Grisha Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Since I have still yet to receive my copy of CMBB, can someone test the effects of Il-2s on a German truck/tank column? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1steaks Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 I had one attack me in a TCP game I'm playing. First it dropped bombs, then fired rockets, then repeated cannon attemtps. All on a lone Finnish T-26s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Let me guess...the Finn knocked down the Ruski plane by throwing pine cones at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1steaks Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 No, as soon as the Russian pilot saw it was a Finnish tank he slammed his plane into a nearby hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickovich Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Had one drop copies of Playboy and bottles of lotion on the Finns.Next it was Sissu(every man for himself)to the saunas.We russkys just froze in amazement :confused: I mean we friggin froze :mad: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted September 24, 2002 Author Share Posted September 24, 2002 Guess I'll need to wait for my copy before I get anything intelligent on this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Grisha: Guess I'll need to wait for my copy before I get anything intelligent on this ...It hits with bombs. then it hits you with rockets. and then with guns. and IF it hits, you are toast. what more do you need to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted September 24, 2002 Author Share Posted September 24, 2002 and IF it hits, you are toast.So, it is effective then? This is what I'm trying to determine, or was that difficult to assess from my original post? I should hope the game arrives tomorrow, so let's just let this one lie. I'll figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 In "Fighting in hell" a German commander describes how the Il-2 caused a lot of problems in the beginning of the war, but after the AA guns (20 mm) was *allowed* to use it's AP shots (reserved for Anti Armour) to bring down the Il-2's they sized to be a big problem. Also, the russians never attacked in a co ordinated manner, which further hampered their effectiveness. It seems the all powerful Il-2 is to a large degree a myth, like so many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted September 24, 2002 Author Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer76: In "Fighting in hell" a German commander describes how the Il-2 caused a lot of problems in the beginning of the war, but after the AA guns (20 mm) was *allowed* to use it's AP shots (reserved for Anti Armour) to bring down the Il-2's they sized to be a big problem. Also, the russians never attacked in a co ordinated manner, which further hampered their effectiveness. It seems the all powerful Il-2 is to a large degree a myth, like so many other things.Your quote reminds me of another quote: Underestimation of the Soviet opponent accounts for a great deal of the reverses that the Eastern Luftwaffe suffered. It has also inhibited historical understanding of the conflict. "Revisionism" was already underway within weeks of the German collapse. Captured Luftwaffe officers smoothly told their British interrogators that "the available strength of [German] fighters on the eastern front was sufficient," or, more incredibly: Never in the whole course of the war did the Russians succeed in decisively preventing operations of the German air force nor did they themselves bring about any decision in a battle in spite of a numerical superiority of up to 10 to 1. The bulk of the memoir literature emanating from the German side has only served to reinforce this perception. - Richard Muller, German Air War in Russia, p.234-5A little food for thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 "Never in the whole course of the war did the Russians succeed in decisively preventing operations of the German air force nor did they themselves bring about any decision in a battle in spite of a numerical superiority of up to 10 to 1." Yeah, that Stalingrad Air-Bridge operation sure worked out well. I guess all the Ju-52 Crews must have immagined being shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Grisha: Never in the whole course of the war did the Russians succeed in decisively preventing operations of the German air force nor did they themselves bring about any decision in a battle in spite of a numerical superiority of up to 10 to 1.Says nothing about the German ground forces. I do have to say the Soviet Airforce did almost criminally neglect the interdiction task, at least when it comes to the summer of 1944 assault against the Finns. They failed to interdict trains (running some 100km behind the front line) which were transporting troops from the North of lake Ladoga to assembly areas around Viipuri; the only Finnish armoured formation could regroup and move around to the hot spots which were never more than 50 km's from each other and always in the focal point of the Soviet main axis of advance. The Soviets used them for tactical operations and they did fail to use the full potential of their air superiority in debth. Not being totally dependant on motorized transports and radio transmitted commands the Finnish army may have rendered some of the air superiority redundant since they would normally only attack visible targets like transports moving on the roads just behind the front line or artillery positions. In the open steppes using a radio must have invited some unpleasant guests for a look-see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stixx Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 ROFL.. Nippy, is nipping at the heels! He has a very valid point though That quote is not entirely correct Grisha. Stix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Stixx: ROFL.. Nippy, is nipping at the heels! He has a very valid point though That quote is not entirely correct Grisha. Stix*Tatsinskya Airfeild* German Pilot#1: Jesus! There are a dozen T-34s charging across the airfield! German Pilot#2: No they are not. Those Russian tanks are figments of your imagination. Everyone knows the Russians are too stupid, braindead, and drunk to mount any kind of effective attacks. KABOOM! German Pilot#2: Like this shrapnel lodged in my lung for instance, purly subjective to interpratation as to how it got there. Maybe I tripped and fell on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Grisha, Had a pesky IL-2 in the 1942-scenario Sevastopol. The IL-2 attacks as Lindan pointed out. The IL-2 did not generate much material damage, but instead created chaos in my line. Troops dismounted their HTs which brought some chaos. 1 or 2 HTs destroyed, abandoned some with killed gunners. I had two 20 mm Flaks so this may be a reason why the pilot missed with the bombs and rockets. I think planes are great to bring some disorganisation into an attackers formation. A fighter is available for 90 points and even managed to immobilize a T-34 (In this case a 109). Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 In preview at my place an IL-2 first dropped rockets to no effect on a Panther. It then shot it up a bit, achieving no-kil penetration. The Panther tried to reverse into some woods. The next fly-over achieved more penetrations, immobilising it. The crew bailed. The same IL-2 then focused its attentions on a Brummbaer on the road. First flyover - penetrations, crew alarmed. Second flyover, penetrations, crew broken. Crew bailed before waiting for the third flyover. That was about 70% of the German armour force taken care of. Efficient enough? Improved modelling of small-round penetrations, airplane load-out and the vehicle morale model combine to make these flyboys killers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Of course, in such a small scale tactical enviroment as CMBB encompass, and more often than not without any AA capabilities, Im sure the Il-2 can be very effective. Im just saying tha maybe the Il-2 in a historical perspective wasn't the big beast as some have made it out to be. Just like the Tiger, King Tiger etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nippy, You will be happy to know that I made a scenario on the counter attack that retook the Tatsinskya Airfield. It is in testing now. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwxspoon Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 and it is evil! Pure evil! jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Nippy: "Never in the whole course of the war did the Russians succeed in decisively preventing operations of the German air force nor did they themselves bring about any decision in a battle in spite of a numerical superiority of up to 10 to 1." Yeah, that Stalingrad Air-Bridge operation sure worked out well. I guess all the Ju-52 Crews must have immagined being shot down. Wasn't the shortage of transport aircraft the real reason for the inability to meet operational requirements? I should think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Andreas: In preview at my place an IL-2 first dropped rockets to no effect on a Panther... The same IL-2 then focused its attentions on a Brummbaer... That was about 70% of the German armour force taken care of. Efficient enough? Two tanks out of three = 66.66%....precise enough? [ September 24, 2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: In preview at my place an IL-2 first dropped rockets to no effect on a Panther... The same IL-2 then focused its attentions on a Brummbaer... That was about 70% of the German armour force taken care of. Efficient enough? Two tanks out of three = 66.66%....precise enough? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nippy: Yeah, that Stalingrad Air-Bridge operation sure worked out well. I guess all the Ju-52 Crews must have immagined being shot down.Wasn't the shortage of transport aircraft the real reason for the inability to meet operational requirements? I should think so.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer76: In "Fighting in hell" a German commander describes how the Il-2 caused a lot of problems in the beginning of the war, but after the AA guns (20 mm) was *allowed* to use it's AP shots (reserved for Anti Armour) to bring down the Il-2's they seized to be a big problem. Also, the russians never attacked in a co ordinated manner, which further hampered their effectiveness. That is either propaganda, or at least misleading. I seriously doubt that the russians never attacked in an coordinated fashion, and while the pilots probably prefered to hit targets that weren't shooting back there are enough accounts of IL-2's pressing home their attacks -or attacking where there was no-one shooting back (how widespread were those 20's anyway?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 Originally posted by Foxbat: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76: In "Fighting in hell" a German commander describes how the Il-2 caused a lot of problems in the beginning of the war, but after the AA guns (20 mm) was *allowed* to use it's AP shots (reserved for Anti Armour) to bring down the Il-2's they seized to be a big problem. Also, the russians never attacked in a co ordinated manner, which further hampered their effectiveness. That is either propaganda, or at least misleading. I seriously doubt that the russians never attacked in an coordinated fashion, and while the pilots probably prefered to hit targets that weren't shooting back there are enough accounts of IL-2's pressing home their attacks -or attacking where there was no-one shooting back (how widespread were those 20's anyway?)</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts