-
Do airplanes get a close range bonus (+3) for fireing at distance 1?
Do bombs also get this bonus?
this came up in ff5.
-
武士に二言無し
Italy
Caravaggio
Europe + Earth + Via Lactea
-
Hi wietse,
Effectively , nothing in rules negates this nor for the airplane (the only one capable is the Hs 123) nor for bombs, so Yes.
F.
-
Lukasz Biernat
Poland
Dabrowa Gornicza
-
The plane in FF5 is BRUTAL. Those flanking CC attacks devastate the defenders like it's nothing.
-
-
I managed to hit it directly after it entered the map with the AA machine gun, but if that's taken out its very dangerous.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
I thought bombs were treated as weapons (thus no extra bonuses). And yes, this biplane is way too powerful.
-
-
If bombs dont get a bonus, why use a bomb at range 1 (fp 6) instead of the planes normal attack(4+3)?
-
Lukasz Biernat
Poland
Dabrowa Gornicza
-
Because you could drop all your bombs at once, with a single 2 impulse payment.
-
Moises Del Mar
Costa Rica
Quepos
-
don't have the game in front of me, but i'm pretty sure the range on the plane has a minimum of 2 so there would be no close range bonus because a close range attack would not be allowed.
-
Lukasz Biernat
Poland
Dabrowa Gornicza
-
Different planes have different ranges.
Henschel Hs123 has range of 1-3
As far as I remember, it has been confirmed by designers that Henschel gets +3FP CC modifier,
-
Moises Del Mar
Costa Rica
Quepos
-
ok, yeah, i wasn't sure. thanks for the clarification and nice picture. i stand corrected.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
wietse wrote: If bombs dont get a bonus, why use a bomb at range 1 (fp 6) instead of the planes normal attack(4+3)?
Bombs hit always against flank which may be huge on some occasions.
Also, biplanes (with famous Soviet kukuruznik on top) had very nice ground support capabilities due to their low speed and high ability to turn which was also ability to aim MGs at ground targets - I do not know the proper word in English.
Soviet I-16 could turn around a street lamp!
-
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
-
It sounds like dive bombers and those especially noted for accuracy are allowed that 1-range attack that gives the bonus. A neat & simple way to represent it.
-
uwe eickert
United States
Helena
Ohio
-
Yes, that is the idea. And some airplanes were devastating. Many people do not know how large a % of the Luftwaffe was lost in Poland.
-
-
Hi all,
If you would like to dwell a bit more on the efficiency of aircraft in ww2, you can go here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/myth-combat-aircra...
It's a well searched little essay, with abundant bibliography.
Here is the intro of the forum's thread:
"Myth of Combat Aircraft destroying tanks
They've said the first victim of the war is the truth.
Modern literature on WWII is replete with accounts of devastating air strikes on tank units. There are many stories about dozens or even hundreds of enemy tanks being destroyed in a single day, thereby destroying or blunting an enemy armoured offensive. These accounts are particularly common in literature relating to later war ground attack aircraft, most commonly the Soviet Ilyushin II, the British Hawker Typhoon, the American Republic P-47, and the German Henschel Hs 129. All these aircraft have the distinction of being called ‘tank-busters’ and all have the reputation for being able to easily destroy any type of tank in WWII.
Now what's the truth? "
... the truth is elsewhere 
-
jl vb
Germany
The Art of War
-
Very interesting read, thanks for sharing the link Pavlos.
-
uwe eickert
United States
Helena
Ohio
-
Pavlos,
That is one of the best threads that I have read in a while. Now we will have to do a bit more research to confirm. I was under the impression that the 37mm German auto-cannon was much more effective than implied. But the articles make sense.
Thank you for sharing this.
See you in Essen!
Uwe
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
Great article. I always had a hunch that the pilots in real life could not have been so darn effective, because when I play flight combat sims it's hard as hell to kill a tank. Problems with appraoch not being just perfect, the small speck that the tank actually is when seen from up high, the small window if time you got as you speed by, only a few rockets and limited MG rounds all conspire to make getting a tank very hard. The angle of attack forces me to launch rockets at say 200 meters otherwise I would crash into the ground or treeline. At that range the tank is far from being the broad side of a barn so to speak, and all to often rockets miss by several meters. I wonder if anyone else has ever found this difficulty to hit in a flight sim a little strange and hard to compare to what we always heard about real life effectiveness. I have never once gotten one of those sweat sweeps where I take out multiple tanks before payload is empty. Perhaps the real pilots of WWII didn't either. But saying so helps ones reputation does it not, and that all to human need to brag clearly could explain the claims of these pilots vs the real evidence.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
Solonin stated, that Il-2s, famous Sturmoviks, statistically destroyed 1 tank per every 10 'returning' missions. But many Sturmoviks did not return - too slow for escaping from fighters, easy to hit (though unnecessarily to take down due to heavy armor).
I believe his statistics is true, as more than ten thousand Shturmovics were produced, and were those babies as effective as some game mechanics try to imply, entire Panzerwaffe would be destroyed in no time. Which did not happen.
Sources from other side tell us, that Germans confirm losing about 5% of their tanks on Eastern front to Soviet planes.
Third Reich produced 46 000 tanks and armoured guns total since mid-thirties, but many of those they lost on other fronts.
I am not sure, but basing on numbers I know its about 1000 - 1500 maximum(!) armoured vehicles lost due to airstrike. On entire eastern front! During four years of bloody battles!
-
-
MarcinW wrote: Solonin stated, that Il-2s, famous Sturmoviks, statistically destroyed 1 tank per every 10 'returning' missions. But many Sturmoviks did not return - too slow for escaping from fighters, easy to hit (though unnecessarily to take down due to heavy armor).[...]
Sources from other side tell us, that Germans confirm losing about 5% of their tanks on Eastern front to Soviet planes.
Third Reich produced 46 000 tanks and armoured guns total since mid-thirties, but many of those they lost on other fronts.
I am not sure, but basing on numbers I know its about 1000 - 1500 maximum(!) armoured vehicles lost due to airstrike. On entire eastern front! During four years of bloody battles!
That's some nifty mathematics
Cmon Marcin, I am sure that the soviet airmen called "tanks" every halftrack, ammunition carrier, artillery tractor, armored car and whatnot rolling on the roads. There where tens of thousands of vehicles of all sorts on the few roads available in the East. Air power did indeed hurt the artillery and logistic network, and probably did occasionally hurt some medium or light tanks. But the soviet tactics where pathetic and the Luftwaffe was always able (until mid 1944 that is) to achieve local air superiority in operations. Two Fw-190 charging a dozen La-5 where enough to break up the soviet formation.
Although soviet canons and machine-guns where of exceptional quality, the 23mm gun had very light penetration (because of its shell), the 37mm was very inaccurate, and the 12,7mm MGs did not hurt any tank. And given the average experience of the il-2 crews (until they died in flames, that is), I cannot cast doubt upon the statistics stating that only 1% of RS-82 rockets could hit a tank in tests.
-
|
|
