Will attack bombers be able to use carriers like high-level tactical bombers can ?
New Units in CoW 1.5
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
VIRVCOBRV wrote:
Will attack bombers be able to use carriers like high-level tactical bombers can ?
Torpedo28000
Main Administrator
EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh -
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
-
Vichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
-
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
-
JesterTheSheep wrote:
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
-
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Vichy wrote:
Assault bombers need to be way better in plane vs plane fight.
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 ?
-
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 ?
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 ?
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) ?
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
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 ?
And what about the hawker typhoon for example, or the f4u corsair (i have not the real answer, it's not an ironic question) ?
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
-
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.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Users Online 1
1 Guest
-
Similar Threads