New Units in CoW 1.5

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
      Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escorts :wallbash
      To add on that, the earlier model of Stukas had 2 x 7.92 mm machine guns, one on either wing. The British Spitfire, their main opponent, had 8 x 7.67 mm machine guns, 4 per wing. That's literally 4x the firepower for air to air combat.
    • JesterTheSheep wrote:

      WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
      Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escorts :wallbash
      To add on that, the earlier model of Stukas had 2 x 7.92 mm machine guns, one on either wing. The British Spitfire, their main opponent, had 8 x 7.67 mm machine guns, 4 per wing. That's literally 4x the firepower for air to air combat.
      As well as a top speed approx 100 mph [160kph] faster. There was a reason Stukas were withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, high losses.
    • WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
      Ask Stuka pilots how they liked going against fighters ........... there is a reason they needed fighter escorts :wallbash
      *Laugh in Hawker Typhoon*

      By "way better", i wasn't saying they must be the equal of fighters.
      But did you see their stats ? A 5,8 - D 1,9 for the last lvl at days 14 (not the elite one which is A 8 and D 2,7 at day 18). And i'm the germans, with the damage buff. It is litterally the worst plane in the game. Ok, "way better" was maybe too much, mea culpa. But they need a little air fight buff. And don't worry, when you see the stats of fighters, there is a big margin available.
      I searched so examples, i found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_history
      I'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.
      I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
    • Vichy wrote:

      I searched so examples, i found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_history
      I'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.
      I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
      I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.
    • WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      I searched so examples, i found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.
      I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
      I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.
      wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this web.archive.org/web/2010062105…net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )
      Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.
      For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).
      And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
    • Vichy wrote:

      WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      I searched so examples, i found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
      I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.
      wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this web.archive.org/web/2010062105…net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.
      For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).
      And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
      The Ilyushin Il-2 "flying tank" was a heavily armored Soviet ground attack aircraft. It was occasionally used in the air-to-air role in the early war when the Soviets were desperate for anything that could fly but it was not very good in the role. As a war thunder player (which is obviously 100% accurate about everything) I can assure you that the IL-2 is not a dogfighter.
      Typhoons and F4u were fighters that had very good ground pound capabilities, not assault aircraft with very good dogfight capabilities. They could pack a punch for anyone on the ground but they were designed as air superiority aircraft.
      Attack aircraft might be better at air-to-air than tactical bombers due to their slight mobility increase, but tacs might be better because of their additional gun positions. I think that both realistically and balance wise it comes out as a wash; non fighters NEED fighter cover/air superiority to be at all effective because they can not survive enemy fighter attacks.
    • Vichy wrote:

      wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about
      I was quoting my former university professors - wikipedia is not to be used as source material as every Tom, Dick, and Harry can go in there and add anything they want to it, without it being checked for accuracy. "Citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not a creditable source." Good as a starting point but not good enough to quote.

      eruth wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

      Vichy wrote:

      I searched so examples, i found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua#Operational_historyI'm not asking a god mode for assault bombers, but just something just a little more viable and who will not be equal to a classic bomber.I'm not a pro in this field (you saw it i think lol), but i hope i'm not really wrong saying that assault bombers are between fighters and normal bombers speaking of air fights ?
      I have said it before and I will say it again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source lol. In my opinion, assault bombers are akin to dive bombers, and as such, have weaker air defense than normal bombers, and significantly less than strategic bombers, who usually bristle with defensive guns. Assault bomber, 1 or 2 defensive guns, tactical bomber, 3 to 4, strategic, up to 10. Assault bombers need air superiority to function effectively, as do tactical bombers. Strategic bombers were built to fly into air defenses to carry out their mission, suffering losses none the less.
      wikipedia can be reliable, and if not sure it allows you to do research on some facts evocated in the article that you would not have think about + there are references (as this web.archive.org/web/2010062105…net/john.dell/Dunkirk.htm )Yes assault bomber have less support gunners, bur their principal weapons are often better than bombers, with e.g canon in addition of machineguns. Their shape and speed are often more like fighters than classic bombers.For defense some assault bombers were designed as "flying tanks" if my memory is good, to counter anti air defense (but yes, maybe not as flying fortress, and it was not the same altitude, but i was not contesting this point).
      And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
      The Ilyushin Il-2 "flying tank" was a heavily armored Soviet ground attack aircraft. It was occasionally used in the air-to-air role in the early war when the Soviets were desperate for anything that could fly but it was not very good in the role. As a war thunder player (which is obviously 100% accurate about everything) I can assure you that the IL-2 is not a dogfighter.Typhoons and F4u were fighters that had very good ground pound capabilities, not assault aircraft with very good dogfight capabilities. They could pack a punch for anyone on the ground but they were designed as air superiority aircraft.
      Attack aircraft might be better at air-to-air than tactical bombers due to their slight mobility increase, but tacs might be better because of their additional gun positions. I think that both realistically and balance wise it comes out as a wash; non fighters NEED fighter cover/air superiority to be at all effective because they can not survive enemy fighter attacks.
    • Quite fun that I'm learning more about the planes of WW2... please, continue enlightening us with your knowledge (if you think I'm joking, I'm not).
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusual
      Pilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
    • d.jahnsen wrote:

      I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusual
      Pilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights
      Dogfights were common in WW2 but they were less common than in WWI as there were "alternative methods" (eg boom & zoom, which was harder in WW1 for plenty of reasons), a lower fighters-to-non-fighter than WWI, different "air combat doctrine". They were also much shorter and they were also much shorter. The French Ace Pierre Clostermann said that in the typical WW2 dogfight, there were no more than 2 or 3 hard turns.
    • Hello all,

      Seems I am way late to the party, the new unis seem absolutely awesome to me!
      Have been of CoW for quite a while now, but this will definitely make me play again soon.

      I think it is brilliant that a multitude of units is available and choices actually matter.

      Would anyone care to elaborate on their experiences using these new units?

      @Little Racoon historically speaking rockets shot high explosives, not very effective on heavily armoured targets. To penetrate heavy armour typically a direct hit was needed with specialised ammunition.
      Good to see you stil play btw!

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      I have to check my sources, but I'm pretty sure that in ww2 the dogfight was unusual
      Pilots usually prefer to "hunt" easy targets from behind and above using the potential energy, if the Target it's not destroy in the first attack Pilots do not persuit the enemy, they usually try to keep the advantage position and avoid dogfights

      Study the Battle of Britain for a more true picture of this.