I like this.

[Midnight]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:
gray.. ..What is unrealistic is for bombers to have so much effect on the figher war...  
lazs

Lazs, why do you think the allied bombing efforts were concentrated on factories and fuel depots/oil refineries and such? It was to limit the amount of fighters that could be built or put into the sky.

Remember, the original use of bombers in "the great war" was to drop bombs on enemy soldiers. Then fighters came to shoot the bombers BEFORE they could drop bombs. Then the bombers went to drop bombs on the support elements for the fighters BEFORE the fighters could come shoot them down. It is all one big continuous circle of fighters and bombers that cannot be broken.

Admittedly, the effect of a bomber on limiting fuel or fighter availability at an airfield is instantaneous, but without a more advanced strat formula, that's what we have to deal with.

I personally would like to see a strat engine that could accurately model grounded aircraft that would be hidden all over the outskirts of an airfield, but that just won't happen. Therefore, killing the hangers is all you can do to stop the airfield from having fighters takeoff.

Also, it would be nice if the fuel supply accually was consumed at a field depending on the amount taken by each plane leaving that field. That way, after all the fuel was used up, no other planes could take off until the next fuel truck showed up. Of course, if the fuel depot was destroyed, there would be no fuel to bring. That would make the bombers go for the source rather than trying to disable only one field.

It's a long shot, I know


------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"

Midnight

[This message has been edited by Midnight (edited 11-10-2000).]

[-lazs-]

"Admittedly, the effect of a bomber on limiting fuel or fighter availability at an airfield is
                    instantaneous, but without a more advanced strat formula, that's what we have to deal
                    with."

midnight... it is instantanious and blown WAY out of proportion.  And that is the point.   Like you, I would like to see 'revertments' and such to limit plane availability but... In the Pacific, where airfields were targeted by very large raids, it took many raids over days, weeks or sometimes months to "close" a field.   No way should one or two or even half a dozen of any kind of ac be able to close down a field in one sortie in a matter of minutes.   This bogus setup encourages bogus "spoiler" suicide bomber behavior.  

The most realistic attacks in AH are at best, pale imitations, one or two bombers escorted by a couple of fighters.   This is bad enough but... most attacks are lone suicide bombers.
lazs

[flakbait]

Anyone remember that rusty old sim ATF Gold? I still have my copy, and play it on occasion. In 1997 it was released with bad graphics, FMs that are questionable, and a few items we don't have here. Padlock in ATF Gold actually moves your head, with the target centered in the view. Bombs have dispersion that would make you scream in frustration. I carpet bombed a large field once, resulting in me killing the field and blowing 5 or 6 targets on it. This in a B-52 armed with 90 Mk. 82 500lb bombs. At 33k, those bombs hit ALL OVER the place, some not even hitting the field. Not because I dropped short or long, but because the dispersion threw them wide.

Some bomb dispersion would be nice. Something around the lines of being able to hit an ack position 1 out of 3 times from 30k. But the bombs we've got now are a tad annoying. They're self-giuded complete with GPS receiver, TERCOM, synthetic aperature radar, and digital satellite uplinks. If I drop a 500lb dumb bomb, I want it to BE dumb.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[tssfka]

 

Originally posted by Andy Bush:
And then he proceeded to explain about such things as fineness ratio and other stuff that I can't remember anymore (this was before many of you were born).  

Later on, when I was a Fighter Weapons School instructor, I had the same question every so often. What it boiled down to was that a typical bomb is a very small but large mass object, and as such, given the relatively short time of fall, is very resistant to having its velocity vector affected by changes in the air mass through which it is falling.

Now, under extreme wind shear conditions, it is probable that the weapon's ballistics might undergo a deviation from the original velocity vector...but the magnitude would be relatively small and of only academic interest. Operationally, it would be of no significance.

Andy

Andy,

You are correct here...up to a point.  The effects of wind on the bomb are not due to slenderness ratio but rather on the drag coefficient of the bomb with respect to the wind.  A bomb that has a high drag profile will be effected by wind whether is has a high slenderness ratio or not.  Also, the bombs are affected by toppling at release and other factors.  These effects will be small at low altitude but at high altitude will play a significant role in accuracy.  

If AH starts to model inaccuracies, we should get the blockbuster gyroscopically stabilised bombs for the Lanc.  10,000 lb (?)bombs that spun while they fell, allowing them to be super accurate.

Just a thought...  

[TheWobble]

Alright dangit enough techo mumbo jumbo!

HERE IS THE DEAL!

Drop 12 bombs from 30k at .2 delay
do the same from 6k
THEY WILL LAND EXACTLY THE SAME IN A NICE PERFECT LITTLE LINE EVENLY SPACED!

i think that from 30k a fast 12bomb salvo should land all over a medium sized field.
In a way as a bomber munkey i would like that better. You get over target and you drop.. thats it you know your gonna hit some stuff how much and what is a mistery you may kill alot you may just get a gun or 2,  It sickens me that HTC will go through such detailed modeling and such and then  totally neglect the basic principal of freefalling objects.

If they just fixed that, bombing would be MUCH funner and watching the bombs pepper the field would look MUCH cooler than this stupid little perfectly straight line of evenly spaced bombs.

[Westy]

"Alright dangit enough techo mumbo jumbo!"

 In other words don't confuse the issue with facts. Right-O!  "Gimme arcade! Or give me a refund!"  

 Essentially you want HTC to follow "the basic principal of freefalling objects." so that that "bombing would be MUCH funner" but only if they would change the stupid way they have now so that you can be "watching the bombs pepper the field (to) look MUCH cooler."

 kEwl!!
 
 -Westy