Tactical bomber effectivity

[DeMeza]

There is no doubt that the AI in PzC has limitations. But when you read accounts from WW2, you quickly realise that the military prowess of the commanders in the Red Army was severely lacking, on all levels, until pretty late in the war.

Fx: Red Army units would continue frontal assaults until the units had been destroyed. They would continue moving forward, even though they were being hit by German units in the flank and rear - until the point where they were destroyed. They would move incoherently, enabling German counter attacks to destroy them piece meal etc.

Some of this happens in PzC - but not all of it. The AI actually doesn't go for all-out frontal assaults, when German forces are supported by artillery and AA. That's better than what the Red Army did - but it also makes the Russian units that much harder to defeat. Instead of throwing themselves at well prepared defensive positions, they will avoid engagement and try to flank. That means that the German side needs to have something to make the very numerically superior Red Army beatable. Hence overpowered Rudel.

von Mellenthin describes a situation on the Eastern Front where 4 Tigers take up a battle position behind an advancing Red Army tank unit and destroys 110 Russian tanks! The Russians never react correctly, because they have closed their hatches and have no idea where the German tanks are. The Tigers return to their unit because they are out of ammunition.

How do you simulate that? You could say that random combat rolls allow for that; true, but then that system should favour German units in PzC, because the German units were just so much better than the Allied units throughout the war, until early 1945. Like Wittmann in Normandy, basically destroying whole units all by himself.

Rudel is needed because playing with Red Army units (and US/UK units) as incapable as they actually were would make PzC a worse game.

[shawkhan2]

This is precisely why it is more realistic to play the Axis in PC rather than any other faction.
The AI nicely handles forces that handily outnumber the opposition.
Playing as Allied the scenarios depend on having the Axis forces outnumbering the Allied player, a situation which is totally ahistorical.

[JagdpanzerIV]

This is precisely why it is more realistic to play the Axis in PC rather than any other faction.
The AI nicely handles forces that handily outnumber the opposition.
Playing as Allied the scenarios depend on having the Axis forces outnumbering the Allied player, a situation which is totally ahistorical.

basically, its because allies tanks are overpowered. we need those pesky tactical bombers to clear them

[JaM2013]

how its ahistorical? Axis lost the war, in large majority of battles it pulled the short straw and was soundly defeated by Allied units...

[JagdpanzerIV]

how its ahistorical? Axis lost the war, in large majority of battles it pulled the short straw and was soundly defeated by Allied units...

Depends, after the Kursk stalemate probably, but before kursk i'd say they won a lot of battles. Also, with the British intelligence deciphering the 3rd reich messages and sending the plan of all operations and attacks to allies everywhere, was not helping the axis at all!

[JaM2013]

i was mostly talking about Western Allies.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JagdpanzerIV]

i was mostly talking about Western Allies.

when the 3rd reich invaded Low-Countries, Belgium and France count as victories vs western allies.

in 1944 the war was going one way, the allies way.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Tactical bombers were absolutely brutal versus tanks and vehicles. The only reason they didn't have higher kills in Normandy is because the Germans were extremely careful about camouflage and moving only at night as much as possible. When German columns did move on roads in daytime during catastrophic collapse like at Falaise, the entire roadway was very soon littered with burning hulks of vehicles from both bombs and deadly rocket barrages. And tanks not destroyed suffered terribly from damage and dazed & injured crew members. Veteran Waffen SS crews avoided air strikes like the plague using every precaution.

Stukas were sometimes less than effective only due to the low skill of pilots and the same for allied pilots in Normandy who usually missed with rockets cause of lack of skill and experience. When Stukas planted their eggs onto enemy tanks or ripped them up with cannon, those tanks were brewed up with certainty. Rudel is a good example with his 500+ tank kills of what Stukas can do. At Kursk, the Russian tanks were brewed up at a fantastic rate by Stukas all throughout the battle. But it took a bit of skill to get those bombs on target cause the dive was difficult. Stukas should also be fairly effective versus infantry though being dug-in of course offsets a lot of the damage like in Stalingrad when Stukas always prepped the Russian positions with only light casualties at best being inflicted but I think the game is already just right for both armor & soft attack for tac bombers.

Don't forget that in the game, without xp your tactical bombers are virtually useless and can only score 0 or 1 point of damage with no xp stars, maybe 2 points of damage or 3 with 2 stars of xp, until they have 3 stars and start to acquire heroes and can start doing like 3 or 4 points of damage (note my heroes are usually like +1 move or spot and +2 defence so they don't do more damage cause I had poor luck with hero accumulation) and possibly more with a good roll. Against a Tiger I'm lucky to get more than 1 point of damage with a Marauder at 3 stars (sometimes 2 or 3 hp of damage) which makes sense cause Tigers were nearly impossible to destroy using tac bombers but were invariably damaged when bombed. I think the game is already at a realistic setting cause historically the majority of tac bombers didn't have good amounts of xp and heroes like we do in the game by mid-campaign and onwards. German pilots were often shot down cause Stukas were very vulnerable to both fighters and AA fire while allied pilots didn't have many targets to practice on due to the preponderance of their air force versus the dwindling German army assets.

