Ju 87 or Stuka planes.

[mofetagalactica]

So we all know the single stuka precice airstrike that was added on bk, wich to be honest isn't really good, so here goes a pool, i just want it to be buffed againts any tank/vehicle that gets inmobilized or not if you are the good of anticipation lol, so pretty much like how the bomb air run of usa used to work in the past but with just a little bit bigger AOE radius if its necesary but a single bomb obviously.

[CGarr]

Seeing as how blitz doesn't have a lot of options to deal with perhsings and supers aside from gambling with panthers, I'd be on board with this.

[Walderschmidt]

Yes or at least 75-80% damage.

Wald

[kwok]

Originally the stuka dive bomber was for emplacements since it was complained that blitz did not have proper tools with emplacement spam. Just context.

[mofetagalactica]

the only thing that will not oneshot will be super pershing obviously lol.

[mofetagalactica]

Originally the stuka dive bomber was for emplacements since it was complained that blitz did not have proper tools with emplacement spam. Just context.

I know, but i still think that WH need somekind of atacking plane that isnt just for attacking emplacements, what would be the point for USA to make more than 1 AA if you're playing only againts WH's players, while the WH side is forced to make A few AA's in order to stop double/single airbone?

It would also be optimal to add at least 1 straffing bf109/stuka planes to other WH docs, but i know that may be too late for it.

[Warhawks97]

I am against bombers to be super effective vs tanks. Some sort of crippling damage would be good like damaged tracks/main gun or damaging engines (like fuel injection and all that stuff that can be hurt by blast.)

Planes werent really good against tanks, esspecially with bombs. The death rate of tanks to planes was quite low and rockets always proofed to be a bit more precise. Only in the east there was some occassion were airplanes successfully stopped a tank attack in the vast open lands but they used very dedicated AT tools like the SD 4 HL.

The germans (and russians) had good reasons why they addopted hollow charge cluster bombs like PTAB or the germans the SD 4 HL. And all nations seeked to improve their planes effectivness against tanks. Like the 3 inch missile which was some sort of bazooka mounted on a plane or adding 37 mm and even 75 mm guns onto their planes.


I would keep bombers like stuka to be used primarily against emplacments and soft targets like inf and light vehicles. Tanks should rather get crippled.



So a clear no from my side that stuka planes become some sort of "Tank snipers". Crippling them would be fair enough.

[kwok]

Btw when you make these polls, please make them so people can change their votes if they want in order to update as discussion goes on.

[mofetagalactica]

I am against bombers to be super effective vs tanks. Some sort of crippling damage would be good like damaged tracks/main gun or damaging engines (like fuel injection and all that stuff that can be hurt by blast.)

Planes werent really good against tanks, esspecially with bombs. The death rate of tanks to planes was quite low and rockets always proofed to be a bit more precise. Only in the east there was some occassion were airplanes successfully stopped a tank attack in the vast open lands but they used very dedicated AT tools like the SD 4 HL.

The germans (and russians) had good reasons why they addopted hollow charge cluster bombs like PTAB or the germans the SD 4 HL. And all nations seeked to improve their planes effectivness against tanks. Like the 3 inch missile which was some sort of bazooka mounted on a plane or adding 37 mm and even 75 mm guns onto their planes.


I would keep bombers like stuka to be used primarily against emplacments and soft targets like inf and light vehicles. Tanks should rather get crippled.



So a clear no from my side that stuka planes become some sort of "Tank snipers". Crippling them would be fair enough.

A German FW190 pilot explains how low-altitude attacks against tanks were performed:

“Against the enemy tanks and armoured vehicles we usually made skip-bombing attacks, running at speeds of around 485km/h at between 4 and 10 metres above the ground and releasing the bomb just as the tank disappeared beneath our engine cowling. The 250kg bombs used during these attacks would either skip off the ground and into the tank or else smash straight into the tank.

The bombs were fused with a one-second delay to give us time to get clear before they went off. It was a very accurate form of attack and we used it often against tanks caught in open country.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
About your magical "more accurate" unguided rockets:

These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four Typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank.

Lets follow your realistic logic and lets make the rocket run shitty as fuck too with even more space between the shoots and smaller aoe, unless you're inventing now that allies magically invented modern guided rockets in 1944.

This is for gameplay sake not realistic shit, every ww2 game would be boring as fuck if they make bombs unnefective vs armored.

[Warhawks97]

A German FW190 pilot explains how low-altitude attacks against tanks were performed:

“Against the enemy tanks and armoured vehicles we usually made skip-bombing attacks, running at speeds of around 485km/h at between 4 and 10 metres above the ground and releasing the bomb just as the tank disappeared beneath our engine cowling. The 250kg bombs used during these attacks would either skip off the ground and into the tank or else smash straight into the tank.

