago, mincer said:

 

Guys, please spare us your toxic mess. On the previous page, this thread started to resemble a constructive discussion. Now you bring your ingenuous trolling attempts about whining and whatever. Please take them somewhere else.

 

Yeah, I agree. Balance sides by their victories and capability, not commentary on the forums.

[Norz]

14 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

 

Yeah, I agree. Balance sides by their victories and capability, not commentary on the forums.

 

xJammer, can you provide the parsed data this time?

[Chivas_Regal]

It was the most difficult campaign I've ever been involved in. Both teams were desperately fighting not to lose and until the very last moment it was unclear who would win. And this victory was not easy for the Reds. It is very difficult to play when the opponent outnumbers you and often moves the map without resistance.

I support the proposal for anti-aircraft guns at airfields, they should constantly appear again, even if they are destroyed. In my opinion, such targets as airfields and warehouses should be destroyed by bombing from a high altitude.

Thank you to all the players, and the red ones - who helped us win, and the blue ones-who made it very difficult for us to do it

Edited November 25, 2020 by =2ndSS=Lawyer1

[Norz]

1 minute ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

airfields and warehouses should be destroyed by bombing from a high altitude.

I am not sure that it is possible with the current bomb/damage model.

[=/Hospiz/=Szopen]

12 hours ago, [110]xJammer said:

Well a few points after this campaign:

 

AAA defences

 

As it currently stands the AAA is basically harmless to a coordinated pair of aircraft. They are too easy to destroy, too predictable with firing pattern and do not switch targets quickly enough to be dangerous to those killing them.

 

A simple strategy of using a single "dragger" and 1 or more "AA killers" enables the group to clear up convoy, airfield or depot AAA in a matter of 60 seconds. (Its kind of silly how some groups have not figured this out yet and took heavy losses trying to raid airfields).

 

Furthermore the new DM changes mean that even if AAA manages to hit the target it rarely is fatal and most of the time the aircraft can stay on target and even make it home. This is especially true for il2/pe2 as they can soak up an incredible amount of damage (to some extent making it possible to solo AAAs in IL2 even with minimal skill)

 

Suggestion: fast flak at depots should be invulnerable / respawn in 1-5 minutes. This would guarantee that vast majority of depot attacks will be done via high altitude bombing. In turn increase the impact of destroying depots completely, as otherwise it would make them worthless targets (also please do consider the fact that destroying enemy depots results in more of your own tank spawns, and thus causes more tank losses on your side)

 

fast flak on airfields should respawn in 5-10 minutes. This would encourage large coordinated group raids that are motivated to depart quickly.  Considering that the current META of TAW is to nuke fields as soon as it is possible, almost anything to discourage it would be great. Honestly I'd go as far as to suggest spawning a wing of AI fighters if there are enough enemies over the field (just to give AAA a little bit more of a chance). In addition, add several mg positions around the field with very fast respawn time. This is a good emulation of random infantry running out to shoot at aircraft, while also being sufficiently annoying to motivate aircraft to depart quickly.

 

tank convoys need a rethink. They are too easily carpet-bombed (especially red 100kg bomb or ju88's 6x250kg bomb, A20 with 20x100kg can deal an incredible amount of damage in a single pass). And their AAA can be trivially destroyed in minimal time, while dealing not too much damage to the attacking aircraft. I think, similar to AF proposal, a few mg positions that respawn around the convoy could make sustained attack not immediately trivial, while spreading the column a bit would make it less convenient to both carpetbomb or directly strafe it. and IMO the randomness of tank columns can be very frustrating at times for both teams.

 

 

Lives

 

Too easy to grind them back, opposing team having 1 more player means your lives basically do not matter, encouraging outright suicidal behaviour especially in +1 aircraft.

 

Suggestion: Make lives similar to CM streak required to gain an aircraft. I.e. 5 CMs without death/capture would net +1 life for the pilot. Permit dead pilots to fly during team imbalance, however permit the life counter to go into the negative. After the ban time runs out, check the life counter, and if negative, increment life counter by +1 and apply another 20h ban. Such pilots can still grind out their lives by running safe/supply missions, rather than turning into a temporary kamikaze. 

