Broompatrol Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Can AA fire actually destroy aircraft in CMBO,CMAK or CMBB? or does it just hinder its effectiveness? And on a side note: Does anyone know why the US liked heavily armed and armored airplanes but at the same time went for lightly armored and lightly armed tanks? Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It can certainly destroy them, but here's no easy way of knowing if it has done so - the only place it is recorded is in the info section for each unit where it lists what casualties it has inflicted. US tanks were not lightly armoured - the Sherman had more armour than the P-IV, and about as much as a Panther on its hull. It had more armour than the T34. However the German tanks mounted much better anti-tank guns than the 75 and had little trouble penetrating that armour. I'm also unaware of any US aircraft being particularly well armoured, and only the P-47 stands out as being particularly well armed - vertainly the bombers were not well enough armed to survive on their own despite an apparently huge number of machine guns. But apart from that why would you think the 2 types of machine would share the same philosophy of armament and armour?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Yes, AA fire can destroy aircraft in the CM games. It also hinders the aircrafts effectiveness and persistence even if it does not shoot it down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aco4bn187inf Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 How do you know an aircraft has been destroyed? There is a big explosion sound effect. The aircraft's shadow crossing the terrain suddenly disappears. If it's yours that has been destroyed, your data window of 'enemy victory %' will reflect the aircraft's value. Also I seem to recall sometimes having seen an explosion in the sky upon loss of a plane, but in my current CMBB battle, in which I just lost a Henschel, none was shown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 In very rare cases the bailed crewmen will appear as prisoners somewhere behind your lines, or as "routed" anywhere else. IIRC, these count for double the price of the plane in points, so they are worth an attack to capture. Oh sorry, I should have started the above "Once upon a time". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Well, of course AA has no effect vs aircraft - if the aircraft belongs to you and targets your troops. On a serious note, look into the kill stats of your units and you might see an aircraft kill. Works best when confirming Aco's hints. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwatts Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I have never had a unit shoot down a plane, except of course in a scenario I made for my own enjoyment with lots of the things. The point about the bailed crewmen being routed crews? Let me just add, SWEET! I have never had this happen but am going to try my best to do so in the future. Personally any time I get AA, I use them against light armor, etc, unless of course those I get some of those useless flakwagons the Germans have. Those are pretty much only good for AA work, because they are thin-skinned they aren't even particularly effective against infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I concur. Had a Stuart kill an aircraft and the only way I noticed was in in the vehicle's end game kill stats. Presumably the kill was achieved by its .50 MG. Originally posted by Joachim: Well, of course AA has no effect vs aircraft - if the aircraft belongs to you and targets your troops. On a serious note, look into the kill stats of your units and you might see an aircraft kill. Works best when confirming Aco's hints. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Mr.Picky says: Stuarts don't have a .50, they do have a flexible .30 cal though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 In my current CMBB operation "Strachwitz at Dubno" I lost two aircraft (a Stuka and a Me-109?) to soviet AA fire...in battle 1 (of 5)... :eek: I only noticed that something was wrong when I heard that screeching Stuka-dive-sound ending apruptly (in turn 17?) - just before the bomb explosions should be heard. (..wasn't a sound-failure, every replay produced the same sound-effect...) I never noticed the other loss...until I saw the AAR. I guess the three 37mm AA guns that I trashed in the southeatern part of "Milbcha" in battle two were responsible for the loss of my airaft. Never noticed any mid-air explosions or downed pilots...I'll watch out for them in the future! Greetings, Hetzer38. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Originally posted by jwatts: I have never had a unit shoot down a plane, except of course in a scenario I made for my own enjoyment with lots of the things. The point about the bailed crewmen being routed crews? Let me just add, SWEET! I have never had this happen but am going to try my best to do so in the future. Personally any time I get AA, I use them against light armor, etc, unless of course those I get some of those useless flakwagons the Germans have. Those are pretty much only good for AA work, because they are thin-skinned they aren't even particularly effective against infantry. The point about the bailed crewmen being routed crews was a lie. Sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yes, the "once upon a time" should have been taken as a strong hint. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Sometimes...when you really DO want to believe...the brain decides to not notice hints like that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwatts Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I wanted it to be true so badly! I don't care what anyone says, I shall shoot down aeroplanes until I get a downed crewman, that or the Kaiser stops this crazy war, whichever comes first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Reply to Stalin's Organist post: Thanks for schooling me regarding US v German armor matchup. I should've looked at it from the perspective thatjust because a German HV gun is powerful doesn't automatically mean the armor it penetrates is thin. As far as airplanes go I guess I should've been more specific to fighters. Much Armor was removed from bombers to improve range, payload and speed. But the US philosophy in fighter design for the Air Corp and Navy was to armor plate vital areas of the aircraft including armored glass canopy. Typical armament was 6 .50 cals, by contrast Japanese fighters had little to no armor and had rifle sized ammo mixed with a cannon. British and German fighters (in my current understanding) had less armor too. The preferred method of engagement for a P-40 pilot was to fly head on and shred his opponent with the 6 x.50's confident his aircraft will soak up the the damage from the opponents lighter guns. This includes damage to propellor and radiator. The Wildcat was practically bulletproof compared to japanese fighters. The Japanese pilots would empty their magazines into US airplanes and still not get a kill (cannon still worked of course) unfortunatly Japanese