stump

Ordnance arming timers should be compensated for

149 posts in this topic

As I stated we will look at the results of live game play and make adjustments as necessary. Our QA team is made up of players and pilots. Before going off the deep end and making assumptions get in game and try it. 

I think you will find that in order to drop and not have the bomb arm you would be in the ground anyway which is the point. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addition: "Besonders häufig wurden Abwurfwaffen der Güteklasse II eingesetzt, da diese für die meisten Ziele ausreichend stabil waren. Die Güteklasse I und III wurden vermehrt gegen Schiffe (in diesem Fall mit Kopfring) oder als Bomben mit Langzeitzündern eingesetzt."

"Most often ordonance of grade II was used, because it was firm enough for most targets. Grade I and III where used most commonly against shipping or as bombs with long time delayed fuzes."

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/waffenwerkstatt-hauptraum/bomben/sc-250

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stump said:

Before ordnance arming timers are implemented, bombs should be able to kill medium and heavy tanks without having to literally land on top of them.

No.

 

 

...and anyway, I would love to hear why you expect an indirect bomb blast to "kill" a tank while also expecting that same tank to be able to withstand direct hits from high velocity anti-tank rounds? What exactly do you think the bomb blast is doing? In the case of a crater being formed (which is not in the game but could arguably be simulated), why would this have physical effects any different from, say, the tank accidentally driving into a ditch?

Bombs absolutely can and did destroy tanks. ....it just happened mostly while they were in pieces on assembly lines rather than on the battlefield.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, xanthus said:

No.

 

 

...and anyway, I would love to hear why you expect an indirect bomb blast to "kill" a tank while also expecting that same tank to be able to withstand direct hits from high velocity anti-tank rounds? What exactly do you think the bomb blast is doing? In the case of a crater being formed (which is not in the game but could arguably be simulated), why would this have physical effects any different from, say, the tank accidentally driving into a ditch?

Bombs absolutely can and did destroy tanks. ....it just happened mostly while they were in pieces on assembly lines rather than on the battlefield.

The effect CAS had on armor was mostly killing the support vehicles. The ammo carriers, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the actual research performed by the different sides of WW2, you'll see that 500kg and less bombs required either direct or extremely close hits to effectively kill a tank.

These kills were caused in three ways:

1) Crew kill

2) Hull destroyed

3) Mobility kill

 

A mobility kill was more possible with closer hits, as the force of the bombs could hit the unprotected tracks and damage some mechanisms there.

However, unless the tank construction was inferior or a bomb scored a literal direct hit, a hull destruction simply wouldn't occur unless the pressure wave set off fuel or ammo inside the armored vehicle or the shrapnel pierced very thin walls.

The most likely thing to happen is that very large bombs within 1-3 meters of the target could cause a pressure wave that sometimes killed the crew.

While I suspect that the pressure wave of the bombs against tanks aren't modelled accurately enough in this game, there seems to be a very historically inaccurate expectation of the players that CAS against armored targets is extremely effective, and that a 500 lb bomb landing 20 feet away should kill everything.

Part of this is due to the very inaccurate reports of pilots during WW2 for every side, and something that even the pencil pushers and researchers and note takers at the time noticed. Reports made for German High Command were something like 50% of what the LW claimed they killed, because pilots were so unreliable. There was apparently at least one ocassion for British High Command where they went and looked at the supposed 300 tanks killed by rocket air strikes and found only 10 tanks actually damaged at all.

Airstrikes were terrifying, and had the potential to be scarily effective, but much more often than not they were just not terribly effective. It's why cannon-mounted tankbusters were developed, because bombs were just not that good due to several factors, and the early rockets of WW2 were also often not good enough. Shooting is typically far more accurate than the early aviation bombsights or unguided rockets mounted on the wings, and accuracy is everything (aside from sufficient penetration) when trying to destroy tanks.

 

In this, WWIIOL, aside from perhaps some pressure wave issues with 500 lb bombs not killing the crew sometimes when 1-3m out, is far more realistic than the expectations of players.

