Tactical bomber effectivity

[proline]

read the link of the first post from Jam2013.

and this one;
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

this will probably change your mind.

I'm curious, have you read that link? It says that the P-47 and typhoon were weak against tanks, which is modeled correctly in the game. It also says that aircraft did poorly against tanks under "battlefield conditions" where close terrain and flak were available. That's also correctly modeled in the game. Finally, it states that aircraft could effectively destroy tank units by hitting their fuel trucks and forcing them to be abandoned. You can consider the modestly good effect of some tac bombers on tanks in open terrain to be due to that effect.

[JagdpanzerIV]

read the link of the first post from Jam2013.

and this one;
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

this will probably change your mind.

I'm curious, have you read that link? It says that the P-47 and typhoon were weak against tanks, which is modeled correctly in the game. It also says that aircraft did poorly against tanks under "battlefield conditions" where close terrain and flak were available. That's also correctly modeled in the game. Finally, it states that aircraft could effectively destroy tank units by hitting their fuel trucks and forcing them to be abandoned. You can consider the modestly good effect of some tac bombers on tanks in open terrain to be due to that effect.

sorry but read this;
"A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions."

The point is, under perfect condition, tactical bombers were INEFFECTIVE vs a tank. 5% accuracy in perfect circumstances. In the game, with a Stuka, i will destroy anything easily under clear weather on open ground, heavy tanks included. So, me and Jam2013 are simply saying tactical bombers are too effective, based on those 2 articles and other discussions on forums we read. Feel free to disagree...

[JaM2013]

Another thing that might be a bit reversed is the effectivity of Stukas against ships.. Right now, Strategic bombers are the most effective ship killers, yet besides some late war special bombers with radio guided bombs, it were Dive Bombers who were most effective at attacking ships, besides torpedo planes..

[proline]

read the link of the first post from Jam2013.

and this one;
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

this will probably change your mind.

I'm curious, have you read that link? It says that the P-47 and typhoon were weak against tanks, which is modeled correctly in the game. It also says that aircraft did poorly against tanks under "battlefield conditions" where close terrain and flak were available. That's also correctly modeled in the game. Finally, it states that aircraft could effectively destroy tank units by hitting their fuel trucks and forcing them to be abandoned. You can consider the modestly good effect of some tac bombers on tanks in open terrain to be due to that effect.

sorry but read this;
"A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions."

The point is, under perfect condition, tactical bombers were INEFFECTIVE vs a tank. 5% accuracy in perfect circumstances. In the game, with a Stuka, i will destroy anything easily under clear weather on open ground, heavy tanks included. So, me and Jam2013 are simply saying tactical bombers are too effective, based on those 2 articles and other discussions on forums we read. Feel free to disagree...

Ah I see. That's why it's important to read the whole article. That panther is of little consequence once its fuel tankers are flaming wreckage and its crew has chosen the better part of valor. You see whether the bomber destroys the tank or causes the tank crew to destroy it themselves is beyond the detail level of this game. What matters, and what is supported by the article you suggest, is that under ideal circumstances tac bombers could certainly defeat tanks.

[JagdpanzerIV]

that's besides the point and you know it. Swamps, icy lake, mines, mosquitoes, malaria, undernourishment could also defeat tanks.


The reason i can take a stuka and destroy a full strength enemy unit, is because of the claims of pilots that they blew up a lot of tanks with their dive bombers and that they were extremely effective at that. That is what we see implemented into the game. I disagree, simple enough.

[proline]

that's besides the point and you know it. Swamps, icy lake, mines, mosquitoes, malaria, undernourishment could also defeat tanks.


The reason i can take a stuka and destroy a full strength enemy unit, is because of the claims of pilots that they blew up a lot of tanks with their dive bombers and that they were extremely effective at that. That is what we see implemented into the game. I disagree, simple enough.

It's actually not an opinion thing- going right back to Panzer General the designers have been very clear that a 'tank' as modeled in the game represents not just a single tank but rather many tanks (how many depends on the scenario) along with their crews, maintenance vehicles, fuel trucks, supply trucks, as well as a bit of infantry and AA (which is why tanks don't have an air attack of zero). The bomber's stats reflect its effectiveness against such a formation, not a single tank, and does it pretty well. It has nothing to do with "claims of pilots that they blew up a lot of tanks". As for the effect of "Swamps, icy lake, mines, mosquitoes, malaria, undernourishment"- these are modeled as well via terrain types, land mines, supply, and movement stats.

[JagdpanzerIV]

interesting, panzer general was another game, but concerning Panzer Corps, do you have a link where the game designers said such thing or in the gameplay manual?

[captainjack]

Btw, did anybody tried playing entire campaign without any air assets?

I've done Soviet Corps with only AA plus the captured FW190 in my core and US corps with no bought aircraft. Two decent mobile AA units and a 3-range heavy towed unit worked very well for minimising air attach effects. After a bit you stop using overstrength and learn to accept the occasional attack when cover is unavailable.

