Tactical bomber effectivity

[proline]

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.

And by dig deeper you mean you read two articles that support your view and ignored all other information.

[proline]

Actually, no... Germans didnt sent less tanks because of Allied tac air

Now you're in the territory of trying to revise pretty well documented facts. Rommel wanted the tanks at the shore, believing they could not be moved due to the presence of tac air. Other generals objected, saying that air and navy would make the whole area unsafe for tanks, and the majority of the tanks ended up stationed well back from the shore. Again, you can argue that the Germans were fools who could have simply ignored the threat from the air, but that's not how either side saw it at the time and it doesn't change the fact that the mere existence of tac air was enough to get tanks out of the action.

over whole Normandy campaign Western allies lost over 4000 tactical bombers (16000 crewmen were lost)

Why do you suppose they built 4,000 tac bombers? Because in the real world, they work. It doesn't matter if they work by scoring hits, preventing the enemy from deploying tanks at all, destroying support vehicles, or scaring the crews into running away. Either way, they defeated the enemy. The rest is academic.

[proline]

Rommel himself was destroyed by tac air, btw, which severely weakened the tanks under his command. This is the kind of detail that the game accurately reflects via tac bomber stats that some posters here seem oblivious to.

[JagdpanzerIV]

And by dig deeper you mean you read two articles that support your view and ignored all other information.

No, are you done writing stuff about me like you knew anything? Focus on the topic at hand. Read the first post of the thread. I just told you my view has changed over the years. Those 2 articles are easily accessible, with references.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Found another source;

"The effectiveness of these bombs proved to be limited. West of Belgorod, the Soviet Air Force claimed to have destroyed over 270 tanks of the 3rd Panzer Division on one single day. The 6th Regiment of the 3rd Panzer Division possessed 90 tanks in total (on the 1st of July). Ten days later, on the 11th of July, 41 operational tanks were reported, a difference of 49 tanks. Similar statements appear about the bombing run on the 17 th Panzer Division, which had only one tank battalion with 67 tanks committed to the fighting in the Belgorod-Kharkov area (the only unit not assigned to a defensive role). Here, the VVS stated to have destroyed 240 tanks in just a few hours. German combat reports show a larger concern about concentrated AT positions (and minefields), which caused the majority of AFV losses during Operation Citadel. Air strikes were usually described as “a mere nuisance”."

Before you all start crying again, this is not my opinion, but an article you can discuss...

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/artic ... ng-ww2.php

[JaM2013]

yeah, makes sense, even with today's ballistic computers, free fall bomb accuracy is relatively low, around 20m CIP in ideal conditions with no enemy AA presence.. in WW2, when pilots were under heavy fire from light flaks, bomb accuracy would be extremely low... (btw, 20m CIP means 20m dispersion from a point you aim at. laser guided bombs usually have 10m CIP, GPS guided under 5m - in WW2, average CIP would be around 100m for level throw, and around 50m for dive bomber.) Of course, height of release would play a big role, yet low height throws would be extremely demanding on pilot, especially when under fire from flak.

[proline]

Before you all start crying again, this is not my opinion, but an article you can discuss...

Frankly there is no need to discuss this article or any other you have provided, because they are irrelevant to the topic of the effectiveness of tac air against tanks. Nobody here disagrees with the evidence that tac air wasn't effective at blowing up tanks- you are arguing that point only with yourself. This is the only point you've been able to make and frankly it's getting tiring. What you don't understand is that to destroy a tank unit there is no need whatsoever to blow up the tank. Tac air can easily destroy tanks by

1) hitting their fuel trucks
2) making the crews run away
3) forcing tank units to engage in tactics such as only fighting at night that hinder their abilities
4) picking off key leaders such as Rommel
5) improving the morale of nearby friendly units
6) creating a distraction for tank crews
7) making it unsafe to maintain the tanks

Notice nowhere on the list does it say anything about blowing up the tank? That's because the destruction of tanks requires no such thing. So stop obsessing over that and join us in a conversation about the actual effectiveness of tac bombers, which is the name of this thread. Furthermore, for someone who claims to be hurt that nobody wants to discuss your sources, you sure don't respond to anyone else's sources. Read Carius' book. He lost 3 of his 10 jagdTigers to tac air. Ouch.