 

Kuban map

 

Tuapse airfield has only 1 strategic connection to the nearby city, and Maikop is the only airfield that is decently close to the "frontline". Please fix

 

 

Aircraft hangar

 

IMO especially for reds, the aircraft hangar is becoming a bit of a mess. We already have the combos of yak7/9t and yak1b/9. Why not organise the aircraft into 3 classes? "Basic" "Advanced" and "New arrival" ones? This could also mean that one can make the higher tier aircraft more expensive, i.e. 4/5CMs. That way the really recent additions will actually be quite rare, and require more effort to acquire. (Its quite common for some pilots to only fly the "best" aircraft, and, if lost, simply grind it back out with a quickie 3 transport missions).

 

I am for buffing AA. It shouldn't be possible for a pair to wipe out entire AF, historically airfields have been heavily protected, and required effort of entire squadrons to be damaged or destroyed. As for spawning AI patrols, server probably wouldn't handle it and just crash - they take very very very much of servers performance.

Kuban in this form was an experiment, and a failed one - it requires redesing, but it's hard to design it in reasonable way without the need of seaborne assaults in few places.

Lives and planes should be limited strictly - ability to fly with 0 live count and 20h ban makes all these regulations pointless. "Global" limit of planes and pilots should be reduced, so suicidal attacks on AFs and tank columns should lead to losing the map due to limit of pilots. Also now there is waaay too many planes avaliable for a single player - having 15 or so airplanes in a hangar makes them an expendable, when they should be valuable. And that requires changes to planeset, some historically accurate preferably.

 

18 minutes ago, Norz said:

I am not sure that it is possible with the current bomb/damage model.

 

It is - we've been doing this for years. As only two of my squadron have been flying actively during this campaign, it didn't have huge impact, but drops that took 5-8 buildings on depo/AF were quite common. It only takes practice and patience - there is no black magic behind bombsight, and there really is no difference between dropping from 2k and 8k - all the data is given, you don't even have to convert IAS to TAS, only thing you have to "calculate" is wind direction relative to heading. And plan a route to bomb along the target or hit multiple target zones.

 

 

 

[Norz]

3 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

depo/AF were quite common. It only takes practice and patience - there is no black magic behind bombsight, and there really is no difference between dropping from 2k and 8k 

 

Please make some video how you will attack the depot at 7k (Pe2). 

P.S. I know good enough how it works. 

[=19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor]

@=LG=Kathon West-TAW coming soon?

[Chivas_Regal]

10 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

Lives and planes should be limited strictly - ability to fly with 0 live count and 20h ban makes all these regulations pointless.

Do you want a campaign without opponents? The life limit now limits the superior number of opponents, but allows you to resist when there are more opponents. This allows you to eliminate the imbalance of the parties to a certain extent. Otherwise, you will take the lives of your opponents and remain on an empty server. If you can't win in any other way, then of course, why not))

[=/Hospiz/=Szopen]

16 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Please make some video how you will attack the depot at 7k (Pe2). 

 

We've been doing that - as I said, it only takes patience to climb to that altitude, and carefull planning of route. Really, the one and only difference is that you set different altitude in bombsight.

 

[=AD=Denisik_FL]

1 minute ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

 

We've been doing that - as I said, it only takes patience to climb to that altitude, and carefull planning of route. Really, the one and only difference is that you set different altitude in bombsight.

 

Dropping bombs is not a problem.

Ju-88 carries 44 to 50. Pe-2 10 to 100.

In theory, a German bomber can kill 44 buildings, while a Soviet one can kill only 10.

[Norz]

6 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

 

We've been doing that - as I said, it only takes patience to climb to that altitude, and carefull planning of route. Really, the one and only difference is that you set different altitude in bombsight.

 

Did I say that it is not possible? The idea was to show the difference how it looks like in Ju88 and Pe2 at 7k (in bombsight). 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[=/Hospiz/=Szopen]

8 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Did I say that it is not possible? The idea was to show the difference how it looks like in Ju88 and Pe2 at 7k (in bombsight). 

