Forums
-
COMMUNITY NEWS & SUPPORT
-
- 1.5k
- posts
-
- .Fallback Initiated
- By tater,
-
- 112.1k
- posts
-
- By Kempi,
-
- 1.6k
- posts
-
- 49.3k
- posts
-
- Tanks and new 500kg bomb
- By dewars,
-
- 2.5k
- posts
-
-
Member Statistics
642,053
Total Members253
Most Online
Newest Member
kimmona
Joined -
Forum Statistics
427,745
Total Topics6,504,240
Total Posts -
Who's Online 15 Members, 0 Anonymous, 51 Guests (See full list)
- hogan99
- gagsy
- B2K
- TheMouse
- Scotsman
- jwilly
- csm308
- Tatonka
- OLDZEKE
- dewars
- hotrod
- reefmon
- dfire
- drkmouse
- Kempi
-
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events found -
Posts
-
By dewars · Posted
Ya, I understand. I do agree with you about the damage in game from flying many bomber sorties, especially with STG2 back in the day. It was always a surprise to a tank in the kill list. After a while I didn't even bother bombing the heavier tanks. As far as why they did it, I think it is hard to picture just the massive scope of WW2 in all areas. There were plenty of debates during and after the war about the effectiveness of bombing, especially strategic. And while I think that rubble certainly provided excellent cover for infantry, the devastation certainly wreaked havoc on supply, guns, infrastructure, communications, morale (lowering it significantly for the defender and raising it for the attacker). I mean, I think it's easier to get guys in the mood to storm a beach if they just heard/witnessed hell on earth shelling/bombing. It's a real confidence booster for the attacker if the thinks the enemy was all but wiped out. -
By undercova · Posted
the problem is that the bomber supply is kinda unlimited on map and easy to get new ones to the front line ppl already demanded to cut the aircraft supply ... like there were demands to cut armor supply too. both could be very healthy for the gameplay and population. and AA guns or air cover finally very important again -
By undercova · Posted
why not add AP bombs ?? kinda the same like HE bombs ... but less fragments ... but with armor penetration capability ? -
By Kidd27 · Posted
Thanks for all the productive information. You've really excelled at adding nothing but insult. Nice job! -
By tater · Posted
I always like to reality check stuff in terms of outcomes. Under the assumption that bombs are doing insufficient damage to tanks—heck, they could just find themselves tipped part way in a crater, or covered with a fallen building yet perfectly functional, but effectively out of action—we then need to look at the exact other side of that equation... Why are planes over the battlefield literally all the time? What % of the days in that region of the ETO were air operations not possible in daytime due to weather? Close air support functioned 0% at night. Would improved bomb damage come with aircraft disallowed flight at night, and stopped via weather some reasonable % of the time? An alternate way would be to figure out what % of the time aircraft typically operated in, and "roll the dice" on bomb hits. Say we can fly 100% of the time, and real aircraft flew 25% of the time. Drop bomb in exactly the right spot—and 75% of the time it's a dud. because your plane should have been grounded from weather, low light, etc. -
By SicnesS · Posted
Come back to the allies and you wont get pew pew'd anymore -
-
By SicnesS · Posted
i dont even bother bombing anything bigger than a pz2 now, just stick to squishes and buildings
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
fidd
56 -
2
Kilemall
53 -
3
Silky
26 -
4
jwilly
24 -
5
sorella
23 -
6
DOC
21 -
7
usaf77
19 -
8
tater
18 -
9
reefmon
18 -
10
Jsilec
18
-