Suggestion to cure dive-bombing Lancs

[MetaTron]

Bright flash direct hit with HE could take out all three no matter which one it hits. Of course, the dweebs won't have any idea how to use it.

[Widewing]

The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than  10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.

Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.

My regards,

Widewing

[Swoop]

Actually I quite like the idea of watching dive bombers being caught in a cluster of explosions as the bombs he just dropped clatter around into each other and him.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Widewing
The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than  10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.

Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.

My regards,

Widewing

You just cannot beat this solution, in my opinion.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Widewing
The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than  10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.
 

Lancaster may be different, as the bombs are stacked in the bomb bay horizontally rather than vertically on U.S. types.

I like the idea though, maybe we will see Ju-88's actually being used as dive bombers.

[bj229r]

I like that idea---only exterior-mounted ordinance ought be able to be dropped in dive

[Pepe]

I subscribe to widewing's, plus I would add some accuracy to field Ack, especially short range shots. Besides it's weird behaviour (you more likely be dead if you make a very fast pass than a slow one), there is, IMHO, a general feeling of safety when you reach for the field, either in a Buff or in the regular suicide porker Jabo.

If that Cloclo AAR about attacking a field is trustworthy of what Real Life ack was, AH is way too tender to enemies.

[vorticon]

Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.

but only on level bombers...otherwise the stuka wont be able to bomb...



of course having the text turn green whewn you calibrate the bombsite ONLY if it is going to hit with above 70% or so accuracy would help to...

[hitech]

The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false.  If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.

HiTech

[dedalos]

Originally posted by hitech
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false.  If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.

HiTech

So, when he does not put 1G they don't right?

[MetaTron]

I meant the fleet 5" guns switched to HE ammunition. I find the larger bombers an easier target and see bright flash hits on them most frequently, so I thought the HE could be "enhanced" for formations.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by hitech
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false.  If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.

Exactly. Theoretically, a bomber could be pulling enough G's at the top of a loop that it could release bombs while the plane is inverted and the plane's maneuvering would be enough to pull the plane away from the bombs before the bombs hang up in the bomb bay.

And this is what makes the problem so complex; it requires that you model the actual bomb storage of each bomber, so that your FE can determine whether, at the moment of release, the bombs are going to fall out of the bomb bay or hang up. I suppose it would be possible to produce a G angle limit for each bomb bay on an aircraft, where if the G vector at the moment of release exceeds a limit angle from vertical, then the bombs hang up and refuse to drop.

This gets more complicated in that the failure of a particular drop attempt may or may not prevent other[/u] bombs from dropping. For example, the B-17 bomb racks are more-or-less vertical; if the bottom bomb(s) hang up, the rest of the bomb load will hang up, too, and the release limit for the upper bombs will be tighter than for the lower. The Lancaster, on the other hand, has its bombs arranged in a single layer running along most of the belly of the plane; if one bomb failed to come off its shackles properly, it doesn't affect the remaining bombs, and it would have a much wider limit angle. The B-24 had two bomb bays; bombs hanging up in one bay would not prevent release from the other, but it has the same decreasing-tolerance problem that the B-17 has. The internal bombs on an He-111 are stored vertically in individual shafts; the bombs will exit their shafts as long as there is a net positive G force of any strength pulling them out, and the failure of any one bomb to release wouldn't affect the others.

So the question comes down to "Do we allow players to use level bombers in a manner in which they were historically neither trained for nor employed, and either take the effort to model the actual physics of the bomb bays of each bomber or make a sweeping requirement that they have a minimum 1G force normal to the flight axis pulling the bombs out, or make an artificial restriction to enforce historicity by decreeing that all level bombers can't drop bombs unless in level flight, or leave things as they are now?"

I don't see HTC making the effort to model bomb bays individually, with all the other things they have on their plates.  A G-limit requirement would have some people screaming about the limits being wrong, and enforcing level bombing would have other people screaming that the planes were capable of dive bombing even if they weren't used that way. And leaving things as they are leaves other people screaming about bombers doing impossible drops. I'm sure HiTech is going to make the decision he thinks is the best compromise, no matter how many people scream about it.

[dedalos]

I have a question.  Given that the bombing acuracy those days was not very good (my home town was bombed accidently when the germans tried to bomb a Brit convoy or camp, not sure, 1 mile ouside the town) how come they did not try dive bombing in WWII?  It seems to be more acurate.

[MetaTron]

Originally posted by dedalos
I have a question.  Given that the bombing acuracy those days was not very good (my home town was bombed accidently when the germans tried to bomb a Brit convoy or camp, not sure, 1 mile ouside the town) how come they did not try dive bombing in WWII?  It seems to be more acurate.

With a realistically defended field, or strategic target, you would see many more guns and much more effective defensive fire. When an aircraft is in a dive attack it is open to the most effective fire, thus my suggestion to improve a CVs ability to defend itself. When a Lancaster dives on a cv it is lined up just like an HO attack, and HE in a 5" gun would end all that noise.

[SunTracker]

The best solution is WideWings.  I've been in the bomb bay of a B-17 a few times.  Theres ALOT of stuff in there for the bombs to hit if the plane is maneuvering.