| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 334
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
I can see Ju-87G's being used to attack coastal shipping, much like the cannon-armed B-25s. I am also thinking strafing would be more effective against small craft than bombing. HE rounds are better against merchantmen and destroyers than AP rounds. I'm thinking of a plane with a Gunnery of 4 or 5, no AA, and a SA like Divide the Defense.
The Ju-87G, or the Hurricane IID, should not be based from a carrier. They are of limited usefulness to a carrier. Neither the IJN, RN, nor the USN operated planes like them from their carriers, even though they could have.
Hmm, just had a new thought. Its new for me at least. SA Support the Attack. Or never mind. This turns out to be just a new name for the idea of suppressing AA. |
|
 Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:12 pm |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Asbestos wrote: | By the time the 87G entered service, the war had already turned on the Germans. Even so, the Germans found the time to send them against gunboats and other watercraft. Presumably they felt they were acceptable in this role.
Btw, if I had to pick between shooting at a boat from a boat traveling at 40knots across the ocean... or from a plane... I think I'd have a better chance of hitting from the plane. |
G'day all,
Harking back to combat use of Fairmile MTB/MGBs... a very good account I read a few years ago was very specific - when a Dogboat was using it's guns the best results were at slow speed and that the lack of protection for the guncrews was a distinct advantage - as the gun crews concentrated on sinking the enemy rather than taking cover. It was this difference the author recounts that gave Dogboats an advantage in a gunfight over the Flak Lighters which had more & heavy weapons - but with protection for the guncrews.
High speed was usually used in getting away - or sometimes to get into position for a torpedo attack.. but at night - the best tactic (at night) was to get into ambush position, engines idling, track with radar, torpedo launch and then poor in the gunfire at low speed - speeding up to disengage...
As to the advantage of a JU87G approach pass (slow and with no deflection) - your absolutely right - it does increase your chance of hitting... "you" being both the pilot and the AA gunner  ... and a ship has lots of gunners and some of them throwing very large bricks at your aircraft... 
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:38 am |
|
|
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
And yet... strafing planes generally did ok against ships.
_________________
 |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:00 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Asbestos wrote: | | And yet... strafing planes generally did ok against ships. |
Agreed.. up to a point...
Unless "straffing" includes bombs and rockets.. it is extremely unlikely* to have any significant effect against major warships.
*except for secondary explosive/fire effects (eg ready use ammo, torpedoes, mines, depth charges, inflamable deck cargo etc).
Yet in W@S a SeaHurricane unit "attack" with a straffe of 2 dice - if it doesn't include cannons/bombs/rockets it is reliant on 8 rifle calibre MGs for its straffing factor... if so it has a 3% chance of inflicting a hit on a Heavy cruiser (armour 4)! a 14% chance against a Light cruiser (armour 3), a 42% chance against a Destroyer (armour 2) and a 75% chance against a Liberty ship (armour 1).
If anyone could point me to a source which showed significant damage being inflicted on a cruiser solely from MG fire I'd be very grateful...
Other than that...
Perhaps straffing should be limited to targets that it was historically effective against?
Proposal, core rules amendment:
Straffing: Straffing attacks can only damage/sink: Torpedo Boats, Destroyers, Auxillaries and land units.
Comments?
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:26 am |
|
|
Posts: 110
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Some additional interesting (to me at least ) information from:
http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/28/chapters/23.pdf
"There had grown up, however, after very successful experiments in mid-1942 from Malta ,
the idea of a tactical strike wing, in which a squadron of fast torpedo bombers was accompanied by one or more squadrons of equal performance relying on cannon fire and bombs to subdue enemy anti-aircraft fire and able also in most instances to engage enemy fighters in the critical moments when the torpedo bombers made their deliberate straight and level approach . In September 1942 the Air Ministry agreed to nominate
the Beaufighter as the standard Coastal Command strike aircraft and it was intended to have ten squadrons by April 1943 . A strike wing on the
Malta model had been formed in November 1942 by allying the one Beaufighter torpedo squadron to two Beaufighter "anti-flak" squadrons at North Coates in No . 16 Group . The first sortie of this formation during December, however, had miscarried badly and it was withdrawn for intensive
training until April 1943 . Its subsequent successes were manifest, but shortage of Beaufighters and the prior needs of campaigns in the Mediterranean
prevented any immediate increase along these lines until the end of the year."
and in the "footnotes" section - ALWAYS worth looking at from:
http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/29/chapters/15.pdf
"The ballistics of the 25-lb armour-piercing rocket were such that it was found possible to adjus t
the gunsight, cannons and rocket guide rails so that in a dive of between 10 and 14 degrees ,
without alteration of the point of aim, the cannons were correctly harmonised with the gunsight
for a range of 600-800 yards at which range the rockets would attain maximum velocity . Thus
fire could be opened with cannon at up to 1,000 yards continuing to 600 yards when rocket s
were fired, and cannon attack could continue to point-blank range using the ship itself as a
"splash target" ."