 

Lotfe IS way better bombsight, yes, as it's gyrostabilised and allows slight changes in course on approach to be made gently, while Peshka/A20 bombsight requires more care while starting bomb run and takes a second to set after turn, but other than that they work pretty much the same - we don't use the "automatic" mode of german sights at all.

 

12 minutes ago, =22AMG=Denisik said:

Dropping bombs is not a problem.

Ju-88 carries 44 to 50. Pe-2 10 to 100.

In theory, a German bomber can kill 44 buildings, while a Soviet one can kill only 10.

 

The same applies to strafing the airfield from low altitude, so it's not a point.

[Norz]

10 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

Lotfe IS way better bombsight, yes, as it's gyrostabilised and allows slight changes in course on approach to be made gently, while Peshka/A20 bombsight requires more care while starting bomb run and takes a second to set after turn, but other than that they work pretty much the same - we don't use the "automatic" mode of german sights at all.

 

2 videos for the same target (the same attitude 7k) on Pe2 and Ju88 can tell more than words. As I said... you are not only the person who did it before.

 

We started it with bomb/damage model. My words: Pe2 is not so effective as Ju88 because

 

1. at 6..7k you see not damaged hangars too late (Pe2).

2. Only few meters left and a hangar still alive. Depends of the No.1 it makes it not so effective as it was 8..12 months before.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Gustav_Hagel]

4 hours ago, =FSG=FRITZ said:

Both ideas are bad. The first is because a large amount of AAA will load the server. At the same time, the revived AAA will make you fly high and careful over particularly important targets. The second is because it is not true. In real life, everyone fired at paratroopers: both the Germans and the Allies. And it happened on both the Eastern and Western fronts. I myself do not shoot parachutes, but this is my personal belief, which is not an indisputable truth.

paratroopers =/= pilot hanging in a chute, which was considered war crime and should be treated as such. Both sides condemned killing pilots hanging on chutes, at least in my knowledge on Western Front. This has been discussed many many times with many sources, including the infamous video of Richard "Bud" Peterson.

 

I said, that would be needed to check if it's viable and not overload the server, if you've read properly you would've noticed. Besides, do you think most attack on Airfields, depots and important objectives were mostly done like CAS in the meta now? It's beyond ridiculous that level bombing is just pointless in this server. AAA is not as challenging anymore, not due to their level but rather the lack of, which clearly doesn't reflect and resemble even slightly what would be irl, there should be at least a challenge while flying above large cities and some airfields.

Edited November 25, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[=FSG=FRITZ]

6 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

paratroopers =/= pilot hanging in a chute, which was considered war crime and should be treated as such. Both sides condemned killing pilots hanging on chutes, at least in my knowledge on Western Front. This has been discussed many many times with many sources, including the infamous video of Richard "Bud" Peterson.

 

I said, that would be needed to check if it's viable and not overload the server, if you've read properly you would've noticed. Besides, do you think most attack on Airfields, depots and important objectives were mostly done like CAS in the meta now? It's beyond ridiculous that level bombing is just pointless in this server. AAA is not as challenging anymore, ot due to their level but rather the lack of, which clearly doesn't reflect and resemble even slightly what would be irl, there should be at least a challenge while flying above large cities and some airfields.

As for the murder of paratroopers, this is false information. According to the decisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners, the killing of a captured paratrooper is a war crime. If the pilot jumped over his territory - nothing forbids to kill him.

[=/Hospiz/=Szopen]

6 minutes ago, Norz said:

We started it with bomb/damage model. My words: Pe2 is not so effective as Ju88 because

 

1. at 6..7k you see not damaged hangars too late (Pe2).

2. Only few meters left and a hangar still alive. Depends of the No.1 it makes it not so effective as it was 8..12 months before.

 

And to that I agree - Ju-88 is better than Peshka as a bomber, it has better bombload, better bombsight, climbs better and is faster at altitude, not a slightest doubt of it. My squad is changing sides every campaign, so I've been flying both of them, and Ju-88 is better. But A-20 is good, I like flying it very much.