"Tactical bombers were absolutely brutal versus tanks"
- Based on what i have read lately, no, they were not.

Rudel, just like Wittman and others, claims are VASTLY exaggerated. War propaganda at his best. We gave sources to read as to why Tactical bombers were not as effective as once thought.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

[GiveWarAchance]

Jagdpanzer, I prefer to believe what veterans who were there say rather than your negative opinions.

[GiveWarAchance]

basically, its because allies tanks are overpowered. we need those pesky tactical bombers to clear them

Jagdpanzer, you keep trolling my posts claiming you know more than WW2 veterans so what is this about allies tanks (allied tanks?) being overpowered? Both sides of WW2 said German tanks were stronger than allied tanks.

[proline]

Jagdpanzer, I prefer to believe what veterans who were there say rather than your negative opinions.

JagdpanzerIV is incredibly caught up in articles about simulated combat between tac bombers and tigers sitting in the field, as opposed to the accounts from the people who were actually there, on which the game is based. Not just nazi propagandists like Rudel either. Stalin said that Il-2s were "as essential to the Red Army as air and bread". It may be that JagdpanzerIV knows more about WW2 than Stalin, but there's nothing wrong with playing the game based on how everyone there described it.

He's also quite preoccupied with the ability of the tac bombers to destroy the tank itself- a wholly unnecessary part of defeating the tank. Tank expert Otto Carius describes tac bombers destroying 2 jagdtigers- the most armored vehicle ever sent into action. The crews feared tac bombers so badly they refused to fire on enemy tanks for fear that tac bombers would be called in, they then withdrew in a hurry and broke down, needing to be abandoned. The tac bombers defeated them simply by existing- they never fired a shot or even took off. Later a third was destroyed by a P-47.

Again the tac bomber stats in game reflect the real impact the aircraft had in the real war, not the theoretical reduced impact that they might have had if everyone knew their limitations and nobody was afraid of them, and if tanks did not require fuel, maintenance, or crews.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Jagdpanzer, I prefer to believe what veterans who were there say rather than your negative opinions.

i don't have a negative opinion, wth. I go with the analysis on the 2 links i provided. Did you read them?

[JagdpanzerIV]

basically, its because allies tanks are overpowered. we need those pesky tactical bombers to clear them

Jagdpanzer, you keep trolling my posts claiming you know more than WW2 veterans so what is this about allies tanks (allied tanks?) being overpowered? Both sides of WW2 said German tanks were stronger than allied tanks.

Both sides? no, not really. The russians are quite confident their Joseph Stalin tanks were the best, along with their t-34s.
German tanks were on par with allies tanks, most of them anyways.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Jagdpanzer, I prefer to believe what veterans who were there say rather than your negative opinions.

JagdpanzerIV is incredibly caught up in articles about simulated combat between tac bombers and tigers sitting in the field, as opposed to the accounts from the people who were actually there, on which the game is based. Not just nazi propagandists like Rudel either. Stalin said that Il-2s were "as essential to the Red Army as air and bread". It may be that JagdpanzerIV knows more about WW2 than Stalin, but there's nothing wrong with playing the game based on how everyone there described it.

He's also quite preoccupied with the ability of the tac bombers to destroy the tank itself- a wholly unnecessary part of defeating the tank. Tank expert Otto Carius describes tac bombers destroying 2 jagdtigers- the most armored vehicle ever sent into action. The crews feared tac bombers so badly they refused to fire on enemy tanks for fear that tac bombers would be called in, they then withdrew in a hurry and broke down, needing to be abandoned. The tac bombers defeated them simply by existing- they never fired a shot or even took off. Later a third was destroyed by a P-47.

Again the tac bomber stats in game reflect the real impact the aircraft had in the real war, not the theoretical reduced impact that they might have had if everyone knew their limitations and nobody was afraid of them, and if tanks did not require fuel, maintenance, or crews.

Again, nothing to do with me, but the analysis i have read in the past few years. I suggest you read the articles in the links i provided. I tend to agree with their conclusions, that is all.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Rather than attacking me, discuss what is written in the 2 links i provided.

[JaM2013]

Jagdpanzer, I prefer to believe what veterans who were there say rather than your negative opinions.