[JaM2013]

your points are quite funny actually... not sure how do you imagine a tank combat, but it was not about single crew... so suggesting that let say a tank battalion on the move, would have its crew run away just because there are some planes in the air, is quite funny. If anything, crew would just buttoned up, close the hatches and wait till plane flies away... there was very small chance for a plane to actually penetrate the tank armor, so you would be perfectly safe inside... a lot more safe, than running around, and being easy target for a strafing plane...
Same thing for idea that some tank unit would rather fight during night, when they couldn't see anything is also very ridiculous. If anything, supply transports would be moving around during nights, but definitely not the fighting...

Also, Rommel was not a tank commander.. he was commanding marshal of entire German forces in France... so it has nothing to do with tactical air effectivity against tanks.

From game perspective, Tac bombers are not reducing fuel or ammo, but doing direct damage, which is completely wrong.. that was the main reason why i started this thread here...

[JagdpanzerIV]

Field Marshall Rommel contributed to a further solidification of these myths. In one of his memoirs, he stated:

“ For the first and most serious danger which now threatened us -was from the air. This being so, we could no longer rest our defence on the motorised forces used in a mobile role, since these forces were too vulnerable to air attack. We had instead to try to resist the enemy in field positions which had to be constructed for defence against the most modern weapons of war”

His personal experience may have clouded his view. On the 17th July 1944 a low attacking plane strafed his limousine and injured Rommel near Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery.

the low attacking plane was probably not a tactical bomber either ways.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Before you all start crying again, this is not my opinion, but an article you can discuss...

Frankly there is no need to discuss this article or any other you have provided, because they are irrelevant to the topic of the effectiveness of tac air against tanks. Nobody here disagrees with the evidence that tac air wasn't effective at blowing up tanks- you are arguing that point only with yourself. This is the only point you've been able to make and frankly it's getting tiring. What you don't understand is that to destroy a tank unit there is no need whatsoever to blow up the tank. Tac air can easily destroy tanks by

1) hitting their fuel trucks
2) making the crews run away
3) forcing tank units to engage in tactics such as only fighting at night that hinder their abilities
4) picking off key leaders such as Rommel
5) improving the morale of nearby friendly units
6) creating a distraction for tank crews
7) making it unsafe to maintain the tanks

Notice nowhere on the list does it say anything about blowing up the tank? That's because the destruction of tanks requires no such thing. So stop obsessing over that and join us in a conversation about the actual effectiveness of tac bombers, which is the name of this thread. Furthermore, for someone who claims to be hurt that nobody wants to discuss your sources, you sure don't respond to anyone else's sources. Read Carius' book. He lost 3 of his 10 jagdTigers to tac air. Ouch.

It is strange that what you list as 7 key points to remove tanks from the map, were described by the german army usually as “a mere nuisance”. Also, i myself wrote down that tanks without fuel are pretty much useless, you are the one saying i don't understand that SIGH.

What is tiresome is the words you put in mouth. (or on my keyboard for that instance)

[JagdpanzerIV]

To add a realistic meaning for tactical bombers in the game, some missions could ask us to blow up a bridge or bridges, destroy key supply dumps (out of reach of ground forces), flew reconnaissance missions, destroy a given number of soft units, destroy airfields etc.

[JaM2013]

easy "fix" would be to give all planes same effect artillery has - doing mostly suppression for a turn, with minimal kills. If it would be combined with "strategic bomber ability" to reduce ammo and fuel of attacked unit, it would be perfect.