 

I'm not exactly sure why hangars would be visible earlier in Lotfe than peshka bombsight? Seriously, I didn't notice any difference, you have any data on it?

And yes, bombs don't do as much damage as they used to, you basically need a direct hit, but that affects Ju-88 as well. And it don't make it impossible to incapacitate airfields and depos by level bombing them from altitude.

[Norz]

7 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

 I didn't notice any difference, you have any data on it?

 

 

The bombsight is stable too late at this attitude (6k, 7k after a small turn). That is the reason why I didn't use it at 6k anymore (Pe2). In 2019 it was enough to drop the bombs in few meters to destroy the hangar.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Gustav_Hagel]

27 minutes ago, =FSG=FRITZ said:

As for the murder of paratroopers, this is false information. According to the decisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners, the killing of a captured paratrooper is a war crime. If the pilot jumped over his territory - nothing forbids to kill him.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=0E0BF3B27E4F4E8EC12563CD0051DB78

 

 

Article 42 [ Link ] -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

 

But again, this is from 1977, although not written, it was a common agreement between belligerents.

[=FSG=FRITZ]

2 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=0E0BF3B27E4F4E8EC12563CD0051DB78

 

 

Article 42 [ Link ] -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

 

But again, this is from 1977, although not written, it was a common agreement between belligerents.

I will repeat once again: during the Second World War there were NO such agreements. Neither on the Eastern nor on the Western fronts. There were isolated cases of nobility. With regard to the quoted article, it applies ONLY to pilots who jumped into enemy territory. The article deals with the treatment of PRISONERS. Nobody forbids killing the enemy over the territory of the enemy even now.

[Gustav_Hagel]

13 minutes ago, =FSG=FRITZ said:

I will repeat once again: during the Second World War there were NO such agreements. Neither on the Eastern nor on the Western fronts. There were isolated cases of nobility. With regard to the quoted article, it applies ONLY to pilots who jumped into enemy territory. The article deals with the treatment of PRISONERS. Nobody forbids killing the enemy over the territory of the enemy even now.

It doesn't matter if it's POW or not, because of this: 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

Regarding POWs, then there's this: 

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

 

An adverse Party in this case is the enemy.

 

About paratroopers this applies: 

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

 

Again, your assumptions are wrong, it wasn't a case of isolated nobility, not when high command form both sides condemned and forbid those actions. For instance: 

 

"U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, felt compelled to specifically forbid the practice. In the directive issued to U.S. Major General Carl Spaatz, commander of the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, and British Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder (or Sir Arthur Harris according to D-Day Bombers: The Veterans' Story: RAF Bomber Command and the US Eighth Air Force Support to the Normandy Invasion 1944 by Stephen Darlow) on June 2, 1944, in a preparation for Operation Overlord, he wrote:

During current and future intensive air operations, Allied airmen are required by their duty to fly and fight continuously over enemy and occupied territories of Europe. The enemy who is fearful of these attacks because of their devastating effect of his transport and the morale of his troops, is endeavouring to prevent them by propaganda designed to prove to the peoples of Europe that Allied airmen are wilfully shooting up harmless civilians in the course of their fighter sweeps and tactical bombing attacks. It is essential to remember that much of the air fighting will take place over the heads of friendly people, who have endured the savagery of the Germans for years. Humanity and the principles for which we fight demand from our pilots scrupulous care to avoid any but military targets. The Air Forces of the United Nations are privileged to be the spearhead of the forces fighting for freedom and the herald to the oppressed peoples of Europe of our approach. Be careful that nothing is done to betray this trust or to prejudice our good name in the eyes of our friends still dominated by Nazi tyranny. I request that those instructions be brought to the attention of every member of aircrews fighting over Europe. I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists#Second_World_War

 

As I said it was a common agreement, not a mutual one, there's a slight difference between the meaning of both words.

Edited November 25, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[FTC_Kongoo]

3 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

I am saying, that the balance might not be so bad when the side with lower player count wins the campaign.

 

Maybe the mechanisms in already in place are doing their work.

 

That being said, i hope this will be the last campaign with the stupid Airfield meta...

