Dug-in infantry provide no additional defense bonus against bombers?

[malize]

While we are at it. Couldn't the Strategic Bombing mission changed so that it damages forts? It would be nice to have some way of hurting those nasty bunkers!

Nah, I'd group that under installation strike, if anything...after all the Strategic Attack mission is fairly straightforward in purpose and effect.

Plus the same review of "history" informs us that while not totally ineffective, the extensive bombing and shelling of fortifications don't have as great as effect as one would like and on top of that churn up the terrain and whatnot so as to make the inevitable infantry advance against those positions as that much more difficult and less likely to be supportable by armor.

What bombing and shelling fortified positions does do is kill men on an incidental basis, and if done for a prolonged period of time (a couple weeks) can reduce morale/org.

 

[Qitbuqa]

While we are at it. Couldn't the Strategic Bombing mission changed so that it damages forts? It would be nice to have some way of hurting those nasty bunkers!

Strategic bombing was pretty inaccurate back then. Probably smth like Stuka could actually be way more effective at busting forts with precision strikes. Also what bugs me is how bombers just exterminate troops in forrested areas wich is pretty dumb to be honest.

 

[Slan]

Strategic bombing was pretty inaccurate back then. Probably smth like Stuka could actually be way more effective at busting forts with precision strikes. Also what bugs me is how bombers just exterminate troops in forrested areas wich is pretty dumb to be honest.

Precision strikes are nice but won't scratch a properly built bunker. Fortifications are close enough together to be hurt by carpet bombing. (By the way, flying fragments of trees can hurt. A lot. Then again, it is much harder to find where the target is in a dense forest.)

 

[NERFGEN]

Bombing runs with figheters, fighter bombers and close support aircraft include strafing runs so obviously trenches should give extra defense to infantry. As for strategic bombers dunno if trenches make a huge difference when 500 lb boms are falling, but I believe trenches give at least some protection.

Agree for fighters doing close air support missions. For 250/500/1kg bombs and heavier trenches provide an easy burial ground. And protection from shrapnel, maybe

 

[NERFGEN]

Strategic bombing was pretty inaccurate back then. Probably smth like Stuka could actually be way more effective at busting forts with precision strikes. Also what bugs me is how bombers just exterminate troops in forrested areas wich is pretty dumb to be honest.

+2

 

[blue emu]

(By the way, flying fragments of trees can hurt. A lot. Then again, it is much harder to find where the target is in a dense forest.)

Agreed that forests should give some protection against bombing (because of concealment), but they should also give a bonus to enemy shellfire (attacks by ART) in the form of a reduced Dug-in bonus, since tree-bursts tend to send their fragments downward, and negate the protection otherwise offered by fox-holes and trenches.

 

[comsubpac]

Strategic bombing was pretty inaccurate back then. Probably smth like Stuka could actually be way more effective at busting forts with precision strikes. Also what bugs me is how bombers just exterminate troops in forrested areas wich is pretty dumb to be honest.

bunkers were build to protect you against bombing so you should be relatively secure in the bigger ones. maybe you can penetrate them with special bunker buster weapons but i dont think they were very sophisticated back then.

 

[Phelan]

bunkers were build to protect you against bombing so you should be relatively secure in the bigger ones. maybe you can penetrate them with special bunker buster weapons but i dont think they were very sophisticated back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb

Has seen some good results after 1944!

 

[Qitbuqa]

Agreed that forests should give some protection against bombing (because of concealment), but they should also give a bonus to enemy shellfire (attacks by ART) in the form of a reduced Dug-in bonus, since tree-bursts tend to send their fragments downward, and negate the protection otherwise offered by fox-holes and trenches.

Well, but how will you use accurate artillery fire without being able to locate your enemy postion? Shouldn't same concealment penalty apply to artillery fire also?

 

[Slan]

Well, but how will you use accurate artillery fire without being able to locate your enemy postion? Shouldn't same concealment penalty apply to artillery fire also?

Not necessarely. Indirect fire. Unlike bombers of the time, the artillery crew didn't need to see their target, only know the coordinates, and from that (and a bunch of other data) they could calculate the shot.

 

[blue emu]

Well, but how will you use accurate artillery fire without being able to locate your enemy postion? Shouldn't same concealment penalty apply to artillery fire also?

Without the concealment benefit, tree-bursts would be absolutely lethal to enemy Infantry in Forests. Even after factoring in the concealment, it's still a net gain for the ART.

In actual combat reports, tree-bursts are recognized as an extremely serious threat to Infantry dug-in in forested areas. There are three main reasons why they boost the effectiveness of incoming ART rounds:

1) the fragments travel downwards into fox-holes and trenches, negating much of the protection they offer
2) by exploding above ground level, the lethal radius of the bombs is increased... the fragments fly further before hitting the ground
3) since the fragments are coming down from above, a prone position (lying down) actually increases your exposure to them instead of reducing it.

... still, we seem to be wandering off the topic of the thread, which is: should digging in protect from Air attack.

 

[Qitbuqa]

Not necessarely. Indirect fire. Unlike bombers of the time, the artillery crew didn't need to see their target, only know the coordinates, and from that (and a bunch of other data) they could calculate the shot.

I'm well aware of that fact, but you need to understand that there is someone who "corrects" artillery fire, usually a spotter on some elevated position (building or some hill) or aircraft. Used to be baloons during WW1. Now how can you "correct" artillery fire if you can't verify where it hit precisely, or damage inflicted, or how many troops are there at all?

Also on topic, I think dug in troops should suffer considerably reduced casualties than troops that aren't dug in or troops that are on the move.

 

[seashore]

The discussion so far inplies that all personal in a division sized unit would be dug in, when after 10 days the dig in bonus is maxed. This is far from true. In modern battle formation, when speaking of division sized units, the majority of personal will be found behind the front line. Thus, these would not necessary be dug in, and these would be the prime targets of airial bombings. In contrast, most artillery bombardments would be directed at targets that are more or less easily observed from the front line. These being more often ones actually dug in. So, on this issue, the game is pretty accurate.

On the other hand, the same would be the case also for fortified divisions, but to a lesser degree. So one would expect airial bombing to be more effective in causing casualties here than what is what is portaited in the game, even though the effect on the fortifications is, as should be, rather small.

 

[seashore]

So i guess thats the end of the argument then. Nice not to be contradicted.