Air defense of tanks still too high

[alex0809]

Are the numbers really that absurd? I imagine concentrated fire of the Shermans AA heavy machine gun might very well be able to attack a low flying fighter? Apart from that, these fighters, usually armed with 20mm gun - how would they really destroy a tank anxway? They could only penetrate the top armor, and as they were flying at an angle most of the times not even that, and if the rounds do penetrate it is not guaranteed such small calinres destroy a tank... at most maybe the aircraft
would immobilize it.

[aleader]

@Linai: What is that? - It's called an 'option' - apparently players like them.

The thing I don't understand is... how is this any different from other bad decisions or options?
For example, driving transport vehicles directly up to the enemy. That's also an option, but generally a bad one to choose.
How is that any different from expecting a fighter to perform admirably/be invulnerable when used against a tank with a [1] AA value?

So in the same way people and the AI 'can' drive transports right up to the enemy, it's generally not a good idea. Just like people and the AI 'can' attack tanks with fighter aircraft, but again it's generally not a good idea either.

Linai might not have said it very well, or politely, but it's a sound point.

Then why was it adjusted in Patch 1.04 if it's such a stupid decision? And to compare it to driving transports up to the enemy is ridiculous. You would expect to be punished (and should be) for stupid moves like that.

Show me some evidence that fighters did not attack tanks/afv's in WW2 and that when they did they were brought down en-masse by tanks as they are in PzC (as effectively as warships) and I'll agree with you. The Stuka loses the same way as the fighters do in this game, and I have yet to recall an account of tankers laughing off Stuka attacks because they were so looking forward to practicing their AA skills

As for the low-level argument, it's the same. The Thunderbolt, Typhoon, IL-2, etc were all low level attack aircraft and would have attacked at much lower levels than an ME262. Quite frankly I use fighters more to get them some experience and keep them harassing the enemy after disposing of their fighters, which was exactly how they were often employed in Normandy, other than bomber escort. It's really only something I do in tank-heavy scenarios as there are usually easier targets like arty/infantry (to reduce entrenchment) to choose. I wouldn't even be averse to lowering the effectiveness of fighters against armour.

[Rudankort]

For the record, ships have much higher air attack ratings, from [5] on light cruiser to [7] on a battleship, and estimated fighter losses in encounters with ships can be up to 3 times higher than in case of tanks.

Can anyone give a link to some real records about fighter vs. tank encounters in WW2? This would really help in the context of this discussion.

Oh, and btw. In PzC units gain experience when they are scoring kills and also when they are taking losses. So, existing situation allows the fighters to extract maximum experience from those attacks against the tanks.

[uran21]

Can anyone give a link to some real records about fighter vs. tank encounters in WW2? This would really help in the context of this discussion.

Strategic bombers have strategic role, medium bombers have operational role, and ground support of land forces is done by ground attack aircraft and besides dedicated bombers many fighters were having interchanged fighter-bomber role. They used to carry bombs but not so heavy load.
Because this is a tactical game we gave strategic and medium bombers tactical role and fighters in dedicated fighter class do not have ground attack role represented by any higher stats but fighter-bombers do. I have found a record that P-47 destroyed ~9000 trains and ~160000 vehicles, but it doesn't say which kind of vehicles. Link.
Also one good quote from THIS site.

Only the subsequent success of fighter-bombers operating against the battlefield would revive the Army's confidence in air support.
Indeed, throughout the post-Normandy campaign--and in the Second World War as a whole--the fighter-bomber proved overwhelmingly more valuable in supporting and attacking ground forces in the battle area than did the heavy or even the medium bomber.

P.S. I already tried to increase ground defense of planes to see the effect when we were reducing the percentage of damage done by [1] attack of tanks, talking by recollection for increase of 4 or 6 points there was no change bellow 6%.

[Rudankort]

P.S. I already tried to increase ground defense of planes to see the effect when we were reducing the percentage of damage done by [1] attack of tanks, talking by recollection for increase of 4 or 6 points there was no change bellow 6%.

I know, and that is the problem. Game formulas work so that huge defense ratings give diminishing effects, so to really reduce the damage to 1-2% we would need to have GD like 60. This was done so that great units (like late tanks and fighters) were not invincible - they still risk some losses in combats, even against inferior units, and overall this approach works pretty well. But in this particular case the formulas work against us. The only simple solution I see is to make ground units shooting planes (except AA) to cause suppression instead of kills, although I'm not a big fan of obscure rules and exceptions.