I was actually thinking about just make all bombers to be "strategic bomber" type to have that, and instead make current "tactical bomber" cover the "heavy fighter" or "antibomber" class.. (so they will be not able to escort other planes).. only problem is that strategic bombers have some additional bonuses against AAA during attack, so AntiAir units would have to get a huge bonus to still be effective, while they would eat the fighters alive.

[captainjack]

I was actually thinking about

Some possibilities.
tac bombers as heavy fighters. Give them active AA, limited ammo and remove ground attack (they are too high to bother with ground targets)
interdiction/ground attack. tac bomber stats but strategic bomber class but drop the GD by at least 5 (Tac bombers get -5 defence on low altitude attack, which a strat bomber wouldn't get).
Direct attack - dive bombers and tank busting aircraft (whether they really busted tanks or simply thought they did). Eg Stukas, Sturmovik, Hurribombers. As current Tac bombers but only passive AA instead of active AA - too low level to spot and engage aerial targets. This would probably work for anti-shipping dive bombers and low level torpedo bombers.

If the plane can operate as more than one role within the same class, don't allow switching (which would be a change within missions) but allow 'upgrade' at minimal or zero cost when on an airfield to represent changing out weapons package.

The heavy fighter role works quite well for the 110 and 410, and Akkula uses the free 'upgrade' to change weapons platform in Modern Warfare. The others I more or less made up on the spot just now, so they may need a bit of testing and adjustment.

[Kirby]

I don't understand this hype over tactical bombers tbh.

For tactical bombers in PC to outright kill an enemy tank, they need a high enough attack, 13-14 overstrenght, the tank needs to be in open terrain, and weather needs to be "clear".
In a similar fashion, for AA guns to outright kill enemy aircraft, they need in range (heh), a high enough air attack, to be 14-15 overstrenght, and the target has to have low ground defence and weather needs to be "clear".

Compared to this, a German tank or AT on Tiger or Panther chassis with 13-14 overstrenght can do exactly the same on a clear or cloudy day. An strong allied AT can do the same with some artillery support.
However, unlike tactical bombers, armored units provide protection for soft targets on the field, restrict enemy movement by projecting a zone of control, are almost impossible to kill with artillery, and are hard to kill if they have artillery and AA support.

For the German player, Stukas are cheap and thus cheap to overstrenght, so there might be some logic to field a bit more, and British Mosquito/BF110 can be used to attack bombers coming your way, so there's some logic in having a few, but for killing tanks, the secret weapon I prefer is close terrain So, by that logic, infantry is at least twice as effective as tactical bombers, because it can kill all types of soft and hard target in close terrain in various weather. In 39-40 it makes sense for Germans to field more Stukas because their tanks suck. But as Panzer IV F gets introduced, Stukas start to lose their "oomph" rapidly and lose it completely by the introduction of Panther D.

As some people mentioned, focusing more on AA and a few strat bombers can yield surprisingly good results.

Conclusion: yes, tactical bombers are great, but their use is limited by almost everything the game can throw at you. I'd say having 0-3 (depending on map and season) is about right. The 3-5 core slots you just freed yourself up can be used for many things: an additional flanking force, a task force to capture another objective, bridging units, more artillery etc. The point of the game is to keep your forces moving (or defending). The enemy isn't restricted by # of turns - you are.

[econ21]

I don't understand this hype over tactical bombers tbh.

The thing about flying units in computer games such as Panzer General (or Civilisation, for that matter) is (a) extreme mobility; (b) adding a third dimension (vertical) to the ground combats.

On mobility, yes, a heavy tank attack or close terrain trap could be more lethal, but you can't always pull them off quickly. You might be out of position or blocked by the AI. But once you are rid of AA, your plans can strike in a very wide radius. They can rescue you from a bad situation; they can take out the most threatening AI unit (IS tank, AI artillery in range of your defending infantry etc) before it can hurt or at least, they are guaranteed to be in the very spot where your attack is spearheaded.

