The US forces M4A1 Sherman A is pathetic ???

[timberwolf15]

When the tank moves even down a road not having ANY contact it even looses efficiency other units seem not to. Then if it engages in battle it quickly looses lots of efficiency turns orange.
Maybe thats to mirror that the US tanks were an embarrassment in WW2 ?? Oh, in addition the US has no good tactical bomber I guess for the same reason - my B25 Mitchel B with 3 stars attacks an enemy infantry unit of two strength thats in the red efficiency but nothing happens wheeee ... Hey can I use the Blue carrier based planes on the airfields that are on the land ??? I figure not never mind I can so those are better ground attack bombers I will just use carrier based planes on the land airbases wheeeee !!!

[bru888]

Are you driving the Sherman around with Enhanced Armor enabled? (I forget the actual term but it involves adding sandbags to the front of the tank.) In that mode, any movement causes the tank to rapidly lose efficiency. Hmmm. I'm thinking you chose to place the enabled version directly on the map? The feature involves a switch based on the same model, on and off. Both versions may be available in the editor.

[Mascarenhas]

When the tank moves even down a road not having ANY contact it even looses efficiency other units seem not to. Then if it engages in battle it quickly looses lots of efficiency turns orange.
Maybe thats to mirror that the US tanks were an embarrassment in WW2 ?? Oh, in addition the US has no good tactical bomber I guess for the same reason - my B25 Mitchel B with 3 stars attacks an enemy infantry unit of two strength thats in the red efficiency but nothing happens wheeee ... Hey can I use the Blue carrier based planes on the airfields that are on the land ??? I figure not never mind I can so those are better ground attack bombers I will just use carrier based planes on the land airbases wheeeee !!!

In fact, both US and UK do not have an efficient tactical bomber as good as a Stuka, except for the embarked ones. I often use allied naval tactical bombers replacing B 25´s even on land operations. In the other hand, Mosquitoes and Lightnings may be pretty good at ground attack missions.

[Zekedia222]

Are you moving it through a JUNGLE road? Because it will lose 1 efficiency on a dirt road through a jungle, if not more.

[GabeKnight]

Please, not ANOTHER thread about the "unreliable" trait....

[kondi754]

Shermans are pretty good in OoB, I suppose it was caused by jungle or other hard terrain plus Enhanced Armor maybe

Tac bombers in OoB - this is a topic
I think this situation will be changed by Devs with future western Allies campaign
There is a result of the first US and British campaigns located at PTO (Pacific) or SEATO (South Eastern Asia, I mean Burma ) when tac bombers were mostly carrier based plane or naval aircraft based on land airfields, where standard bombers were few

I suppose that Devs will move some aircraft to tac bombers category (as they do with Focke-Wulfs) and improved their stats or maybe they implement to switch weapon (empty -> bombs/rockets) - but this option is rather unlikely.
Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Kittyhawk, some versions of Hurricane (eg. IID) and maybe Spitfire or Mustang (some versions) should be moved to tac bombers, and their stats should be increased
(Spitfire and Mustang fit perfectly for switch weapon option IMHO - excellent fighters and excellent jabos too)
Marauder, Mitchell, Havoc, Invader, Boston, Blenheim, some Wellington or Mosquito versions should be tac bombers too (not strategic) but with slightly different stats - less direct damages, more indirect (suppression)
There should be also added Maryland, Baltimore bombers for desert war period and of course Lancaster, Halifax or Stirling (strategic bombers)

We have to remember that allied fighter-bombers performed most of the tasks of direct support for land units in the late period of war
Example: only Typhoon's and Spitfire's squadrons attacked fortifications and enemy units on Walcheren during Allied amphibious assault at Scheldt estuary (unblocking the port of Antwerp for Allied supply ships in November 1944)

EDIT. Second example (better IMO): only Typhoons and Thunderbolts massacred two SS panzer regiments during a German counterattack at Mortain in Normandy in August 1944, so this aircraft were tac bombers and believe me, they were much better than German Stukas

[bru888]

Please, not ANOTHER thread about the "unreliable" trait....

No, no. Not from me, at least. I am on board with "unreliable" as a more or less historical fact concerning certain units, and I welcome it.

As a matter of fact, I burst into song:

Call me irresponsible, call me unreliable
Throw in undependable too
Do my foolish alibis bore you
Well, I'm not too clever, I just adore, uh, that is, like you.