Edited by chaoswzkd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everything Moz has said in correct.  Min alt for the stuka... not only to pull out of the dive was something like 800 ft, but the bomb blast was 1000 ft min safe altitude.  Secondly the stukas primary goal was not to go after armor per se, it was for precision bombing and even then hitting a tank sized target was very diffiucult.  Thirdly if realism for ordinance is one of the primary goals - which it is you cannot ignore what Scotsman has said about the resilience to GP bombs tanks actually have.  Rans, one of our premiere bomber pilots has said his ability to kill tanks has been drastically reduced for tanks better than the 38t. 

Enter the TB.. and they are doing pretty good as the pilots are getting better.  The stuka is a much better platform for the TB role. They handle better at low speeds and are more stabile than the p36 or H2D.  The H2D seems to be way underpowered to do TB work. Soon as you turn you bleed E like crazy and lose stability.  The H2C handles a hell of a lot better with bombs and cannons but is just as ineffectual vrs tanks now.

 

Just looked at campaign stats for the TBs. They doing pretty good.

Stuka G2 has 153 tank kills this map, 46 of those are S76s - 9 Ch7s

H2D has 77 tank kills with 16 being Tigers

P39N has 0 sorties this map... which is a indication of how lame it is so nobody is flying them.

The DB7 has 165 tank kills this map - 65 being 232s, 29 2cs and 17 being 38ts. 1 StugG kill, 1 tiger kill and 10 P4G kills.  The 69 other kills are for the StugB, 4D, 3f, and 3H.

Stuka has 97 tank kills this map. Primary kills are T0-1 tanks. Very few T2-3 tanks.. mb 25% total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Silky said:

Armour seems overly protected

Tell us how armour was historically knocked out then. 

You'll find the amount that air did was very small. Even huge heavy bombing raids impacted the logistics of armour more than the individual armour units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, redoak84 said:

There are accounts of near misses flipping or tipping armor during the war. 

Yes and we have seen some of the pictures let alone tanks that have fallen into the crators left over from bomb blasts.  Scotsman has addressed those and the size of the bombs to even toss a R35 where the pressure wave probably killed the crew anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I retract my statements on the effectiveness of bombs, and will monitor how this delay impacts my gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xanthus said:

No.

 

 

...and anyway, I would love to hear why you expect an indirect bomb blast to "kill" a tank while also expecting that same tank to be able to withstand direct hits from high velocity anti-tank rounds? What exactly do you think the bomb blast is doing? In the case of a crater being formed (which is not in the game but could arguably be simulated), why would this have physical effects any different from, say, the tank accidentally driving into a ditch?

Bombs absolutely can and did destroy tanks. ....it just happened mostly while they were in pieces on assembly lines rather than on the battlefield.

Kind of makes wonder how many tanks Hans Rudel actually destroyed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

The stuka is a much better platform for the TB role. They handle better at low speeds and are more stabile than the p36 or H2D.  The H2D seems to be way underpowered to do TB work. Soon as you turn you bleed E like crazy and lose stability. 

Really? The hurri has the more powerfull guns and in my opinion is the way better gun platform, not to speak about it's better chance of survival, which is immense compared to the stuka. Worst thing: You have to trim the stukaG2 downward 50% for it to fly straight. I think that says a lot about it's tendency not to give you a stable and predictable approach. You have to practice a lot to get your shots somewhat placed. I have to try out the allied planes more in the next intermission to get a good picture about this though, I only flew them a few times.

1 hour ago, stankyus said:

Just looked at campaign stats for the TBs. They doing pretty good.

Stuka G2 has 153 tank kills this map, 46 of those are S76s - 9 Ch7s

H2D has 77 tank kills with 16 being Tigers

P39N has 0 sorties this map... which is a indication of how lame it is so nobody is flying them.

First: You have to take the number of missions spend to achieve this kills into account of course if you want to compare the effectiveness of a plane: 906 sorties and 153 kills for the stuka, 383 missions and 77 kills for the H2D. That puts them really close together (edit: with the hurri being a bit more effective - 0,17 kills per mission versus 0,2). Remeber that the Stuka is flying out of every gerrman bomber wing, the hurri on the other side is not.

And you forgot the french P39 with the cannon, the Bell 26mle. It has not many kills though. The bell seems to be quite unpopular in general as it seems.

Edit: And I am not sure what you counted as "tank" and what not? Is the Allied SPAA a tank? Is the Pz2c a tank? Just asking.

 

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rotsechs said:

Tell us how armour was historically knocked out then. 

You'll find the amount that air did was very small. Even huge heavy bombing raids impacted the logistics of armour more than the individual armour units. 

I understand German armour movement during the day was minimal 1944 onwards specifically because of the fighter bomber threat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Really? The hurri has the more powerfull guns and in my opinion is the way better gun platform, not to speak about it's better chance of survival, which is immense compared to the stuka. Worst thing: You have to trim the stukaG2 downward 50% for it to fly straight. I think that says a lot about it's tendency not to give you a stable and predictable approach. You have to practice a lot to get your shots somewhat placed. I have to try out the allied planes more in the next intermission to get a good picture about this though, I only flew them a few times.

For me personally?
The stuka G2 is easier (easier mind you, not easy)
It remains stable at much slower speed, it is a stuka after all.
You can tell it is heavy though.
And the slower speed stability lets me try and get the guns on target, sorta, my gunnery sucks so no promises of an actual fatal hit.

The allied 2 are too fast for me, and trying to bring them down to the speed i can run the stuka at makes them terribly twitchy, and i can not hold them still.

Tank is a small thing for me to try running up on fast and be able to actually aim at any useful spot, probably anyone would be better at it than i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten pretty good at maneuvering a G2 for attack runs. Completely worthless against enemy air, but that's true for any plane I fly.

The G2 seems quite stable for me, though I only go around 20% down on my elevation so my plane helps with breaking off of runs. Just means getting the actual target centered is a bit more difficult. Once I get a good rhythm going, I can stay in the air and do swooping runs pretty reliably until I run out of ammo. Can't dodge AAA well at all, though.

 

I would assume, and this is pure assumption, that the poor armament of the G2 is actually a better design, because the Allied ones are made so much heavier than normal from having so many guns. So while they have better guns, they fly like the HE111 with the profile of a normal fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/#Normandy 1944: the RAF’s and USAF’s Story

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!

Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.

Edited by GrAnit
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

As I stated we will look at the results of live game play and make adjustments as necessary. Our QA team is made up of players and pilots. Before going off the deep end and making assumptions get in game and try it. 

I think you will find that in order to drop and not have the bomb arm you would be in the ground anyway which is the point. 

No sir I tried it in game before I came here and it is a disaster. German bombs already blew up, doing more damage to the pilot than the target if he wasnt careful. Now as I stated before you are asking pilots to drop bombs before targets render including atgs... well everything. This coupled by how already non lethal your bombs were in game and they are now usesless--thanks. 

It seems you guys forgot to account for the speed of the plane and think its only like 31metes off the ground--not the 6/700 actually needed now. smoooth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree the render distance needs to be increased.  It was an issue prior to the latest update.  Needs to be >1.2 km from the air to the ground, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrAnit said:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/#Normandy 1944: the RAF’s and USAF’s Story

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!

Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.

Awesome post

 

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, redst0rm said:

No sir I tried it in game before I came here and it is a disaster. German bombs already blew up, doing more damage to the pilot than the target if he wasnt careful. Now as I stated before you are asking pilots to drop bombs before targets render including atgs... well everything. This coupled by how already non lethal your bombs were in game and they are now usesless--thanks. 

It seems you guys forgot to account for the speed of the plane and think its only like 31metes off the ground--not the 6/700 actually needed now. smoooth. 

At a near vertical dive, in the Stuka at it’s max dive speed (600km/h), you should be able to drop around 450m AGL and it should have enough time to arm. It’s about 2.7 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are von Runstedt’s comments following D-Day:

“the enemy succeeded by attacking in force and uninterruptedly with his air force to interrupt supplies and replacements and cause so many casualties in rolling stock and motorised columns that supply and replacements have become a very serious problem.

The nearer the battle area, the more frequently appear the fighters and bombers employed in “road-chasing,” By their attacks they interrupt all major movements in good weather by day and by using flares at night.

The emphasis of the enemy air attacks lay at first on the main highways. but now they are attacking every form of movement, covering an area of at least 20 km. behind the main line of resistance, as well as by-roads in the battlefield.

Wherever the enemy’s reconnaissance shows a disposition of troops, an attack by bomber formations follows within a short time. It is absolutely essential that motor vehicles keep long distances from each other within the columns.”