On adding a dimension, yes, a heavy tank or close terrain trap can be lethal but you can have an air strike too! It's a force multiplier (just like artillery) that can turn an even fight into one in your favor or minimise casualties. Increasingly, I am looking for attacks that kill AI units - otherwise they just retreat and heal up. Often your prime targets are very tough (e.g. IS tanks). Prepping with an air strike can knock the target's health down to where a killing blow from the ground is possible. Or your planes can kill off a wounded unit that has retreated before it can heal up.

To be honest, I find my air wing in Panzer Corps to be the decisive one (also true in PG and PG2) - so much so, that I sometimes consider stagger ground offensives so that I can devote the entire airfleet to one part of the map before moving it on to the offensive starting in the next. A couple of turns of my stukas (2xJu87D, 2xJu87G) is usually enough to turn the tide of a fierce 1943 E or 1944 E fight.

I agree this may be specific to stukas (Rudel!) and similar hard hitters. I find the ME410 and Fw190 fighter bomber rather meh. Strategic bombers are great, but more niche (suppressing a lethal AI unit, entrenched victory hexes and penned in units you want to surrender) so I usually only field one.

There is a considerable cost to a large air wing, as it requires a lot of fighters too. But provided you can get air supremacy (usually possible in a campaign, as you can build up experience and field an overwhelming airforce), it is worthwhile.

[ycloon]

GC41 Rudel definitely makes the stuka shine! The value of the fighter bombers (Me 110, 410, Fw-190F/G) is their versatility. They can do air and ground attacks, but do not excel at either. Thus, their performance in either attack category is mediocre. In my previous playthrough of GC East, in which I retained scripted heroes like Rudel, the stukas definitely were lethal. However, in my current playthrough, in which I do not retain scripted heroes, stukas are less powerful (have not had much luck with the random heroes). I've developed a better appreciation of the versatility of the fighter bombers.

[econ21]

Rudel is absolutely OP but by 1944, I find a strength 15 Ju87D almost as good as Rudel - they can both one-shot artillery or suppressed AA etc. And even a 10 strength 5 star Ju87G is about as good against Soviet armor as Rudel was in 1941.

If you keep the scripted heroes, in the GC you end up with a lot of fighter heroes - so hybrids are less important. In GC44, I have seven fighters - four are scripted heroes.

I can see a minor role for hybrids - finishing off wounded fighters or attacking bombers. I've kept Lent in one. But for the bulk of your air force, I suspect specialisation is better - fighter combat is very lethal, so often want to go in with the best units. And I find the stukas to be overwhelming when you really need them to cope with the Russian mass armored attacks.

[Kirby]

They can rescue you from a bad situation; they can take out the most threatening AI unit (IS tank, AI artillery in range of your defending infantry etc) before it can hurt or at least, they are guaranteed to be in the very spot where your attack is spearheaded.

Yes, and this is exactly the role they play in PC. So you want 2-3, not 6.

In my opinion, a good air force is critical for the campaign, but the ground comp needs to be self-sufficient, and if weather permits, air force just speeding things up. I've played plenty of scenarios (both in PC and PG1/PGF) where I didn't manage decisive victories because I was over-reliant on the air force (think Moscow 41/43).

[captainjack]

I sometimes consider stagger ground offensives

That sounds reasonable. As I often play with a smaller airforce, I usually concentrate them in support of one of the attacking ground forces, then move on and repeat. When I tried a larger air force recently, the same approach worked just as well. With twice or three times as many bombers pounding the area, it worked a bit faster on any one target. Of course, since larger air force means smaller ground force, you need more intense air support so it certainly isn't a free lunch, and especially if you get frequent bad weather.

It can be easy to forget that moving a unit into contact doesn't mean you have to attack immediately, especially once you get SPArt that can back up units in contact who will usually be left alone by the AI. Staggering your attacks by delaying movement or pinning the enemy until it suits you to attack properly can both work.

[LevV]

can somebody please advise which parameter in equipment file determines if tac bomber can attack subs or not?