_________________
all the best
David |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:33 am |
|
|
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| David-in-Sydney wrote: | | Asbestos wrote: | | And yet... strafing planes generally did ok against ships. |
Agreed.. up to a point...
Unless "straffing" includes bombs and rockets.. it is extremely unlikely* to have any significant effect against major warships.
*except for secondary explosive/fire effects (eg ready use ammo, torpedoes, mines, depth charges, inflamable deck cargo etc).
Yet in W@S a SeaHurricane unit "attack" with a straffe of 2 dice - if it doesn't include cannons/bombs/rockets it is reliant on 8 rifle calibre MGs for its straffing factor... if so it has a 3% chance of inflicting a hit on a Heavy cruiser (armour 4)! a 14% chance against a Light cruiser (armour 3), a 42% chance against a Destroyer (armour 2) and a 75% chance against a Liberty ship (armour 1).
If anyone could point me to a source which showed significant damage being inflicted on a cruiser solely from MG fire I'd be very grateful...
Other than that...
Perhaps straffing should be limited to targets that it was historically effective against?
Proposal, core rules amendment:
Straffing: Straffing attacks can only damage/sink: Torpedo Boats, Destroyers, Auxillaries and land units.
Comments? |
KISS. Is what I think most people will say (and I agree).
Planes with strafing cover a wide range of gun size/amount. The Hurricane is one of the weaker examples armed only with rifle caliber guns, but the B-25H has a 75mm cannon. As for what, realistically could be damaged? I think that the Japanese cruisers, with their Long Lance tubes on deck, would be mighty fearful of ANY gunfire going across. But as for what was historically sunk by machine gun fire alone? There is that story of four Tuskagee airmen flying P-47s (8x.50cal machine guns) sinking an Axis 'Torpedo Boat', not an MTB, more of a 'Torpedo Destroyer' of 1000+ tons, with guns alone by managing to set off the magazine. So... if 32 machine guns can vital a Pegaso-type ship, maybe 200 machine guns would make a larger ship quiver (or at the very least be hell for the deck crew).
_________________
|
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 334
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I may be alone in this, but I see a plane's gunnery factor as more than just the plane's guns. For me it includes light bombs and rockets. The gunnery factor was given to fighters so they could do something besides air combat. |
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:20 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1664
|
|
|
| Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So, where are we on this exactly?
_________________
|
|
| Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:00 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
about 2 feet from a sticky wicket!!  to be serious, she could get MG4, mayyyyyyybe 5.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
 |
|
| Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
How is 5 a question, compare two 37mms to other 4 and 5 armaments.
_________________
|
|
| Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:05 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 1049
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Asbestos wrote: | | So, where are we on this exactly? |
Drop it, it's a pointless, ineffective and worst of all boring unit. And Im 100% sure it would'nt have been used against warships in real life, the pilots were trained as tanbusters not at strafing ships, this thread should've been about the JU-88P insetad, at least I can see that being used in real life.
Of course that's just my oponion and Im sure you guys have personal reasons to make this unit...
_________________
WKFC
IJNCVLF needs YOU! join the crusade; sign up TODAY! |
|
| Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:03 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1664
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'd use 'em, if they were cheap. Those 5 dice are enough of a threat to divert AA from other units, if nothing else. Maybe send 'em along with Ju-88's to get the Combined Attack bonus for Torpedo attacks. Maybe use 'em to break up swarms of smaller Ships. Compared to the Skua, which is available every turn, and without some kind of accuracy bonus, I'd put her at 4 points. Maybe 5 points, if she had another SA.
Ju-87G Stuka (Dive Bomber)
Available from January 1943
Cost 4 (maybe 5?)
Speed 14
Gunnery 5
No AA, No Bomb
4/7/1
Land Based, Expert Strafer
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
4 if that's all she brings to the table.
_________________
|
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:11 pm |
|
|
35M3LSC
Posts: 47
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Andreas3 wrote: | | Asbestos wrote: | | So, where are we on this exactly? |
Drop it, it's a pointless, ineffective and worst of all boring unit. And Im 100% sure it would'nt have been used against warships in real life, the pilots were trained as tanbusters not at strafing ships, this thread should've been about the JU-88P insetad, at least I can see that being used in real life.
Of course that's just my oponion and Im sure you guys have personal reasons to make this unit... |
As trained tankbusters, pilots learn to fire on vulnerable points. The same would apply to AP rounds, Incendiaries and HE(-DP) rounds from a 37mm.....
You trying to claim that a CL, or CA has more armor over its less-critical, yet vulnerable areas than a glacis on an MBT? I doubt it. Even if it does, the guns are designed to fire more than one round, and there are 50 of them....
Not a useless unit in W@S, and I'm sure they would have seen more use against Naval units if deployed from a German CV or assigned to coastal patrol duties.
As always, just my 2-cents.
_________________
The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics. - Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it....those who repeat it studiously are gamers. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
