Shouldn't fighters be tearing up unescorted bombers?

[unmerged(14563)]

I think this is something missing from the modeling of the air campaign. Fighters during daylight - with somewhat reduced efficiency at night - should be tearing through every wave of unescorted bombers, and their losses should reflect this. It happened in WWII. It should be modeled in game.

 

[unmerged(132658)]

1+

 

[unmerged(131628)]

I agree. Current results of such battles are just absurd.

 

[AlanC9]

The current values aren't that bad. The bombers aren't taking much losses, but neither are the fighters.

 

[heertje]

Well I think it is not ok.

As Germany I have dedicated fighter defense and my fighters are realy losing badly while the enemy can continu.

I have explored all the fighter tactics and everything is up to date but I lose.

Even above Russia when I intercept fighters on a bombing run over my troops my fighters loose more. And I even have jet fighters. Full tactics.

So I agree it is not correct.

 

[Kamamura]

How about interceptors, are the results as bad?

 

[krieger11b]

I think it is odd also. Even the mighty B-17s took heavy casualties when they had no fighter cover.

All sort of nasty surprises that only work when you are unescorted, FW-190A8s with 4-8 20mm cannons, Me-110G-2s with 2 30mm cannons and 4 20mm cannons, all in the nose where the fire could be concentrated, hell sometimes they put 50mm cannons on Me-110s so they could pick off bombers from farther away than the defensive guns could fire. Those two planes were just about worthless at 20,000 feet if there was fighter cover.

The problem with the game is that fighters have such pitiful ranges and drop tank tech is put too far ahead in the game. They had them before 1943. The even had them in the Spanish Civil war on Me-109s, something they oddly didn't do again until after the Battle of Britain, that air war would have gone quite differently if Me-109s had drop tanks on them.

 

[unmerged(91248)]

Indeed this is fubar. Not realistic at all.

Also, AAA doesn't shoot at enemy air groups passing over them (only shoots if the AAA is in the area that they're actually bombing).

Hopefully this will be addressed in a few months in 1.4.

 

[kadrush]

That depends, my 0% exp fighters cause little dammageto british bombers, but my 30% exp, up to date fighters charging during daylight cause 10% dammage per attack on average (counting 2-3 interceptions per attack, they took 30% +- per raid)

that is fair historical to me, untrained outdated fighters cant kill bomber, like in RL

 

[krieger11b]

That depends, my 0% exp fighters cause little dammageto british bombers, but my 30% exp, up to date fighters charging during daylight cause 10% dammage per attack on average (counting 2-3 interceptions per attack, they took 30% +- per raid)

that is fair historical to me, untrained outdated fighters cant kill bomber, like in RL

Sounds right, if you look at historical battles, I never seen a loss of over 15%, more typically it's 5-7% on a bad day. Night bombers oddly enough took higher losses against fighters. Then again they were unescorted, except later by mosquitos. They also ran against things they wouldn't in day, light converted bombers and Me-110s. A lot of the highest scoring bomber killers of Germany were night fighters.

 

[unmerged(91248)]

I love flight sims.

A relatively untrained pilot can knock down unescorted bombers. The skill comes into it when trying to stay alive when fighting other fighters. Period!

If you get in front of a bomber formation and close head on, you are very hard to hit and get a good burst into their cockpit. Flying straight and level. Even a rookie should be able to knock out one or two bombers this way before they're too damaged to continue (or dead).

This is not to say that the attacking fighters wouldn't take losses (especially planes too damaged to return to base, where the pilot has to bail out).

Try IL2 or similar to see!

 

[Tortuga Power]

This is a balancing issue that, yes is not balanced right now, but that is because the system is different from HOI2 (with attachable escorts). Right now, there is no point in using fighters in your bomber wings to simulate "escort fighters", you either have air superiority with interceptors or you don't.

But technically yes, unescorted bombers that were intercepted suffered disastrous losses. Unfortunately there is no "escort" mission other than just doing air superiority, which could still leave your fighters in one place and your bombers getting shot down one province over.

 

[Laurwin]

actually the "escort mission" means that you use a mixed stack of multirole fighters and bombers.

whether multirole fighters themselves are viable in HoI3, it seems they aren't.
To me it seem that they have pitifully weak air-to-air capability. Back in HoI2 there were of course fighters, escort brigades for bombers, and the interceptors. In that environment the fighters really were the best choice (they were the most expensive option still of course)

In real life you escorted your bombers with fighter aircraft for a reason in WW2. The escorts had to engage and destroy enemy fighters, which were trying to shoot down the bombers.

The P51D Mustang for example, was NOT a good fighter plane simply because it could fly as far as the bombers that it was escorting. It was a good fighter because it shot down the most Axis aircraft on the western front in WW2, and thus protected the bombers and allowed them to do their job.

Likewise P51D was a good fighter aircraft because it was well rounded, it had good flight characteristics and performance due to good airframe, the Rolls Royce Merlin engine and the supercharger which boosted performance, it had good armaments - six .50cal machine guns, and it had good range with the drop tanks so that it could escort the bombers EFFECTIVELY.

