SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


Offworlder -> SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 9:56:13 AM)

So I've tried to keep fighter bombers in those Shap squadrons that start with them in '41. Unfortunately, they barely fly and ratch up very few kills.

So what do other players do? Change them over to tactical bombers immediately? Or keep them as FB and use certain FBs?

Now I've used LaGGs, PE-3s and Hurricanes but to no or little use. Is there a decent FB that has proven effective in this role?

Thanks for the info!




Flaviusx -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 1:31:53 PM)

Leave them as is. Turn GS off. Don't bother flying the ground support mission until 1942, it is hard coded to be disorganized until then. Instead, use them to fly interdiction. Ground support is quite useless with single digits showing up, it just gets shot to pieces.

In 1942, flip them over to shturmoviks. In the meantime, they can get experience flying interdiction missions. You should save all your tactical bomber production until then. All your pure tactical bomber regiments (you don't have many to start with) should be sent to the national reserve in the meantime, for the same reason, but these regiments with I15bis and I153 have fairly sizable pools so any losses that occur from those interdiction missions won't hurt, and those old airframes do tolerably well flying interdiction.

They can also do straight up direct bombing, although level bombers are better for this, I mostly save the air miles on them for interdiction.

By spring of 42 you should have accumulated enough IL2 production to flip them over.




gingerbread -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 2:25:05 PM)

I agree that the GS is lousy early on, but I'm not sure that the disorganization (hard coded or not) is in effect during the entire '41. Below, Southern Front had 4 Il-2 Reg (air Rating 4 on the leader) and they made a number of appearances during the turn (T16), 22 at most. So I'll stick my neck out and say that GS is usable locally from October '41. Your Tac pools will have rather low numbers, so pick an area and be prepared to rotate groups every turn.

[image]local://upfiles/23548/7189F0A90F49422EB9D23E089F4033C9.jpg[/image]




Flaviusx -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 3:03:53 PM)

Interesting. That's more than I have ever managed to get to show up so early. You still lost 4 of them though, and that's almost a quarter of the mission right there, which wasn't amazingly large to begin with.

I would still keep the tac bombers in the reserve until spring of 42, though. The numbers are just too low to feed into battle for extremely sketchy results. Better imo to build up a critical mass and then unleash them. This kind of piecemeal commitment of aircraft going into the rasputitsa just doesn't strike me as cost effective. It's the mud that's going to save you at that stage, not a handful of shturmoviks. Perhaps a better case can be made to do this during the blizzard.





gingerbread -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 3:59:40 PM)

Yeah, losses were rather high. The groups had rather low experience so the results were not spectacular. [;)]

It was more of an experiment, though I'm more looking to cause casualties rather than influencing any battle. With a better leader (some '6' arrive in October) and a more rearward placement of the base, so that they fly in the later battles of a turn when the Axis fighters have some mileage, they can probably make a positive contribution and train experience after the cap of 50 is reached while in reserve.

(Very) selective GS 'ON' ( but done with Night to 'N') during blizzard can possibly help take key hexes, but I don't like the OP losses to the painstakingly trained Tac crews to them use the in general during blizzard.




Walloc -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 4:11:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Yeah, losses were rather high. The groups had rather low experience so the results were not spectacular. [;)]

It was more of an experiment, though I'm more looking to cause casualties rather than influencing any battle. With a better leader (some '6' arrive in October) and a more rearward placement of the base, so that they fly in the later battles of a turn when the Axis fighters have some mileage, they can probably make a positive contribution and train experience after the cap of 50 is reached while in reserve.

(Very) selective GS 'ON' ( but done with Night to 'N') during blizzard can possibly help take key hexes, but I don't like the OP losses to the painstakingly trained Tac crews to them use the in general during blizzard.



Well i know in regards to cause casulties its not much which is pretty historic. As too no results. I know with the odds in this case it doesnt help much, but 19 disrupted elements is nearly half of all disruptive "damage" done. Disrupted elements converts into fatigue, fatigue = less MPs and CV. It can be the difference maker, but yeah it will be the odd case out in '41. Any how there is a lesson to be learned as a taste of what is to come once u get a real airforce and the possibilies of what an airforce can do.