The only reason red won was thanks to the unhealthy relentless contribution of Sober sky, in number of hours and effectiveness in ground pounding(specially map 5) . Take that away, fly like how most of LW have and you have a serious imbalance.

[=FSG=FRITZ]

15 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

You need definitely learn how to read, it doesn't matter if it's POW or not, because of this: 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

Regarding POWs, then there's this: 

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

 

An adverse Party in this case is the enemy.

 

About paratroopers this applies: 

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

 

Again, your assumptions are wrong, it wasn't a case of isolated nobility, not when high command form both sides condemned and forbid those actions. For instance: 

 

"U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, felt compelled to specifically forbid the practice. In the directive issued to U.S. Major General Carl Spaatz, commander of the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, and British Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder (or Sir Arthur Harris according to D-Day Bombers: The Veterans' Story: RAF Bomber Command and the US Eighth Air Force Support to the Normandy Invasion 1944 by Stephen Darlow) on June 2, 1944, in a preparation for Operation Overlord, he wrote:

During current and future intensive air operations, Allied airmen are required by their duty to fly and fight continuously over enemy and occupied territories of Europe. The enemy who is fearful of these attacks because of their devastating effect of his transport and the morale of his troops, is endeavouring to prevent them by propaganda designed to prove to the peoples of Europe that Allied airmen are wilfully shooting up harmless civilians in the course of their fighter sweeps and tactical bombing attacks. It is essential to remember that much of the air fighting will take place over the heads of friendly people, who have endured the savagery of the Germans for years. Humanity and the principles for which we fight demand from our pilots scrupulous care to avoid any but military targets. The Air Forces of the United Nations are privileged to be the spearhead of the forces fighting for freedom and the herald to the oppressed peoples of Europe of our approach. Be careful that nothing is done to betray this trust or to prejudice our good name in the eyes of our friends still dominated by Nazi tyranny. I request that those instructions be brought to the attention of every member of aircrews fighting over Europe. I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists#Second_World_War

 

As I said it was a common agreement, not a mutual one, there's a slight difference between the meaning of both words.

Correct title of the document: "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War". A paratrooper who has jumped on HIS territory is not a prisoner of war and is not affected by the provisions of the Convention. Is it so hard to understand? As for Eisenhower's directive, it emphasizes the ban on shooting paratroopers precisely because the Allies (and the Germans, no doubt) did just that. And also there it means "not to shoot at paratroopers over the liberated territory". Read: "do not shoot at prisoners"

[=/Hospiz/=MetalHead]

1 hour ago, =22AMG=Denisik said:

Dropping bombs is not a problem.

Ju-88 carries 44 to 50. Pe-2 10 to 100.

In theory, a German bomber can kill 44 buildings, while a Soviet one can kill only 10.

Il2 has 240 bombs, so in theory it can wipe out both depots in one flight.

Looks like you have never touched Ju-88.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

6 minutes ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

The only reason red won was thanks to the unhealthy relentless contribution of Sober sky, in number of hours and effectiveness in ground pounding(specially map 5) . Take that away, fly like how most of LW have and you have a serious imbalance.

Yes. In addition, we undertook a massive effort to coordinate between pilots that could fly in different time zones so that they would scramble in case of a desperate situation on the front line and save the map. Those efforts were unseen from the outside, but they were real. In addition, we suffered massive losses all the time due to flying very risky missions. There are almost no red pilots with big streaks left because all of us were killed too often. Yet everything looks perfectly balanced for our opponents, after all we even won somehow! Also everybody forgets that on the half of the maps the Allies side was pushed into the corner in a day, and fought relentlessly (being killed over and over again) just to draw a map in the best case. And everything is still balanced.

The issue is that this cohesion was a very unique experience, I did not experience anything like that during the previous campaigns I played. It just happened due to organizational efforts of the few folks who brought people together, and then it grew attracting more and more pilots. There is no guarantee that something like that will happen in the next campaign. If you take away the cohesion that the allied pilot demonstrated in the last few weeks, you will end up with maps being over in a day and no organized opposition on the Allied side. So, blue pilots, do you really want to play on an empty server with no opposition? If so, then everything was balanced indeed.