Spitfire was of course an excellent fighter, same engine as Mustang, it only lacked the range of the Mustang.

Yet in-game Spitfire is a multirole fighter, with significantly better air-to-ground than Hawker Typhoon- the interceptor, weaker air-to-air, about half the airspeed of the interceptor etc...

I don't see how the Typhoon would have a significantly better air to air capability, there was even a spitfire version that had the exactly same set of four cannons. (Tempest had more cannon rounds though). But didn't there were versions of the spitfire with .50cal machine guns and the 20mm cannons, so overall the armament was pretty strong, especially against other fighters, against bombers the four 20mm cannons would be stronger though.

Something like half the airspeed of a Typhoon, no way?! Yes spit was slower than Tempest (the fastest allied piston fighter). Spitfire had better turning ability though.

If I'm not mistaken, the USAAF version of the interceptor in-game is Vought F4U Corsair, which has the exact same armament as the multi-role fighter P51-D, YET P51D is weaker in air-to-air.

Also multi-role jet fighters in-game, such as P-80 shooting star, airspeed around 500 km/h


So HoI3 doesn't exactly make much sense :wacko:

 

[unmerged(65101)]

I have almost nil experience with air power cause I usually play minor powers with no air force. But I second the OP's statement that bombers with no escorts should definately be taking staggering losses.

If that's not the way it is in game, it should be.

On the flip side, being that I play minor powers with no air force, I think that bombers who successfully bomb enemy ground formations should cause a lot more damage. I never build fighters, or even mobile (or static) AAA, and I could really care less if I'm getting the crap bombed out of me. Doesn't really effect me at all.

That's all 1.2 based though. Haven't played 1.3 yet.

 

[Onedreamer]

Indeed this is fubar. Not realistic at all.

Also, AAA doesn't shoot at enemy air groups passing over them (only shoots if the AAA is in the area that they're actually bombing).

Hopefully this will be addressed in a few months in 1.4.

I don't know what heights could WW2 bombers reach, but it seems reasonable to me that if they aren't bombing they would hardly fly in range of AA guns.

 

[Laurwin]

B-17 had to bomb fairly low because the cabin wasn't pressurized, but the B-29 cabin was and it flew above the flak ceiling.

 

[Mjarr]

Likewise P51D was a good fighter aircraft because it was well rounded, it had good flight characteristics and performance due to good airframe

On higher altitudes, that is. Nothing against P-51 as a plane, but low altitude performance was rather 'poor' while the high altitude performance was another story.

I don't see how the Typhoon would have a significantly better air to air capability

Overall beter performance in lower altitudes in early war and good performance throughout the war.

Spitfire had better turning ability though.

Turning radius is not always the most decisive factor in a dogfight. It's advatange that can be exploited more or less in certain situations, but not entirely instant win- ability.

Also multi-role jet fighters in-game, such as P-80 shooting star, airspeed around 500 km/h

Just because you can fly faster doesn't mean you would always do that. I doubt you would want to go dogfighting with someone with absolute top speed the plane can reach against another plane doing the same. Of course, if it is reported as "top speed", well then it wouldn't make any sense at all

 

[unmerged(137678)]

B-17 had to bomb fairly low because the cabin wasn't pressurized, but the B-29 cabin was and it flew above the flak ceiling.

Large caliber AA could reach 17-18 KM, well over the operational altitude of even the B29. I don't think the Japanese developed their AA techs as much as the European powers. Certainly their air intercept capability wasn't as good as the Germans by the time the US had bases in range of Japan.

If fighters consistently inflict losses in the 10% range as observed above, the outcome will be fairly realistic. It does look like less experienced fighters do not do enough damage, though. Has anyone worked on a Battle of Britain case? If losses there don't run around 5% - 8% per mission bomber intercept would still need some work.

 

[barleyman]

Large caliber AA could reach 17-18 KM, well over the operational altitude of even the B29. I don't think the Japanese developed their AA techs as much as the European powers.

Uhm, no.

Thanks to the power of Wikipedia I know FlaK 88 had effective ceiling of 7900m whereas FlaK 38/39 10,8cm had effective ceiling of 9,450 m. There's also the big boy FlaK 40 12,8cm but it was produced on limited numbers only plus is was so honking big it was used only on FlaK towers as it was not practical to transport it around.

In any case about half of the bomber losses were due to FlaK as far as my memory serves. Radar guided AAA for teh win..

 

[keanucange]

Uhm, no.

Thanks to the power of Wikipedia I know FlaK 88 had effective ceiling of 7900m whereas FlaK 38/39 10,8cm had effective ceiling of 9,450 m. There's also the big boy FlaK 40 12,8cm but it was produced on limited numbers only plus is was so honking big it was used only on FlaK towers as it was not practical to transport it around.

In any case about half of the bomber losses were due to FlaK as far as my memory serves. Radar guided AAA for teh win..

yep. and the current AA defense fails to do anything to the enemy unless your fighters/bombers are fighting over it with enemy planes over it.