Kind regards,

Rasmus




Offworlder -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 7:37:30 PM)

Well I mainly used the tactical bombers in ground strikes and interdiction rather than ground support.

But the main issue for me is whether I should keep those regiments that start with FB flying FB or change over to tactical aircraft. Right now I'm in mid-42 and I'm swimming in IL-2s, so I have no worries about losing a few aircraft here and there. Is there a good FB for this role? I mean in real life, the Aircobra was valued more as a ground attack aircraft than as a fighter.

BTW one observation (or maybe a fluke) is that Shap regiments flying Su-2s seem to get more kills and experience rapidly. Maybe its just a fluke but I've converted some 20 regiments to SU-2s and two thirds of them are already or near guard status (mostly through ground stikes and interdiction, not close support).




Flaviusx -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 7:46:14 PM)

Don't go crazy with those SU2 conversions. The factory for them ceases producing in December. The pool will run dry eventually.

I always flip the ShaP regiments to IL2s. Fighter bombers are a poor second best for anything besides CAP/escort. You use fighter bombers for this when something else isn't available, if you have shturmoviks to burn, burn them.

Ground support is excellent...when it starts working. The shturmovik in particular is imo the best plane for this in the game by far (the Stuka is the poor man's version.) GS is the most important air mission in the game and will directly influence the outcome of land battles. So don't neglect it. 60 shturmoviks showing up over a combat is no joke, and by 1943 you can start seeing 100+ of them at a time.





Offworlder -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 9:21:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Don't go crazy with those SU2 conversions. The factory for them ceases producing in December. The pool will run dry eventually.

I always flip the ShaP regiments to IL2s. Fighter bombers are a poor second best for anything besides CAP/escort. You use fighter bombers for this when something else isn't available, if you have shturmoviks to burn, burn them.

Ground support is excellent...when it starts working. The shturmovik in particular is imo the best plane for this in the game by far (the Stuka is the poor man's version.) GS is the most important air mission in the game and will directly influence the outcome of land battles. So don't neglect it. 60 shturmoviks showing up over a combat is no joke, and by 1943 you can start seeing 100+ of them at a time.




Agreed on the Su-2s. I think one of the secrets of the plane is that since it has a longer range than most tactical bombers, it is given more chance to ratchet up the kills in the interdiction role - but that's just a gut feeling since I'm not keeping statistics.

Yep I'm swimming in Sturmoviks, mostly thanks to the fact that I try to escort them with as many fighters as possible.

Which brings me to another issue. With the arrival of the La5, it seems that finally a fighter of some value is available to the SU. Has anyone concentrated them in one sector to achieve a sort of aerial superiority? I'm going to try this by concentrating some of the best (by '42 standards that is) 18 regiments in 2 Guard Fighter divisions hoping that they inflict substantial losses to the Axis through direct air combat. I'll try this against a soft target (like the Rumanians and Hungarians) and see if it works




gingerbread -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 9:42:04 PM)

The quantity over quality concept really applies to AirSup, so look more to number of planes than the numerical ratings of said planes. AirSup is a means to be able to have GS yourself while denying it to the other side, so you're probably doing OK since your Tac pool is growing while you're flying them. In short, more is better.





Marquo -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/12/2012 10:33:16 PM)

And woe to the Axis player who keep his HQs in the open, all alone, not stacked with anything else....this is the single most destructive thing the Soviet player can do with planes: bomb HQs into dust.

Marquo




Offworlder -> RE: SHAP fighter bombers ... or not? (8/13/2012 5:59:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

And woe to the Axis player who keep his HQs in the open, all alone, not stacked with anything else....this is the single most destructive thing the Soviet player can do with planes: bomb HQs into dust.

Marquo


Agreed. I'm playing the AI and frankly I think its a bit gamey so I'm trying not to bomb HQs if possible. Still, given that a substantial part of support troops are Hiwis I could say that I'm blasting traitors...[:D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.757813E-02