Problem with this is, that these veterans usually didnt had access to data about actual losses.. They are mostly reporting their own view, yet they are usually missing the big picture and are influenced by own memories under combat stress. Truth is, Western allies had a separate service which was investigating the battlefield once it was declared safe, documenting everything on the battlefield, investigating the source of vehicle destruction, then comparing it with reports from combat units.. Thing is, combat units commonly exaggerated enemy losses, and combat pilots were the one who exaggerated the most - statistics show that out of all reported enemy losses only 2-4% of them were actual losses.. One cannot take pilot claims too seriously - for example US Tac Air reported over 1000 destroyed tanks over Normandy, yet Germans didnt even had that number in the area...Data show that for entire Normandy campaign less than 5% of German tanks were destroyed by Tac Air..

[proline]

Problem with this is, that these veterans usually didnt had access to data about actual losses.. They are mostly reporting their own view, yet they are usually missing the big picture and are influenced by own memories under combat stress. Truth is, Western allies had a separate service which was investigating the battlefield once it was declared safe, documenting everything on the battlefield, investigating the source of vehicle destruction, then comparing it with reports from combat units.. Thing is, combat units commonly exaggerated enemy losses, and combat pilots were the one who exaggerated the most - statistics show that out of all reported enemy losses only 2-4% of them were actual losses.. One cannot take pilot claims too seriously - for example US Tac Air reported over 1000 destroyed tanks over Normandy, yet Germans didnt even had that number in the area...Data show that for entire Normandy campaign less than 5% of German tanks were destroyed by Tac Air..

Again, whether tac air fired the shot that killed said tanks is irrelevant to the effectiveness of tac air. The fact that there were less than 1,000 tanks in Normandy in the first place is due to the incredible effect of tac air which scared the rest away (the Germans kept their tanks well back from the beaches prior to the invasion due to tac air). You see a weapon's effectiveness goes far beyond its physical power and without considering the psychological and strategic implications you really don't know much about it at all. Tac air had an incredible effect on how tanks were deployed and used in battle and was extremely detrimental to the tanks.

You're basically saying that because nukes caused less than 1% of the casualties in the war, if they are added to the game they should be modeled as having a trivial effect. That's laughably wrong. Their mere existence was enough to affect the course of the war.

Rather than attacking me, discuss what is written in the 2 links i provided.

The internet is a big place. I'm not surprised you found two articles that you think support your view (they don't btw, one of them clearly states that tac air frequently caused tanks crews to run away in fear thus destroying their tanks as a fighting force). Maybe read a little more broadly?

[JaM2013]

Actually, no... Germans didnt sent less tanks because of Allied tac air.. they sent more AAA to protect their tanks, and that AAA caused huge number of casualties on Tac Air side.. over whole Normandy campaign Western allies lost over 4000 tactical bombers (16000 crewmen were lost), yet they only took out less than 100 tanks... of course, not all these planes were lost while attacking tanks, but it shows clearly tactical air was extremely vulnerable to AAA...

for example just 13 Tiger tanks were actually destroyed by Tac Air during Normandy campaign, out of which 7 were lost during massive carpet bombing at the start of operation Goodwood.. so "famous" Tiger killers Typhoons could possibly take out just 6 Tiger tanks during Normandy campaign....


And just to put things into perspective - entire US Armored Corps lost just something around 5000men on western front during entire war, which is 3x less than what Tac Air lost just during Normandy campaign...


let me link this text again:

According to the RAF, the Hawker Typhoon was the most effective ground attack and tank killing aircraft in the world in 1944, which may have been true. No fewer than 26 RAF Squadrons were equipped with Typhoons by mid 1944. These aircraft operated round the clock during the Normandy campaign operating in ‘cab rank’ formations, literately flying above the target area in circles, waiting their turn to attack. Official RAF and USAF records claim the destruction of thousands of AFVs in Normandy. There are many examples such as:

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2)
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3)
On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4)

So what really happened? Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign!

let me also add the source:

(2) P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death, Helion & Company Ltd, Solihull, UK, 2007, p. 171.
(3) N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000, p. 38.
(4) S. Wilson, Aircraft of WWII, Aerospace Publications Pty ltd, Fyshwick, ACT, Australia, 1998, p.85.
(5) P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death, Helion & Company Ltd, Solihull, UK, 2007, p. 171.
(6) N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000, pp. 38 and 52.
(7) N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000, p. 38.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Rather than attacking me, discuss what is written in the 2 links i provided.

The internet is a big place. I'm not surprised you found two articles that you think support your view (they don't btw, one of them clearly states that tac air frequently caused tanks crews to run away in fear thus destroying their tanks as a fighting force). Maybe read a little more broadly?

oh god, i was like you before. i read a little bit on the topic, i watched hollywood movies, watched the history channel, and i thought tactical bombers were ''the thing'', the stukas were pure awesomeness, like the rest i had been brainwashed by nazi propaganda about Rudel, Wittman etc. That is until...i started to dig deeper on the topic. I invite you to do the same.