[Gustav_Hagel]

31 minutes ago, =FSG=FRITZ said:

Correct title of the document: "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War". A paratrooper who has jumped on HIS territory is not a prisoner of war and is not affected by the provisions of the Convention. Is it so hard to understand? As for Eisenhower's directive, it emphasizes the ban on shooting paratroopers precisely because the Allies (and the Germans, no doubt) did just that. And also there it means "not to shoot at paratroopers over the liberated territory". Read: "do not shoot at prisoners"

 

EDIT: A correction, we are talking about aircrew hanging in a parachute, not paratrooper, which was always clear at this point.

----------------

EDIT2: I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked."

 

There's nothing stricly saying about liberated territory.

------------------

 

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

 

 

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status

 

1366 These rules of warfare, or of conduct between combatants as they are sometimes called, are basically those contained in Articles 22 [ Link ] and 23 [ Link ] , paragraph 1(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)of the Hague Regulations. In addition to the general [p.382] principle by which the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited, they contain two types of fundamental rules: on the one hand, humanitarian rules, and on the other hand, rules on good faith. The humanitarian rules prohibit killing or wounding an enemy who has laid down his arms or no longer has the means to defend himself and has therefore surrendered unconditionally; they also prohibit refusing to give quarter and causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The rules on good faith prohibit killing or wounding the enemy treacherously, as well as deceiving him by the improper use of the flag of truce, of national emblems or of enemy uniforms, and also by the improper use of the red cross emblem. Every military Power, without exception, must include these fundamental principles in the instructions it issues to its troops.
 

 

[p.386] 1378 As regards the term "combatant and prisoner-or-war status", used as the heading of Section II, one may recall the headings found in Section I of the Hague Regulations, viz., "On belligerents" or even more specifically "The qualifications of belligerents", and "Prisoners of war". Apart from the fact that the order of the sections is reversed, the structure used in the Protocol for these subjects is therefore the same as that of the Hague Regulations.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=28100BC17CDD4D95C12563CD0043246D

 

1380 This Section is aimed primarily at reaffirming and developing Articles 22 [ Link ] , 23 [ Link ] (b),(c), (d), (e),(f), and 24 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations of 1907. Article 23 [ Link ] (a), which deals with the prohibition of poison, was not included, as particular individual weapons were the subject of separate studies. In fact, this omission has no effect on the prohibition which remains fully in force. Similarly, the rules relating to the treatment of enemy property (Article 23 [ Link ] (g) and (h)) were not included here as this problem seemed to be less urgent. On the other hand, three absolutely new provisions, which have no equivalent in the above-mentioned articles of the Regulations, have been introduced. These are concerned with the protection of the environment (Article 35 [ Link ] -- ' Basic rules, ' paragraph 3), with the responsibilities at the national level relating to the introduction of new weapons (Article 36 [ Link ] -- ' New weapons), ' and with the protection of airmen in distress (Article 42 [ Link ] -- ' Occupants of aircraft ').
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=89CB1D31CA4A3BCAC12563CD0043254F

 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

I think this should be more than clear that it's not referring only to POWs. There's nothing left to discuss.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[Cpt_Siddy]

Good thing the conventions mention nothing of simulators. 

[=/Hospiz/=MetalHead]

On the side note, I just noticed, that the forum war has broken milestone of 500 pages. 

Congratulations to everyone involved! I look forward to another 500. Hopefully we hit 1000 page mark in nearest future.

[JGr8_Leopard]

4 часа назад, Norz сказал:

Very precise analysis after only 11 hours on the server ...

It takes so little time to see all whining reds and beg for additional benefits.

[Norz]

2 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

It takes so little time to see all whining reds and beg for additional benefits.

 

I know...little time = small brain. Thank you for your notation.

[JGr8_Leopard]

2 минуты назад, Norz сказал:

I know...little time = small brain. Thank you for your notation.

Very easily your mask is thrown off and your essence is exposed. Pettiness, quarrelsomeness, resentment at the "small" .... brain.