The bombs were fused with a one-second delay to give us time to get clear before they went off. It was a very accurate form of attack and we used it often against tanks caught in open country.”

You dont need to tell me this, i am an avionik freak since i can remember. I have entire books full of pilot stories and about the "Deutschen Schlachtflieger".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t2cRZTv14o&t=203s


But there are few issues.


1. Such attacks were usually performed in the east and worked best on frozen grounds. In the west it was a different story.
2. Stuka cant fly 485 kph. The Fw 190 was one of the fastest planes "on deck" which means low level with roughl 556 to 560 kp in straight flight.
Stuka barely managed 400 kph
3. Stuka had usually different bomb release system most of the time with a special "arm" to get the bomb out of the propeller when dropping during dives
4. The plane clearly performs a dive
5. The bombs in game dont bounce the ground


and probably lots of other missed points.
So, this tactic required correct cirumstances like flat ground that was hard enough and no obstacles to aim the tank. In BK most maps have trees and entire forests and houses and hills all arround the target that would make such an attack nearly impossible.

Also, in BK doc this plane is put in the breakthrough branch and not in the anti tank branch.



If you want some airplane anti tank weapons for axis, you have the stuka with 37 mm rounds that could be added in some ways or add "Panzerblitz" missile that came out shortly before war ended and which was based on the R4M missile. 12 missiles could be attached to an Fw190 but it was only used against tanks comming from the east.

These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four Typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank.

The US had a big arsenal of missiles. The first was the 3.5 inch FFAR missile (later used on calliope). Originally intended to hunt subs. Then came the 5 inch missile that had an warhead but a too weak rocket engine war the warhead which causes slow speed and bad trajectory. Finally there was the HVAR that got a bigger engine and achieved highest speed of the three mentioned and had good trajectory. Hunting tanks wasnt easy though.


Another factor is training as well as type of airplane used. Western allied never really had to purpose build ground strike fighter. The germans and russians did. The F190 with special "Rüstzätze" (field kits) became a good ground attack strike aircraft. The ME 110 became good in it but the best one was the HS129. It was slow enough, durable and could be equiped with various guns, including 30 mm guns type MK 101 or the Mk103 with higher rate of fire which could pen tanks from top and rear (most tanks). Then there was one with 37 mm gun like the stuka had, one with 50 mm gun against tanks but also bombers and finally an attempt to mount 75 mm guns (what we have in game) of which only 25 got build and which perhaps didnt see any real combat). On top of that it could carry four dozens of cluster bombs sd2 or almost 100 of the SD 4 HL anti tank cluster bomb. Normal bombs and they tried to attach 210 mm rocket launchers and Panzerblitz missiles.

The russians had their Il2 planes which was probably the most famous ground attack plane of ww2. Those two can probably be considered the fathers of all modern day purpose build ground attack aircraft like US A-10 or Russian SU-25

The western allied at that stage of the war had very powerfull and usually fast fighter aircraft with the Tempest being the fastest low altitude airplane of the entire war. And those were used as fighter bombers every day.

They also never trained their crew for ground attack nor did they introduce so called "Zerstörer Geschwader" (destroyer squadrons) as the germans or russians did.


Hence, germans and russians had good reasons why they managed to kill more tanks. They had better terrain on the ground, specially trained pilots, purpose build planes that were not too fast and special squadrons with special tactics like the russian death circle and veeeery special armament. Western allied never had anything like this. They took a fast fighter plane, a fighter squadron with fighter pilots, put bombs and rockets on it and send them out to attack ground targets.

Lets follow your realistic logic and lets make the rocket run shitty as fuck too with even more space between the shoots and smaller aoe, unless you're inventing now that allied magically invented modern guided rockets in 1944.

You could usually choose how to fire the missiles. All at once, pairs or salvo with pre-set delay between the shots. In BK, we cant do that. Here we can only set burst duration and rate of fire but we cant make a plane shooting at one point for like several seconds. It only fires in a line. If you want more rockets hitting one spot, you have to increase rof but idk how that would look like in the game.

And yes, missiles like the HVAR were quite advanced being twice as fast as the previous 5 inch missile.
And germans even invented wire guided x-4 missile but came too late for war.

This is for gameplay sake not realistic shit, every ww2 game would be boring as fuck if they make bombs unnefective vs armored.

I wonder why bombs must be primarily tank buster weapons at all. You say bc BK doc lacks AT but i would say that you can quite nicely engage all tanks but your Panther. The D is on top quite cheap that can help to bring in more numbers than enemie gets pershings.