Edited by Silky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vanapo said:

Really? The hurri has the more powerfull guns and in my opinion is the way better gun platform, not to speak about it's better chance of survival, which is immense compared to the stuka. Worst thing: You have to trim the stukaG2 downward 50% for it to fly straight. I think that says a lot about it's tendency not to give you a stable and predictable approach. You have to practice a lot to get your shots somewhat placed. I have to try out the allied planes more in the next intermission to get a good picture about this though, I only flew them a few times.

First: You have to take the number of missions spend to achieve this kills into account of course if you want to compare the effectiveness of a plane: 906 sorties and 153 kills for the stuka, 383 missions and 77 kills for the H2D. That puts them really close together (edit: with the hurri being a bit more effective - 0,17 kills per mission versus 0,2). Remeber that the Stuka is flying out of every gerrman bomber wing, the hurri on the other side is not.

And you forgot the french P39 with the cannon, the Bell 26mle. It has not many kills though. The bell seems to be quite unpopular in general as it seems.

Edit: And I am not sure what you counted as "tank" and what not? Is the Allied SPAA a tank? Is the Pz2c a tank? Just asking.

 

Go fly the H2D and compare the handling with the H2C and Stuka G. You will find the H2D is lacking engine power and the Stuka is more stable at the slower speeds.  Not saying any are easy, but grades of difficulty.  Also, extend those H2D flaps and see how well things go for you.. LOL. I though that was an answer however I slowed down enough to stop the overspeed vibration to make a turn and pretty much depart from flight. 

As far as the guns go, the Stuka has much more punch than the H2D due to it being APCNR rounds.  Just the way it was.

There are no P39N missions so I don't have anything to say about it except.. nobody wants to fly it. Part because the plane does not do well at slow speed, the yaw is difficult and the AT gun might be good at killing 38ts.. When it first came out, all I could kill with it was 251s and 232s, hit a few 2Cs and got a single kill- never saw a 38t to try it on..  I even suicide dived at a near 90^ onto the deck to see if I could kill it and it did not even get the tank to smoke. I rather have the 37mm get HE for A2A action so its useful.

I did not count SPAA because all the SPAA have very exposed crew.

One last thing to note - the point of my post was more to the fact that the TBs are killing tanks rather well compared to bomber command.  153 tank kills in a map.. eh Rans in the past has done better than 152 tank kills in a db7 during shorter maps alone.  So while bomber commands ability to kill tanks, the TB is starting to pick up the slack and will continue to do so.  Apart from the P39N which is about as useless than it ever has been.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Silky said:

These are von Runstedt’s comments following D-Day:

“the enemy succeeded by attacking in force and uninterruptedly with his air force to interrupt supplies and replacements and cause so many casualties in rolling stock and motorised columns that supply and replacements have become a very serious problem.

The nearer the battle area, the more frequently appear the fighters and bombers employed in “road-chasing,” By their attacks they interrupt all major movements in good weather by day and by using flares at night.

The emphasis of the enemy air attacks lay at first on the main highways. but now they are attacking every form of movement, covering an area of at least 20 km. behind the main line of resistance, as well as by-roads in the battlefield.

Wherever the enemy’s reconnaissance shows a disposition of troops, an attack by bomber formations follows within a short time. It is absolutely essential that motor vehicles keep long distances from each other within the columns.”

 

This is exactly the point made by the video, listen carefully (link set to start at the timepoint where this is discussed):

https://youtu.be/7t2cRZTv14o?t=7m25s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks can't function without supplies, fuel, and crew.  

 

The vast majority of armor "disabled" by Allied air power was done by attacking the above.  

 

Many times crews would just abandon perfectly functional vehicles at the sight of the air force.  

 

That's where von Runstedt's comments yield some answers.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Capco said:

Tanks can't function without supplies, fuel, and crew.  

 

The vast majority of armor "disabled" by Allied air power was done by attacking the above.  

 

Many times crews would just abandon perfectly functional vehicles at the sight of the air force.  

 

That's where von Runstedt's comments yield some answers.  

So is the idea that aircraft strafing or bombing armour misguided?

if we wanted to start with historical accuracy and work backwards, where do we start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.