Sad but trueHere is where we come to long-forgotten class of equipment: AT.
tank comparisons
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
skarczew wrote:
I do not know exact stats for P-51, how is it weaker than Messer?
- Me 262A: Air Attack - 28, Air Defence - 18, Initiative - 15.
TA 152H: Air Attack - 24, Air Defence - 20, Initiative - 11.
He 162A: Air Attack - 20, Air Defence - 18, Initiative - 15.
P-51D: Air Attack - 17, Air Defence - 19, Initiative - 12.
P-51H: Air Attack - 22, Air Defence - 19, Initiative - 14.
P-47D: Air Attack - 20, Air Defence - 20, Initiative - 11.
P-47N Air Attack - 24, Air Defence - 20, Initiative - 12,
Perhaps the Me 262A is too cheap for it's effectiveness, especially since unlike the Me 163B (range...), there's no downside in using it.
Then why didnt Me-262 change the outcome of the war?soldier wrote:A late war PZ IV would have to close in to near suicidal range to penetrate IS 2 armour. The IS 2 could destroy it long before thenA latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
Don't know much about the planes but i gather Me 262 was a lot faster and had more firepowerWhy is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest
Because they were hard to maintain and often prone to mechanical failiure.
How are they superior?Kerensky wrote:While I agree with some of the things you said, and we are hoping to address them, I'm curious why you feel that way about strategic bombers. The general consensus on them, myself included, is that they are actually far superior to tactical bombers.TigerIII wrote:Experience should matter more in this game. A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
And if a 3 star 13 strenght PzIV goes up against a 0 star 10 strenght IS2 i dont think it should be a total blowout victory for the IS2.
But the tank battles is not nearly as bad as the air battles.
If i field 5 Me-262 i will have air superiority against western allies by turn 4 or 5. This is annoying as the Me-262 was not even a good plane.
Why is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest? This is even worse than the tank battles.
If this is goingto be such a super plane, why not make it so expensive that you can perhaps afford one. If you didnt buy a Tiger2 the previous round.
Beyond 1943 i stop enjoying this game. Because all that matters is big shit tanks, cannonbirds, ufo planes, wurfrahmen and pioneers.
Forget recon vehicles, AT, AA, and strategic bombers, their useless.
And why not make the strategic bombers as usefull in PzC as they were in panzer general? Like, not allow re-supply if the stra bomb is standing right on top of a unit. this would make them usefull against cities and AA.
In Panzer General i would have more strategic bombers, than i had tac. But here they are useless.
viewtopic.php?t=28446
Artillery is superior in supressing.
-
ruskicanuk
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 am
Could fix the problem of heavies dominating the battlefield in PC by reducing their rate of fire / prestige cost. Mediums would be more potent (vs. artillery, AA, infantry, other light stuff) but still would struggle against the heavies.skarczew wrote:If we talk about tanks ...
Tiger II is overrated and too godly compared to its real performance from WWII.
The same about IS tanks.
Not for a reason Panzer III, IV, Stug, T-34, T-34/85, Sherman (in various versions) were the bread & butter in that war.
On a related note, soldier & Some1 is right about IS-2 having higher SA. Russian guns were not the best ones when it comes to efficiency HA, but the big caliber was somehow making up for it (this is also true for the post-war tanks' development - NATO tanks usually had smaller caliber than the Warsaw Pact ones).
A lot of those guns came from AA, Howitzers, therefore the ability to damage soft targets was not that bad.
If we can get enough people nagging the designers, maybe we can convince them to make this massive improvement in game design.
While the Me 262 of course was suffering to some degree with mechanical problems, it was a totally new technology after all, the main problem was more the fact that the production started when Germany actually already lost the war and was just prolonging it due to Hitler being to crazy to see the inevitable. When the enemy outnumbers you in the sky heavily, bombs your factories, infrastructure and cities into stone age and you lack every possible resource you just can not do anything no matter how good your equipment is. I be so bold to say even if in 1944 Germany could have developed something such sophisticated as modern jet fighters and they would still lose the war. Even if nothing could touch it in the air ... at some point you got land and then you get bombed into oblivion. This is as well what often happened to the Me262 as well.TigerIII wrote:Then why didnt Me-262 change the outcome of the war?soldier wrote:A late war PZ IV would have to close in to near suicidal range to penetrate IS 2 armour. The IS 2 could destroy it long before thenA latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
Don't know much about the planes but i gather Me 262 was a lot faster and had more firepowerWhy is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest
Because they were hard to maintain and often prone to mechanical failiure.
Theres a good interview with Adolf Galland (Fighter Ace and Head of Fighters in 44) about the Me 262 in the video " How Hitler lost the war".
He said during test flights it was so fast that other planes appeared to be standing still like hot air balloons. Hitler, in probably his strangest ever decision ordered it to be used as a bomber, so it was initially allocated to Bomber command. Galland seems to think that with a more Coordinated effort and earlier introduction the Me 262 could of halted the bombing raids. He believed that a squad of 262's could be used in the critical first strike effort to actually break up the bombers formation. Then the conventional fighters could follow up and target the separated bombers much more easily.