[timberwolf15]

Yeah I'm moving around the tank with sandbags on it typically a yank thing to do improvise etc. so I am whining about realism .... and the plane issue that actually is accurate the Jerries had a great ground attack plane in the Stuka AND had great doctrine to use it.

tank us.png (769.76 KiB) Viewed 2692 times

[bru888]

Yeah I'm moving around the tank with sandbags on it typically a yank thing to do improvise etc. so I am whining about realism ....

Yes, that was what I was talking about. If you are designing something involving Sherman tanks, you probably want to choose the basic models. The sandbagged alternates (some but not all have "A" in the unit name) should be avoided unless you are creating a defensive, dug-in scenario:

Screenshot 1.jpg (121.02 KiB) Viewed 2690 times

[kondi754]

Yeah I'm moving around the tank with sandbags on it typically a yank thing to do improvise etc. so I am whining about realism .... and the plane issue that actually is accurate the Jerries had a great ground attack plane in the Stuka AND had great doctrine to use it.

tank us.png

You talk about early period of war, 1939-41? (or 43 on the Eastern front)

This plane wasn't great and this tactics too, but only Luftwaffe had very weak or old way-thinking opponents.
The truth about the Junkers and German tactics was shown during the Battle of Britain first, where they were decimated

The best close support planes during II world war was Typhoon and Thunderbolt (since the autumn of 1944, when began to carry missiles)

[kondi754]

Ok, to be honest Stuka was very solid aircraft but outdated even in 1939-40
It was very solid project so this plane was valuable against weak opponent (Poland, Norway, Belgium, Nederlands, Yugoslavia, Greece) or France, not adapted to conduct a modern war in 1940
Ju 87 was good also at the Eastern Front against poor trained Soviet pilots (was useful even in 1944-45, due to the specificity of air fighting in the east) and also over the Mediterranean Sea and North Africa, because of large area of operation, easier targets (Allies ships), the relatively small number of enemy fighters and more outdated models of these fighters (priority in modern equipment was given to squadrons stationed over the English Channel)

Unfortunately, as soon as they came into contact with the prepared and well-equipped opponent (the first was RAF in 1940), Ju 87 lost all their advantages

[Zekedia222]

I’d argue they lost because they were encountering fighters, when they had few escorts, but my knowledge is mainly focused on the Pacific Theatre.

[kondi754]

I’d argue they lost because they were encountering fighters, when they had few escorts, but my knowledge is mainly focused on the Pacific Theatre.

No, they had a proper escort, often twice or even three times more Bf 109 than the amount of Ju 87, but this didn't protect them from huge losses
Apart from the fact that the tactics adopted by the Luftwaffe were also a problem, these planes were slow, not very manoeuvrable and vulnerable to attacks. They were only suitable for diving attacks

[Zekedia222]

EDIT. Second example (better IMO): only Typhoons and Thunderbolts massacred two SS panzer regiments during a German counterattack at Mortain in Normandy in August 1944, so this aircraft were tac bombers and believe me, they were much better than German Stukas

Typhoons were also poor. Their rockets had only a 4% chance to actually hit the target. Those Thunderbolts were similarly armed with underwing rockets, which is a unit switch option for a later Thunderbolt unit. Its hard to say they are better than Stukas, when they had a 4% chance to hit the target, and even if they did, the rockets were weak enough to not destroy their target.

Even then, your proposals for some strategic bombers to become tactical bombers would make little difference. The power of the diver bomber is being able to... well... dive onto the target, releasing its bombs relatively close to the target ship. In game, the formerly strategic bombers’ effectiveness would be limited by this. They simply wouldn’t get the same precision, and thus the same attack capabilities.

[kondi754]

What strategic bomber I proposed for tac bomber?
All bombers I proposed are tactical bombers (or medium - two engines) in fact, which Devs named faultyly as Strategic
and I wrote that these planes (such as eg. Mitchell or Marauder or Wellington) should differ with "light" tac bomber (like Stukas or Dauntless or even Typhoon, which is poor in your opinion) beacuse these planes were significantly less precise, so their advantage should be supression, not direct damages inflicted to land units

When it comes to Typhoons and Thunderbolts, you think like person which live in XXI century, you don't realise with overall poor development of warfare technology in 40s. It was the time when everythings started.
Even if your revelations are true, and this 4 percent accuracy was indeed, it doesn't mean anything, add to this a well-matched tactics, excellent training of pilots and a relatively large number of simultaneously operating planes, so only these "poor" Typhoons destroyed 83, probably destroyed 29 and damaged 24 tanks near Mortain during only one day.
Typhoon was unsuccessful fighter, but turned out to be an excellent direct/close battelfield support plane or a fighter-bomber plane
Another important thing, not only the rockets were the weaponry of Typhoon and Thunderbolt but also various types of bombs