And why would i want to unlock Panzer III call in and stuhs when i am going to face enemie tanks? To get a Stuka Plane with a bomb to kill a tank? That doesnt seem convenient.


Luftwaffe? We have no idea how its going to look like. Do they get perhaps different tools?

If i would want to kill tanks, i would use some cluster type of weapon. Many bombs or rockets to increase the chance to hit it bc even the heavier bombs would have to hit it directly. So quantity of bombs and rockets is the way to increase the chance to hit and kill a tank.

[mofetagalactica]

A German FW190 pilot explains how low-altitude attacks against tanks were performed:

“Against the enemy tanks and armoured vehicles we usually made skip-bombing attacks, running at speeds of around 485km/h at between 4 and 10 metres above the ground and releasing the bomb just as the tank disappeared beneath our engine cowling. The 250kg bombs used during these attacks would either skip off the ground and into the tank or else smash straight into the tank.

The bombs were fused with a one-second delay to give us time to get clear before they went off. It was a very accurate form of attack and we used it often against tanks caught in open country.”

You dont need to tell me this, i am an avionik freak since i can remember. I have entire books full of pilot stories and about the "Deutschen Schlachtflieger".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t2cRZTv14o&t=203s


But there are few issues.


1. Such attacks were usually performed in the east and worked best on frozen grounds. In the west it was a different story.
2. Stuka cant fly 485 kph. The Fw 190 was one of the fastest planes "on deck" which means low level with roughl 556 to 560 kp in straight flight.
Stuka barely managed 400 kph
3. Stuka had usually different bomb release system most of the time with a special "arm" to get the bomb out of the propeller when dropping during dives
4. The plane clearly performs a dive
5. The bombs in game dont bounce the ground


and probably lots of other missed points.
So, this tactic required correct cirumstances like flat ground that was hard enough and no obstacles to aim the tank. In BK most maps have trees and entire forests and houses and hills all arround the target that would make such an attack nearly impossible.

Also, in BK doc this plane is put in the breakthrough branch and not in the anti tank branch.



If you want some airplane anti tank weapons for axis, you have the stuka with 37 mm rounds that could be added in some ways or add "Panzerblitz" missile that came out shortly before war ended and which was based on the R4M missile. 12 missiles could be attached to an Fw190 but it was only used against tanks comming from the east.

These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four Typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank.

The US had a big arsenal of missiles. The first was the 3.5 inch FFAR missile (later used on calliope). Originally intended to hunt subs. Then came the 5 inch missile that had an warhead but a too weak rocket engine war the warhead which causes slow speed and bad trajectory. Finally there was the HVAR that got a bigger engine and achieved highest speed of the three mentioned and had good trajectory. Hunting tanks wasnt easy though.


Another factor is training as well as type of airplane used. Western allied never really had to purpose build ground strike fighter. The germans and russians did. The F190 with special "Rüstzätze" (field kits) became a good ground attack strike aircraft. The ME 110 became good in it but the best one was the HS129. It was slow enough, durable and could be equiped with various guns, including 30 mm guns type MK 101 or the Mk103 with higher rate of fire which could pen tanks from top and rear (most tanks). Then there was one with 37 mm gun like the stuka had, one with 50 mm gun against tanks but also bombers and finally an attempt to mount 75 mm guns (what we have in game) of which only 25 got build and which perhaps didnt see any real combat). On top of that it could carry four dozens of cluster bombs sd2 or almost 100 of the SD 4 HL anti tank cluster bomb. Normal bombs and they tried to attach 210 mm rocket launchers and Panzerblitz missiles.

The russians had their Il2 planes which was probably the most famous ground attack plane of ww2. Those two can probably be considered the fathers of all modern day purpose build ground attack aircraft like US A-10 or Russian SU-25

The western allied at that stage of the war had very powerfull and usually fast fighter aircraft with the Tempest being the fastest low altitude airplane of the entire war. And those were used as fighter bombers every day.

They also never trained their crew for ground attack nor did they introduce so called "Zerstörer Geschwader" (destroyer squadrons) as the germans or russians did.


Hence, germans and russians had good reasons why they managed to kill more tanks. They had better terrain on the ground, specially trained pilots, purpose build planes that were not too fast and special squadrons with special tactics like the russian death circle and veeeery special armament. Western allied never had anything like this. They took a fast fighter plane, a fighter squadron with fighter pilots, put bombs and rockets on it and send them out to attack ground targets.

Lets follow your realistic logic and lets make the rocket run shitty as fuck too with even more space between the shoots and smaller aoe, unless you're inventing now that allied magically invented modern guided rockets in 1944.