Their introduction was bungled and as mentioned by Iscaran and Tarrak, far too little, too late.
bit off topic maybe
He said during test flights it was so fast that other planes appeared to be standing still like hot air balloons. Hitler, in probably his strangest ever decision ordered it to be used as a bomber, so it was initially allocated to Bomber command. Galland seems to think that with a more Coordinated effort and earlier introduction the Me 262 could of halted the bombing raids. He believed that a squad of 262's could be used in the critical first strike effort to actually break up the bombers formation. Then the conventional fighters could follow up and target the separated bombers much more easily.
Their introduction was bungled and as mentioned by Iscaran and Tarrak, far too little, too late.
bit off topic maybe
Last edited by soldier on Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
They destroy supply as well as suppress.TigerIII wrote:How are they superior?
Artillery is superior in supressing.
Also a experienced Strategic Bomber can suppress an entire unit in some cases.
Not as vulnerable to AA fire.
Not to mention the obvious benefits of mobility.
Where is this 70% number taken from?Iscaran wrote: 70% of all ME-262s were destroyed during landing or starting operation....
Nothing more to add.
Also there have just been a few hundred of them built. There was nearly never an "entire" squadron of them anywhere.
Whilst P-51s (and consorts) where flying around in the hundreds.
I haven't read anything that would indicate such a high number of lost Me 262's when they were landing or taking off.
It's true the Allies focused on attacking Me 262's when they were taking off or landing, but this was hampered severely when the Germans added more FlaK units to defend the airfields as well as providing cover with FW190D's.
As for "few hundred" built, in it's various variants slightly over 1400 262's were built.
However due to fuel and pilot shortages (as well as the low amount of airfields that could support it) a much smaller amount of took part in actual combat.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
"Die Luftwaffe erhielt bis zum 10. April 1945 insgesamt 1039 Flugzeuge zugewiesen. Über 200 Flugzeuge waren nach ihrer Übernahme zerstört oder beschädigt worden. Bei den Einheiten waren 727 Verluste aufgetreten, davon 232 durch Feindeinwirkung. Im Bestand befanden sich noch 264 Flugzeuge, davon 134 am Feind, also in einsatzbereiten Einheiten"
Luftwaffe obtained until 10th April 1945 a total of 1039 Aircraft assigned. Over 200 of these where destroyed OR damaged after their acquisition. In the field units 727 losses where accounted, of which 232 where caused by direct enemy actions. In service left where 264 aircraft, of which 134 where "on the enemy", means in active service.
The passage is from: BA/MA Freiburg, Bestand RL 2III/624
direct enemy actions means shot down in air combat. All other losses where attributed to piloting errors or crashes during landing or starting.
Also, as I am too lazy too look up the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
"Allied pilots soon found the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Me 163 Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during takeoff or landing. Luftwaffe airfields identified as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land. The Luftwaffe countered by installing extensive flak alleys of anti-aircraft guns along the approach lines in order to protect the Me 262s from the ground, and providing top cover during the jets' takeoff and landing with the most advanced Luftwaffe single-engined fighters, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D and (just becoming available in 1945) Focke-Wulf Ta 152H. Nevertheless, in March–April 1945, Allied fighter patrol patterns over Me 262 airfields resulted in numerous losses of jets and serious attrition of the force."
There are books which count the numbers more precisely...but its useless IMO to debate whether it has been 70% shot during landing or on airfields, or 50% or even more than 70%.
"Die Luftwaffe erhielt bis zum 10. April 1945 insgesamt 1039 Flugzeuge zugewiesen. Über 200 Flugzeuge waren nach ihrer Übernahme zerstört oder beschädigt worden. Bei den Einheiten waren 727 Verluste aufgetreten, davon 232 durch Feindeinwirkung. Im Bestand befanden sich noch 264 Flugzeuge, davon 134 am Feind, also in einsatzbereiten Einheiten"
Luftwaffe obtained until 10th April 1945 a total of 1039 Aircraft assigned. Over 200 of these where destroyed OR damaged after their acquisition. In the field units 727 losses where accounted, of which 232 where caused by direct enemy actions. In service left where 264 aircraft, of which 134 where "on the enemy", means in active service.
The passage is from: BA/MA Freiburg, Bestand RL 2III/624
direct enemy actions means shot down in air combat. All other losses where attributed to piloting errors or crashes during landing or starting.
Also, as I am too lazy too look up the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
"Allied pilots soon found the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Me 163 Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during takeoff or landing. Luftwaffe airfields identified as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land. The Luftwaffe countered by installing extensive flak alleys of anti-aircraft guns along the approach lines in order to protect the Me 262s from the ground, and providing top cover during the jets' takeoff and landing with the most advanced Luftwaffe single-engined fighters, the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D and (just becoming available in 1945) Focke-Wulf Ta 152H. Nevertheless, in March–April 1945, Allied fighter patrol patterns over Me 262 airfields resulted in numerous losses of jets and serious attrition of the force."
There are books which count the numbers more precisely...but its useless IMO to debate whether it has been 70% shot during landing or on airfields, or 50% or even more than 70%.