🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44bdhh$h...@hippo.shef.ac.uk>, Martin Rapier <M.Ra...@shef.ac.uk> writes:
|> thierry@pfrec42.Paris01 (Thierry Lejealle) wrote:
|> >
|> >	Okay arguing about realism in PzG is a bit sterile.
|> >It's an excellent game butId oubt realism was the first goal...
|> >Just look at the size of the unit... Between the taking of Sevastopol 
|> >or the main attack in Russia, there's quite a scale :)
|> 
|> Yes, good point.
|> 

inaccurate, yes, but i think the variable scale (both in spatial dimention and
time) captures the essence of generalship better than many "reailstic" games.
in a war, or battle, a general (or a commander at any level for that matter) 
could only effectively control
half a dozen primary units plus another half a dozen support units at the most;
that's the whole point of hierarchic organization.  a "realistic" game like 
World At War series (Operation Crusader, Stalingrad) where you can micromanage
hudreds of pieces, IMHO, is even less realistic modelling.  not that i don't
like detail or micromanaging; but it's simply the realization that if Hitler's
commanding style worked in 1942, the world would have been a completely different
place.  clausiwitz's "friction" was the essence of commanding; after all, most
battles were usually decided by fighting among surprisingly small elements of 
opposing armies; the rest just moved along.

|> >>Anyway, as I also said many posts ago, if you _really_ want to sink ships 
|> >>with artillery in PzG, but the 170mm gun. I've found that Ju88s and 
|> >>He177s work better (preumably the latter is the glider-bomb armed variant 
|> >>used at Salerno).
|> >
|> >	That seems still quite strange to me... From what I gathered
|> >it seems the german had a special stuka group trained against ships and
|> >they were efficient. In the Pacific, ships were mostly sink by
|> >torpedo or dive bomber, as the stuka is... Rarely by level bomber.
|> >Or Am I wrong ?
|> 
|> No, I think you are correct. Someone else pointed out that the Ju88 was originally designed as 
|> a dive-bomber, but it is treated as a level bomber in the game. In the Pacific, level bombing 
|> from B17s was pretty ineffective.
|> 

The proper American counterpart to German Ju88 should be Mitchel and Marauder.
German equivalent of American B17,24,29 high-level strategic bombers never
went beyond experimental stages.  In terms of tactics, altitude, speed, mechanical
characteristics and simple engine count, Ju88, He111 and their derivatives
were all more similar to the USAAF B25 Mitchel, B26 Marauder, and Japanese Betty
bombers than any "level bombers" championed by USAAF, RAF Bomber Command and
Italian RA.  B25,26 were quite effective for skip-bombing; Bettys accounted
for the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse.  The reason why torpedo
bombers and dive bombers got more coverage in the Pacific war was because the
twin-engined tactical bombers (B25, B26 and Betty) could not be recovered by
WWII carriers (B25s used in the Doolittle raid had to land in China); and carrier
battles were the more exciting battles.  The day-to-day battle of attrition in 
Soloman and New Guinea that broke the back of Japanese aviation primarily utilized 
twin-engine bombers for anti-shipping.
The prowess of Ju188 and He177 in anti-shipping missions was further enhanced in
1943 by the introduction of a line of radio-guided glider bombs.  The were the
best "smart-bombs" until the Japanese version put a human onboard; even then,
the experience factor might still tip the hand in German favor: there were even
less experienced Okha pilots than experienced kamikazes :-)

|> I guess we'll just have to put it down to another historical inaccuracy in PG (like those 3 
|> range SIG SPGs - real life max range 2500m).
|> 
|> Cheers.
|> Martin.
|> 
|>