Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik
Well the USMC 1.1 AA gun emplacement will fire at a spotter plane so I dont think that is in self defence? Someone seems to have made this bunker Unit a primary AA class
I don't think any of the AA we are talking about have EW values or SAMs?
You might like to replace emplacements with dug in guns but a dug in AA gun (or even dug in on the back of a truck) has turret armour values of 0 while an emplaced AA gun has turret values of 1.
So the dug in gun can be destroyed by any weapon on the battlefield while the emplaced gun is immune to all weapons with a HE Kill value of 1, most weapons on the battlefield.
So when shooting at aircraft, the emplacement is much more likely to survive straffing than the dug in AA gun or AA truck.
To be fair the Marine AA emplacement should be broken or the Japanese and Italian AA emplacements fixed.
If the Axis bunkers were fixed to be the same as the marine 1.1 emplacement then this type of AA bunker would clearly be very valuable to Italians and Japanese when the allies have Air superiority. Much better than a dug in AA piece because of the turret armour of 1
|
You have made a lot of, what I understand to be, erroneous statements/assumptions in the above post... (some already answered by the good folks whom replied to you earlier).
You need to look again at armour values, what they actually mean, the effect of open topped vehicles, how stuff is affected by HE and what the kill value means...
Did you run your tests again with all the variables identical? what were the results? You have to compare "apples" with "apples". I don't think things are necessarily "broken" because an "apple" doesn't act like an "orange".
In my experience dug-in stuff (especially softskins and infantry) is much less fragile than a bunker.