You could usually choose how to fire the missiles. All at once, pairs or salvo with pre-set delay between the shots. In BK, we cant do that. Here we can only set burst duration and rate of fire but we cant make a plane shooting at one point for like several seconds. It only fires in a line. If you want more rockets hitting one spot, you have to increase rof but idk how that would look like in the game.

And yes, missiles like the HVAR were quite advanced being twice as fast as the previous 5 inch missile.
And germans even invented wire guided x-4 missile but came too late for war.

This is for gameplay sake not realistic shit, every ww2 game would be boring as fuck if they make bombs unnefective vs armored.

I wonder why bombs must be primarily tank buster weapons at all. You say bc BK doc lacks AT but i would say that you can quite nicely engage all tanks but your Panther. The D is on top quite cheap that can help to bring in more numbers than enemie gets pershings.

And why would i want to unlock Panzer III call in and stuhs when i am going to face enemie tanks? To get a Stuka Plane with a bomb to kill a tank? That doesnt seem convenient.


Luftwaffe? We have no idea how its going to look like. Do they get perhaps different tools?

If i would want to kill tanks, i would use some cluster type of weapon. Many bombs or rockets to increase the chance to hit it bc even the heavier bombs would have to hit it directly. So quantity of bombs and rockets is the way to increase the chance to hit and kill a tank.

Are you good enought to predict the direction of the tank and the time that the stuka takes to drop the bomb to kill a tank in movement with current AOE ? Who are you? god? That could maybe happen 1 of 100 games, the stuka drop will mostly serve to kill INMOVILIZED tanks, and i didn't say it lacks AT i said it lacks AIR SUPPORT wich will mean that ALLIED players will not NEED TO MAKE ANY AA when playing againts 2 WH players, is this the "1v1's balances that we want?"

[MarKr]

said it lacks AIR SUPPORT wich will mean that ALLIED players will not NEED TO MAKE ANY AA when playing againts 2 WH players, is this the "1v1's balances that we want?"

Is this the kind of reason on which changes should be made? Giving additional abilities or units to doctrines only to make some units/abilities in other doctrines used more often? For years when there was a game where Axis players were all WM, Allies did not need to worry about AA at all and I don't remember a single person having a problem with that.
By this logic we should add more AT emplacements to all US doctrines because otherwise StuH/Stupa will probably see some action only against Infantry doctrine in games where only US is present.

The options in unlock trees are there so that you can use them IF the oponent chooses certain strategy (in this case StuH/StuPa/Stuka are there so that you have some options when oponent decides to start camping), they don't need to be used every single game just for the sake of being used.

[kwok]

I'm sort of with Markr on this one. I'm not personally saying that the bombs SHOULDNT be good against armor, but the reasoning behind it feels pretty weak. If the problem is that in a US vs WM face off the US doesnt need to get AA, then the solution would be to add planes to more doctrines, not buff it for one doctrine (which i know you mentioned but not entirely sold this is "needed").

When we go out to make the doctrines for 1v1s, we go out to enhance or add lacking capability not add variety for the sake of variety. If there's a problem that blitz doc can't fight tanks... well that's why we had AP rounds originally in the doctrine (but was removed by community feedback... still a mistake imo. have fun fighting pershings with panzer 4s and panthers). The stuka bomber was in the anti-camping path of the doctrine (along with the assault howitzers and assault call in). It's meant to attack camps. If the stuka bomber was meant to kill tanks then we would've included it in the path that's more focused on anti-armor.

[Walderschmidt]

I'd like the Stuka bomb have a high chance of immobilizing tanks, and current damage is fine.

That way it's high risk/high reward, but not just a go too one hit kill.

Wald

[mofetagalactica]

I mentioned this one because adding more air force to other WH will be a pain in the ass when everything was already reworked, so i think is just easier to make this one an antitank/antiemplacement 1 bomb run, if you also know wich kind of bomb we have on the stuka model that would be awesome too, because it seems fucking big like the 1000kg bomb instead of a 250kg. If you want to go the other way wich would be awesome but i don't think you want to take it its to add more variety of planes around WH doctrines.

As for mark, you will be suprised that the most used emplacements for usa are the 50cal quad airbone one and the 50cal that infantry has, as for AT emplacement the CW 17p is the most popular.

No matter what the stuh/stupa will have an use because it can still be used from far againts revealed AT manned guns such as 76/17p that aren't emplacements.
And as you just said "For years when there was a game where Axis players were all WM, Allies did not need to worry about AA".

[MarKr]

@mofeta: yes, I know that there are other emplacements used more often. The point was that adding more units just to make current units in other docs useful is off.

Iirc. StuH/StuPa cannot use their long range ability against unemplaced AT guns.
Your quote is not complete, I continued with "...and nobody ever had a problem with it."