I tend to use a small airforce - usually two or thee fighters and 1 or 2 strat bombers, but rarely more than 1 tac bomber and even then they usually have to have air attack for finishing off damaged bombers and to gain mass attack benefits.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Also, another question come to mind, if tank units represent a bunch of other units, and tactical bombers destroy the other units (aa, fuel, supply etc) in essence destroying the tank units, what are strategical bombers doing when they cut down in half, fuel and ammo from tanks? This sounds to me like the same thing, with a different result that tact. bombers are very effective and dangerous.

[JaM2013]

i think the best thing that could be done would be to repurpose tac bomber class for something else, and assign all tac bombers into strategic bomber class, so they do fuel/ammo damage by default..

[JagdpanzerIV]

i think the best thing that could be done would be to repurpose tac bomber class for something else, and assign all tac bombers into strategic bomber class, so they do fuel/ammo damage by default..

probably, vs tanks anyways. versus soft targets they should inflict pain and suffering.

Historically, strategical bombers ''unofficial'' purpose was to kill civilians, burn down cities, destroy roads, industries and railways, while at the same time bringing the overall population morale very low.

[proline]

Also, another question come to mind, if tank units represent a bunch of other units, and tactical bombers destroy the other units (aa, fuel, supply etc) in essence destroying the tank units, what are strategical bombers doing when they cut down in half, fuel and ammo from tanks? This sounds to me like the same thing, with a different result that tact. bombers are very effective and dangerous.

Strategic bombers affect things in a strategic sense, ie. when you strat bomb a tank you are actually cutting off supply lines to that tank, destroying ammunition factories that supply the tank, reducing morale of the civilians assigned to it, etc. With a tac bomber you are doing direct damage to the panzer division itself. The game doesn't go into the level of detail of showing each panzer division's supply routes, ammo factories, etc., which is why is appears in the game as if strategic bombers are attacking it directly. They are not.

[McGuba]

I agree. As I see it if a strategic bomber unit attacks a tank unit in the game, in effect it damages and destroys the roads and railroads in the immediate area surrounding it, therefore limiting (reducing) the fuel and ammunition supplies that it can get and of course also suppress it for a while. It might also cause direct damage to a few vehicles. It is so because they generally fly high, and make an unprecise carpet bombing run by using large amounts of smaller bombs. Whereas, if a tactical bomber unit attacks the same tank unit, it actually destroys many (soft) vehicles of the supply column permanently, therfore directly reducing the effectiveness (combat strength) of the unit. Then the lost supply trucks and halftracks have to be physically replaced which takes time, material and money (prestige).

[JagdpanzerIV]

Proline and Mcguba,

i don't have any logical issues with what you wrote, because it is plausible. BUT where in the manual does it say that? To me, your deductions is just to give meaning, to 2 classes that otherwise where not given much thoughts.

1) Because the fuel tanks have, was calculated with their ww2 fuel tank capacity. So a t-34 with 75 fuel could go 400km on roads and 250km in the field. avg +-300km (300 / 10 x 2.5) so before that T-34 needs fuel again (from its supporting group of units) we can go 75 / 6, almost 13 turns moving at a pace of 6, bombers have nothing to do with this.

2) even if bombers bomb the t-34, it will not magically remove the fuel it carried on its own.

3) in the end, i think tact. bombers and strat. bombers were poorly implemented because of what i mentioned already (claims of the pilots) and strat. bombers to give them some usefulness vs tanks.

4) That's my opinion for now.

[Bagaluth]

I think you can't generalise taktical bombers.
Dive bombers and tankbusters had been effective against tanks in WW II.
Mitchel, Marauder and Blennheim Bombers not. So taktical "level" bombers worked not against tanks.
And btw dive bombers sould cause much more damage to ships.
All battlefield analysis from the pacific theatre sugest, that torpedo bombers only did one six'th of the damage to the IJN that dive bombers did.
Same experiance from the british analysis of their losses against IJN air attacks against battleships.
greetings
Hein

[Bagaluth]

Proline and Mcguba,

2) even if bombers bomb the t-34, it will not magically remove the fuel it carried on its own.

3) in the end, i think tact. bombers and strat. bombers were poorly implemented because of what i mentioned already (claims of the pilots) and strat. bombers to give them some usefulness vs tanks.

Well the main fuel to move a T 34 or a JS-tankbuster was stored in normal oil-drums on the back of the tank. The crew removed the drums manually before going to action. So if you bomb a unit of sovjet tanks on the move you will kill some tanks by burning them to ashes and you will reduce the fuel capacity of that unit.
Tank units in the west and in the east carried up to 4 canisters a 20 l with them. That madnis was abandomed in the early 70's due to losses in vietnam an israeli analyses from the yom kipur war.
After that no battletank would cary fuel canisters at the outside.
The sovjets learned that lessen in the 80's in Afganistan for their troopcarryers (BMP and BTR).

So much for the battlehistory.
greetings
Hein

[JagdpanzerIV]

i took a t34 as just an example...
take a PzIVJ if you prefer, a strat. bomber will not remove his fuel magically.

[McGuba]

Proline and Mcguba,

i don't have any logical issues with what you wrote, because it is plausible. BUT where in the manual does it say that? To me, your deductions is just to give meaning, to 2 classes that otherwise where not given much thoughts.

