ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.
At least for me this is not my second argument.
My argument is that the game fails to model tactics and weapons (FBs and the roles/weapons I spoke of up-thread) which constituted most of the Allied land air war effort ex-strat bombing cities. CAS simply isn't really in the game, and it was the root of Allied air superiority for at least 1944-45, and somewhat earlier by theater.
So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.
I agree. I almost added a side note about FBs and CAS to my last point, but didn't want to seem like I was piling on.
By 1944, most of US fighters, and some of the British, had FB loadouts available that included 2000-3000 lbs of bombs, plus rockets in many cases and of course thousands of rounds of 50 cal. To put that in perspective, the short-range loadout of a B-17 or B-24 was about 8000 lbs of bombs. So about 3 FBs = 1 4EB, and the FBs can sortie more often from closer airfields (in a land campaign) and be more accurate on smaller targets. In reality, the FBs are way more effective than 4EB could ever be in a ground support role.
All that, plus by 1944 (Tinian was the first use of napalm I think), the US at least had bifurcated FB loads to high-explosives for structures (bridges, command posts, hangars, etc.), and pure anti-personnel loads. Napalm was big, especially in jungle and island overgrowth, and WP was big for more open, grassy terrain as on Okinawa. Neither are in the game overtly. In jungle, as in much of Burma, once the Japanese dig in through local forts, they can laugh at hi-E bombing, and the supply models give them VAST amounts of supply through untenable terrain. The game gives the Allies the historical planes in historic numbers, but no way to use them historically.
I'm just incredibly unimpressed with any JFB who complains about 4E uses on troops in the open. It's a weak tea, second-order benefit for the AFB. Take it away and the Allied air war is truly crippled.