Shouldn't fighters be tearing up unescorted bombers?

[unmerged(63310)]

i used to believe that ww2 aircraft were simpler machinery. however as i had read the design and production stories of various prominent aircraft, i dont hold that misconception anymore.

illogical and ahistorical.

sweeping assumptions based on a few extremely badly executed bombing missions in european theater on germany can not be taken as a measure of realism to reflect on the game.
.

The reason the focus is on Germany is because that is the theater with the most concentration of bombing as well the air forces there more equal on technology levels. Hard to compare Japan and USSR because of differences not only in technology, but focus and goals of the bombing.

For the game purposes we have to take into account what the numbers would be when it is close to equal on techs, size of air forces, and timeline.

So in the historical example of WW2 the Luftwaffe started having issues defending German airspace in 44. Sure there were some problems before then but the real loss of air power was not until then. So for the numbers I proposed it is just looking at average losses for a couple bomber groups and fighter groups on opposing sides over the course of 1943. The difficulty is of course the Allies bombing campaign wasn't up to full swing at that point and also many things were still being learned about formation flying, night vs day missions etc so it is not going to be a completely accurate snap shot even controlling for as much as possible the isolated 1 time occurrence factors.

The important point in the game is to simulate the feeling of the war strategically which to me seems to come down to attrition of pilots, resources allocated, and the doctrines involved and used or not used.

Since IC is much more flexible and easy to gain and maintain in game than in real life I think the % losses of units should be a bit higher in the game than exact outcome of history.

 

[unmerged(63310)]

These figures strike me as a little high. Not every unescorted mission went as badly as Schweinfurt. Also, note that night bomber losses should be somewhat less -- I believe the RAF's all-time worst loss was only a little over 10%.

Even if we go with your figures, that's not very different from what the game offers right now -- both sides currently take less losses than that, but not much less. If we go with your figures, making that change simply won't change the results from strategic bombing much. I'm OK with that if you are.

That is only on the defensive side- haven't touched on how much damage and org loss the bombers and fighters should sustain and inflict.

Or the IC damage done by a successfully defended escorted mission vs attacked unescorted.

The main difference I want to see between how things are currently and anything I would propose is the level of resources required to be committed by either side to see success in the air campaign and also the close air support making more of a difference. For those things I think the stats of tac, cas, and multirole fighter need to be adjusted. The actual stats of strat bombers seem ok though the tech needs to allow a couple higher models.

Fix the AA and increase the stats of most fighters would probably help as well as generally fighters suffered more losses than bombers from any engagement(lower IC cost of fighters still can make this a "win" for fighters).

Because right now it seems for 10-20% damage to unescorted bombers the defender has to have about 2-1 ration in their favor of fighters to bombers in the air to intercept enough to cause that damage. It should be more 1-1 to get that on unescorted. On escorted missions... the losses are close to even accept the most often the bombers still accomplish their bombing mission successfully so in that sense they "win" though it depends on how the rest of the course of the war is going if they hurts the bombing side or the defending side more.

Unfortunately the AI probably won't be able to recognize when a bombing campaign is wasting more resources than it is worth(IE- axis player gets and maintains 3-1 advantage in the air or something) so it still won't really be good simulation as the AI will just repeat same tactics over and over and fly its air force into the meatgrinder as soon as it gets a few planes together. That is a flaw in the AI though, not the air war system of the game which has to be based on relatively equal opponents with equal techs getting close to somewhat historical occurrence. Of course the greater resource base of Allies would tilt the balance in a game between 2 humans most likely(in the air war at least) and if USA can be fixed in next patch to actually get into the fight it should work that way in the game especially if axis player is playing on VH.

 

[unmerged(91248)]

Coming back to the head on attack against bombers that was soooooo disdainfully shot down in flames by the "experts":
Excerpt from: http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/0031.html

Deliberate, or accidental, the ramming and/or colliding with aircraft was a common occurrence, especially when many of the pilots were adopting the head on attack attitude. Carried out correctly, it was a successful method of attack. Mostly used on attack on bombers, it was also used frequently in fighter combat.

There are several advantages to the frontal attack when in combat, providing that you can get into the right position. You avoid the concentration of fire from a bombers rear gunners and as the twin engined aircraft has no guns firing forward, the pilot and crew are more vulnerable from the front, and perhaps above all it makes it very difficult for the escorting fighters to carry out their protective role. Of course, the disadvantage is that there is so little time. The relative closing speed would be something approaching 600 mph this is almost nearly 300 yards per second. The optimum range of our guns was about 300 yards, so if you could effectively get your sights on the target at 600 yards, you could press the button for one second and this would leave you with one second to break away, many had this tactic down to a fine art, many didn't, but the effect on the enemy formation was devastating.
Flight Lieutenant D.L.Armitage 266 Squadron

 

[AlanC9]

Since IC is much more flexible and easy to gain and maintain in game than in real life I think the % losses of units should be a bit higher in the game than exact outcome of history.

For air combat, or all combat?

 

[AlanC9]

TBecause right now it seems for 10-20% damage to unescorted bombers the defender has to have about 2-1 ration in their favor of fighters to bombers in the air to intercept enough to cause that damage.

My tests don't verify this. Remember, the fighters will often get several combats. I've had bombers chased all the way back to England, ending up losing about 30% on that mission..

 

[jonnyincognito]

Hmm...as Germany I have no problem cripping the AI's bomber attacks. Maybe you need to put more fighters in the air?