Blade0 wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 5:16 am
Catacol wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 9:56 pm
I've changed the Air Attack values of all AAA in the units file - added 12 as a modifier to all. Much better. 3 concentrated 2x rapid fire AAA units can now fully suppress incoming tac and in general AAA scores more casualties. Game plays better, though I'm going to experiment a bit more with that +12 modifier and see whether it could go up or down a bit for better overall results.
In reality, WW2 showed that AA guns, especially ship-mounted AA is too weak to stop bombers.
Ship-based AA was usually relying on the frightening effect of tracer rounds and shrapnel explosions rather than the actual stopping power - they weren't accurate enough to score direct hits, and the ammunition wasn't lethal enough even when they did. The Kriegsmarine has learned the hard way when outdated wooden swordfish planes shot up the Bismark with apparent ease... and countless similar experiences followed from both sides.
The end of the era of battleships were signaled by airplanes bombing them to oblivion at open sea. I guess it was the same on land - AA is good to have if you don't have air superiority, but won't stop the enemy from hurting you, and mostly just drive them away from their intended targets (by suppressing them). The real solution is to have air superiority by having enough fighters, and that is the line doctrines continued after WW2 by developing hundreds if not thousands of new and newer jet airplanes. (While AD development has continued, but still not considered adequate on its own, whether to consider US aegis systems or Russian S- series long range missile systems.)
So, you can do that ofc., but you're ruining the historical dependability of the simulation.
I wouldn't say that the AA-guns were too weak. There were just a whole bunch of issues at play. A ship moves in multiple ways on the sea, especially when the sea is rough, that has a heavy impact on the accuracy. Add bad sighting due to bad weather and less light due to it being evening and you are left with even less to work with.
The swordfish also aren't particularly good examples, because their supposed weaknesses were actually a strength. Their low speed was a benefit, because the targeting-systems were set for faster planes and couldn't handle such a slow moving object. They were also flying low, which was an issue for Bismarck's heavy AA, as it had trouble firing at low targets. Being covered in fabric also helped, as often hits from flak would go straight through, causing no real damage, making the planes appear very sturdy. So the issue wasn't really the flak being too weak, but it being "too strong" for the target it was aiming at. For the same reason the Americans often used smaller caliber guns against the Japanese tanks, because their bigger guns would in many cases go through the tank without going off. Which meant that unless they actually hit someone inside the effect would be weaker than when compared to something like a 3.7cm gun. In general, the Bismarck would have benefitted a lot from being attacked by more modern airplanes. Same with the British attack on Taranto. Having used faster planes wouldn't have worked there.
Especially the 2cm guns did turn out to be a bit too weak against late war planes, but they weren't really too weak early on.
Air superiority being the decisive issue is clear, but that doesn't work only for battleships though. Anything is a lame duck when targetted by a superior enemy airfleet. Or better, anything is a lame duck if you manage to find one short moment in which you rule the sky. It's not like you could just attack with planes and it would automatically succeed. Look at the Battle of Midway. The Japanese air cover absolutely shredded one american attack after another, It was only when Japanese pilots lost focus and all went after the torpedo bombers and their escorts that the carriers were suddenly unprotected, and it ruined them quickly (thanks to Japanese bombers that were armed and fueled below the deck). This, alongside the sinking of the Glorious, also shows the weakness of carriers. At Midway, the Japanese were hoping to launch their planes, but constant american attacks kept them from doing so. A carrier that was under air attack couldn't launch its own strike force. At best it could deal with the starting and landing of its own air cover. If the Japanese had managed to launch their bombers before that decisive american attack, the hits would have caused far less damage, as there wouldn't have been this explosive mix of fuel and bombs right below the deck. While with the Glorious, the carrier couldn't do anything, as it had no guns to face the enemy battleships that had closed in, and couldn't start any planes without turning towards the German ships. Proper air recon could have prevented that, but only during the day. At night the ship would have been screwed as well.
There is a reason why the Americans generally paired their carriers with heavy escorts like battleships. You need something to protect the carriers when they are vulnerable (at night, during bad weather, when the enemy surprisingly came into close contact, etc.).
AA-guns also took down plenty of bombers, though at the expense of firing a lot of shells. The game might have it a bit too on the weak side when it comes to causing actual damage. Though having mainly supression as effect seems like the right choice. At the same time, the Allies lost more ground attack planes during the Normandy campaign than the Germans lost AFVs, and that certainly didn't happen due to the Luftwaffe.