Exactly. There is no disagreement that these two classes have problems in PzC. But since these characteristics are all hard coded and cannot be modded we have to live with them and somehow implement them and give them a meaning in a hopefully more realistic modded game system.

1) Because the fuel tanks have, was calculated with their ww2 fuel tank capacity. So a t-34 with 75 fuel could go 400km on roads and 250km in the field. avg +-300km (300 / 10 x 2.5) so before that T-34 needs fuel again (from its supporting group of units) we can go 75 / 6, almost 13 turns moving at a pace of 6, bombers have nothing to do with this.

2) even if bombers bomb the t-34, it will not magically remove the fuel it carried on its own.

Well, in my mods I regard that "fuel" for tanks and such not only stands for the actual road range, but also for reliabilty, which is otherwise not represented in the game at all. (And yes, I know there is nothing like that in the manual, too...) Therefore to units like early Tiger, Panther or T-34 I gave very low "fuel" so that they have to stop more often for "refuel"(do repairs) than other, more reliable units. Again, it is a compromise to implement a mechanic to the game somehow, which is not originally represented. If we accept that we can also accept that if a strategic bomber unit attacks a tank unit with lots of smaller bombs it is more likely to cause minor structural damage to the vision devices, radio antennae, trucks, and the like, thereby reducing its actual reliability/efficiency = "fuel" level, which, again requires repair/resupply. It is in contrast with the direct damage caused by the "precision" attack of the tactical bombers, which requires unit replacements.

Other than that, I generally agree with the basic assumption that tactical bombers are a too effective against tanks in the base game and I also reduced their hard attack values a bit, but not that much. Historical account shows that German panzer divisions were heavily affected by the Allied air superiority in Normandy and elsewhere during the later stages of the war and at some point they were ordered that any major movements should only be made during the cover of the night. If air units were so ineffective against armoured divisions why this order was given? And yet still, it does not necessarily mean that they were effective against tanks, but they must have been effective against the soft supply trucks which were integral part of any armoured divison. Without them the tanks cannot go far and probably that's why many of the German tanks were just abandoned or destroyed by their crew in the west instead of being destroyed by the enemy.

BUT where in the manual does it say that?

Of course, you are right that PzC manual does not specify that tank units also contain a supply truck element, but the manual also does not specify many other things, for example unit scale. And I think we both know that it is for a reason: this game is mainly aimed at casual wargames and not the "serious" ones. But if we try to take a bit more serious approach to this game we can fill in the gaps. One approach is that the supply column is an invisible and invincible unit class which is all over the map and if the player clicks the resupply button they just come to aid immediately. This should be the official and simplified approach which I can hardly accept, mainly due to the supposed invincibility of these supply units, a problem that comes to surface in cases like this. If we are to accept that tank units do contain supply trucks as well it can make many game rules more plausible.

[DeMeza]

About the losses in Normandy to tactical bombers (100 tanks):

If you compare that to how many tanks the German troops had in each division, that number seems pretty devastating to me. 21st Pz Div had 146 tanks at the start of the battle. Removing those and a lot of half tracks and artillery with tactical bombers would leave that division with a third of its starting combat strength.

I know, there were a lot more German tanks in the area than just 21st, but still: In 1944, losing 100 tanks would be the same as effectively destroying a panzer division.

Also, its not as if the Allies lost 4000 bombers to kill 100 tanks. They killed a lot more than just tanks.

With that being said, I do agree that some of the tactical bomber units seem a bit overpowered. But it's actually Rudel, who is massively overpowered! He can remove quite heavy tank units by himself, if unguarded by AA. But if you remove him, you have to somehow compensate the German forces to make some of the real scenarios doable.

I mean, how do you simulate that the Russian forces were simply poorly led until fairly late in the war? That they apparently - at the unit level - were unable to react effectively if the Germans were not at their front, but flanked them? Or, at the tactical and operational level, they just outran their artillery and logistic support, after which the Germans counter attacked? Should you have the AI make such mistakes on purpose?

As I see it, Rudel is a somewhat effective equaliser. He can, if the setup is effective, kill or neutralise high value targets. You only have one such unit, with bad weather dampening or stopping his attacks.

NB: Btw, the myth that air power destroys mobile units persists to this day. When you look at the 1st Gulf War (1990-1991), you will see how air power claimed to knock out large parts of the Iraqi Army. However, when interviewing Iraqi COs after the war, it became clear that a lot of the casualties should be ascribed to artillery fire. One CO from an Iraqi artillery unit described how his unit (100 artillery pieces) still functioned after airial bombardment. It was then hit by concentrated artillery shelling and rockets, which destroyed over 70 pieces of artillery.

[captainjack]

how do you simulate that the Russian forces were simply poorly led

The AI isn't that smart and once you get used to it's weaknesses (scouting with truck-mounted artillery, not resupplying empty units) it does act like a below par commander.
It's simulating the smarter commanders is difficult. At the moment, the AI tends to rely on a lot of very large units to compensate. Not too bad for Russian Front and US forces, but it would be nice to have a way to make a small AI force act a bit smarter - or try multiplayer.