EDIT. When I wrote about Lancesters, Halifaxes or Stirlings I mean these planes don't exist in OoB arsenal and should be add as strategic bombers of course
Mitchells, Marauders, Invaders, Bostons, Havocs, Blenheims, Wellingtons, which are "strategic" now, they all are "tactical" in reality
Tactical bombers (sensu stricte) - medium, 2-engine bombers used for destroying enemy transport and logistic, supply depot, railway, bridges etc., when it comes to enemy units mostly for behind frontline attacks on grouping forces or units moving in the direction of the front line
Tactical bombers in OoB - jabos, dive bombers, fighter-bombers, assault aircraft or all direct/close battelfield suport planes, so used for precise attacks on enemy units, fotifcations, vehicles, ships etc

[Zekedia222]

A total 4% accuracy across all eight rockets. 83 tanks destroyed is pretty small, when each aircraft has 8 rockets. While yes, it can be alleviated somewhat, it still is not good. In one engagement, 250 tanks were claimed by the 2nd Tactical Airforce. Typhoons claimed 220 of these. Research teams sent in after the battle could only confirm 10 Typhoon kills, out of not just tanks, but all AFVs. This is despite the fact that some 800 Typhoons participated in this segment of operation Goodwood, and each had 8 rockets. At the least, 6400 rockets were fired by Typhoons...
Now, is it likely that they killed more? Yes. I’d say probably 40 or 50, but there is no reasoning or evidence behind that guess. So yeah, they were subpar.

[kondi754]

A total 4% accuracy across all eight rockets. 83 tanks destroyed is pretty small, when each aircraft has 8 rockets. While yes, it can be alleviated somewhat, it still is not good. In one engagement, 250 tanks were claimed by the 2nd Tactical Airforce. Typhoons claimed 220 of these. Research teams sent in after the battle could only confirm 10 Typhoon kills, out of not just tanks, but all AFVs. This is despite the fact that some 800 Typhoons participated in this segment of operation Goodwood, and each had 8 rockets. At the least, 6400 rockets were fired by Typhoons...
Now, is it likely that they killed more? Yes. I’d say probably 40 or 50, but there is no reasoning or evidence behind that guess. So yeah, they were subpar.

Sorry, but I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the data you cite, if you write that 800 Typhoons were used in op. Goodwood
The whole 2nd TAF (tactical air army used in Normandy by RAF) had 18 squadrons of Typhoons (and 1 squadron = 12 operational planes + 6 in reserve), additionally 2 sqaudrons stayed in Great Britain, so there were 20 squadrons of Typhoons ( 240 operational + 120 in reserve), maybe you think about 800 flights ?
In addition, only 7 squadrons used rockets, the rest (eg. all Canadian sqdrs) used bombs
Most of the sources I read treats Typhoons as excellent planes, which had great performance at low altitudes, were extremely stable in diving, resistant to fire from the ground and had excellent offensive armament.
During almost 3 months of fighting in Normandy, only 29 aircraft were lost as a result of combat losses, while Typhoons' huge contribution to victory was highlighted, both in the number of damaged vehicles, objects or enemy soldiers, as well as the psychological effect which exerted on the opponent.

BTW, I wrote about battle at Mortain (west Normandy), 7-8 August 1944, but you mentioned op. Goodwood, about 15th July 1944 (east Normandy, near Caen)
This is a huge difference because of such a fact, that Mortain was a US defensive battle - 2 US inf divisions defend before German Panzer Corps, there were a lot of tanks concentrated to attack, op. Goodwood was another Montgomery offensive to capture Caen, so German units were well hidden, in strengthened positions, there were also much more infantry, artillery and anti-tank guns than tanks, which (except maybe the Tigers ) are not defensive weapons

[Mascarenhas]

Thank you both Kondi and Zekedia for the illuminating discussion on this tactic bomber topic. I´m learning a lot.

[bru888]

Thank you both Kondi and Zekedia for the illuminating discussion on this tactic bomber topic. I´m learning a lot.

The forums at their best.

[kondi754]

Thank you both Kondi and Zekedia for the illuminating discussion on this tactic bomber topic. I´m learning a lot.

I'm happy that you have read and enjoyed it