Fighter Aircraft stats

[grenadier98]

I know that unit stats are abstract numbers, but what was taken in consideration when it comes to air attack and air defense? I guess armament and the capability to absorb a certain amount of damage is obvious. But shouldn't max speed, climb rate, roll rate, turning capability and so on influence air attack and defense as well?
Some fighter planes have really weak stats compared to others. First of all the Me 109, but also the P51 and to some extent the Spitfire as well. Some are totally overrated like the Hurricane MKI. The 109e has an air attack of 14, the k armed with two large machine guns and a 30 mm cannon, top speed of 725 and climbing rate superior to the late versions of the Spitfire, Mustang and Tempest has just 16. The 1940 Hurricane armed with 8 x 7.7mm machine guns and a very slow top speed has an air attack of 15! The P51B has just 13...

[ThorHa]

First figure initiative into the equation, this is, where speed, climb etc. Come into their own. If you shoot second, you die first.

Second, at least for fighter to fighter combat and average pilots, more guns with a higher rate of fire but lower calibre were often preferable to less guns with more firepower but less rate of fire.

Regards,
Thorsten

[captainjack]

I though that initially cannon were intended to take out bombers because the explosive load though small for ground actions was useful for damaging aircraft, but that later on more robust and better armoured fighters made cannon and heavier MGs pretty much essential against fighters as well.

I'm not a ballistics expert by any means so feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure that faster and heavier shells fly straighter which could be an advantage for accuracy.

[grenadier98]

First figure initiative into the equation, this is, where speed, climb etc. Come into their own. If you shoot second, you die first.

Second, at least for fighter to fighter combat and average pilots, more guns with a higher rate of fire but lower calibre were often preferable to less guns with more firepower but less rate of fire.

Regards,
Thorsten

Initiative - good point. But in game terms there isn't much difference. The P51 just has one point more than the P47. I don't think 1 or 2 points make up for the attack and defense difference. The 15 air attack value of the MK I Spit and Hurricane is far to good. During the Battle of Britain there were quite some complains of British pilots about the armament of their planes. The later versions got 20 mm cannons. German fighter pilots in the east saw the machinegun bullets (7,9 mm) bounce of from the IL2, making no damage, where the cannon shells penetrated the armor. The later version of the Me 109 didn't use this caliber, but the heavier 13 mm machine gun.

I though that initially cannon were intended to take out bombers because the explosive load though small for ground actions was useful for damaging aircraft, but that later on more robust and better armoured fighters made cannon and heavier MGs pretty much essential against fighters as well.

I'm not a ballistics expert by any means so feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure that faster and heavier shells fly straighter which could be an advantage for accuracy.

That's true. The small calibre machineguns were mostly gone in later planes. The Spitfire had 4, but it also had 2 20 mm if I'm not mistaken.
A large caliber doesn't mean higher velocity. Velocity is more important than the caliber (mass) because when it comes down to the kinetic energy of a projectile it depends on the square of the velocity.
A good example in gun terms is the long barreled 75 mm gun of the Panther. It was more accurate and could penetrate more armor than the famous 88 mm gun of the Tiger I, not to mention the 85 mm of the T34/85 and so on. It had even slightly more AP capability than the IS 2 122 mm gun.

[ThorHa]

Me 109 E had 2 x 20 mm plus 2 x light MG, air attack 14. Hurricane had 8 x light MG, air attack 15. in any case this is not wide of the mark, an average fighter pilot was naturally more successful with a grapeshot. Proven e.g. by the Me 109 F, where the single 20 mm shot through the propeller shaft (best possible accuracy) - regarded as a mistake, except the pilot was an exceptional sharpshooter.

The introduction of cannons in later fighter developments had more to do with sturdier adversaries, which were better armoured as well, than with complaints about 8 x light MG.

There are clear design mistakes in the equipment file, notoriously the 1 or 2 man turrets of tanks which should effect initiative negatively big time, but I can't see any big one in the fighter department. It's a nigh impossible task to equate all the relevant fighter stats in just ini and air attack/defense. From what I can see and my military technology books confirm, the values are okay. You can always argue about a plus or minus of 1 or 2, but that would be insignificant except for initiative.

Regards,
Thorsten

[ThvN]

The unit stats for the fighters are tricky because they are two-dimensional. Only three stats really matter: AA (air attack), AD (air defense) and Ini (initiative). Experience and heroes influence those as well.

To simplify: the difference between the AA and AD values of the attacker and defender is what determines the chance that a defending plane will get suppressed or killed, basically it detemines the number you need to roll on the dice. If the AA-AD difference is small or negative it will be more difficult to hit, no matter how many dice you roll. The initiative is how many 'free' attempts a unit gets to roll a hit before the other side can retaliate.

So my thinking is that AA represents first of all the ability of a plane to succesfully hit an opponent and how likely it is that a hit will be fatal. The last bit is where the gun and ammunition play a big role. But AA is definately influenced by other qualities than just guns; in PzC experience gives a big boost to the AA of a fighter, so pilot skill has a big impact. But increasing pilot skill does not increase your gun calibre, so AA cannot be just about guns, that would imply a promotion would be followed by swapping out your puny MG's for some 20mm! So what qualities in a plane make some planes easier to make a deadly hit with?


AD is the ability to decrease the chance of being hit and receiving damage from hits. So not just armour, some planes are harder to hit in the first place, for example by being a small, target.

Ini is more difficult. I think of it as the ability to get the first shot in and control how and when the combat takes place, which depends on a lot of factors, but this is were climbing speed and the ability to 'hit-and-run' matter.

In my view, AA is a mix of several factors, some examples:
- good sights.
- effective guns.
- a plane being easy to aim (maneuverable) yet stable enough to be accurate. (This can be mutually exclusive)
- a plane being a good (stable) gun platform, as this increases the inherent accuracy of the guns.

Examples of factors that influence AD:
- maneuverability (ability to avoid the attacker getting a good shot)
- protection (armour, sturdiness)
- size (difficult target)

And for Initiative:
- visibility (from the cockpit)
- radar/sights that allow long-range shots
- quick climbing/diving
- speed (note that very high speed differences can decrease accuracy)

All of the above can also be influenced by tactics. At the outbreak of the war, the RAF still used very obsolete formations which they quickly changed. So early on the Germans had much better tactics, but later on the British matched those. In PzC, this would mean that very early in the war the British units should have lower stats while the planes are in fact identical...

Armament is still a big factor; but like racecars, just adding a lot of power won't always give better chances of winning. The rest of the car, the tires, brakes etc. need to be matched to the power before it can be used effectively.