airplanes tended to explode if you stared at them to hard. The P-51, P-47 were well armored too but the german guns were more effective than the Japanese ones. As far as why I would compare the Airplanes to tanks? I realize it is likely apples to oranges, but I thought it upside down that by some accounts if you lined up some Shermans you could shoot through 3 of them and they would all burst into flames even though by definition a Tank is supposed to be Armored and heavy and scary, and a fighter which flies through the air and has all those delicate thingies sticking out would fly head-on into an enemy formation soak up dozens of hits and still get a kill and fly home. "US tanks were not lightly armoured - the Sherman had more armour than the P-IV, and about as much as a Panther on its hull. It had more armour than the T34. However the German tanks mounted much better anti-tank guns than the 75 and had little trouble penetrating that armour I'm also unaware of any US aircraft being particularly well armoured, and only the P-47 stands out as being particularly well armed - vertainly the bombers were not well enough armed to survive on their own despite an apparently huge number of machine guns." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The ability to shoot through 3 Shermans says more about hte gun that can do so than hte Sherman - mainly that a lot of effort has been wasted making such a ferking great big one!! All western fighters had similar armour AFAIK - they all started in 1939-41 with NONE! (or very little). Spitfires, Hurricanes, Me-109's, etc all went into war with no armour at all, but it was very rapidly fitted! In the case of the Spitfire IIRC it was something like 80 lbs of it comprising mainly rear protection for hte pilot. I have an account of a NZ pilot who flew Buffalos against the Japanese and notes that they lacked armour - he recalled one pilot shot fown by being killed by a single rifle calibre bullet that hit him in the back. the lack of armour was one of hte reasons the Buffalo was considered not fit for combat in Europe. It was supposed to have it, and had the fittings in place, but it had not been supplied. The first fighter to standard carry armour was the I-16, which was just a head and shoulders plate. By 1941 all Soviet and UK fighters had full rear protection and some efforts were being made at protecting fuel - in the west this became self sealing tanks. The Russians used multiple layers of resin-impregnated cloth for tanks (it was very tough - semi-bullet proof vs rifle calibre) and used cooled exhaust gases to fill the empty space hence reducing the risk of fire. I'd be interested in accounts of P40 pilots going head-to-head. I suspect any such would be because that's better than dogfighting - at least you have some chance head-to-head. But the radial engine of most Japanese fighters is better able to absorb damage than the liquid cooled engine of hte P-40 - 1 bullet hole in the radiator and hte aircraft can be destroyed! Certainly early war Japanese fighters were lightly built compared to western opponents, but they still shot down a lot of F4F's, Spitfires and Hurricanes so I wouldn't be too accepting of some of the myths that came about from the war! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 There was a thread recently about duelling with PzIV's and Shermans, the quite surprising upshot of which was it was best for the Sherman to duel at range, as although the gun has lower MV, it will still penetrate the turret of the PzIV's, while the IV's will bounce all but a turret front hit off the Sherman. In a recent scenario I had the chance to try this out and it works. Much to my mates surprise - he'd not read the thread. Now the battlefield is littered with burning PzIV's while my Shermans are running low on AP, with a few burninating. + + + + REVERSE SPOILER + + + + + + + + + + + + The scenario is called Bieville by a fella called JonS (who sounds a rhum sort). Best fun you can have with your pants on. If you've read the Sherman thread of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 If you want to research about P-40's going head to head then look up Flying Tigers history. You are correct that the P-40 pilots didn't want to get into turning fights with Japanese fighters. The Japanese could turn tighter and they usuall had superior numbers. The Tigers would rely on superior armor and armament and dive speed to keep engagements vertical and head on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 BTW, thank you Mr. Organist for sharing your knowledge! I think anymore talk about aircraft should be carried into Down in Flames I've had enough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 If you pan up as the AA is firing you can *rarely* see the explosion in the sky as the aircraft is shot down. Back when i was doing AA mods I'd sometime construct test scenarios - nothing more than a battery of 40mm Bofors and M16s versus that German bomber that rains down all those bomblets - I can't recall the name off the top of my head. Oh, and maybe a German sniper hiding in the corner of the map so the game doesn't automatically surrender. Then I just sit there hitting the 'go' button and watching the spectacle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I've heard the germans sometimes used their machine guns on the turret (the one the commander used) for AA but was the calibre to small?...actually I'm trying to think of when the commander would ever use his machine gun because if infantry is that close to him he'd rather button up I'd think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Actually, that ring over the Panther cupola was to mount a mg. I believe it was the good-old MG34, or whatever the tank-specific mg designation was. I get the distinct impression - based on not much, I admit - that they simply pulled the bow mg to serve double duty as an AA mount. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fußball Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Originally posted by coe: I've heard the germans sometimes used their machine guns on the turret (the one the commander used) for AA but was the calibre to small?...The MG34 on the AA mount was "meant" for AA duties, but how effective it was is debatable. You can imagine if you are lucky enough to hit a plane flying low enough with 7,92mm rounds, how effective that will be. So at best the MG34 on the AA mount is a complete last ditch defense option. A commander rather his tank be hidden then be in a good position to start firing the AAMG at enemy plane(s). Wouldn't you? Tschüß! Erich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Keep in mind the AA MG was meant as part of a "mass fire" principle. One tank with a machine gun firing at an aircraft ain't in good shape, a whole company plus whoever is around with automatic weapons firing too is a whole different kettle of fish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 A stated earlier there was no MG issued to be used on the coupla. One of the co ax MG's was dismounted and used when conditions permitted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.