Author Topic: Suicide diving level bombers (Read 3139 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #105 on:** September 13, 2004, 12:28:30 PM »

You can't "disable" bombs with damage.. Know why? Becuase they BLOW UP INSTEAD!

This has already been modeled. Don't believe me? Come in under the belly of a heavy lancaster and shoot it in the bomb bay. BOOM.. Fireball city.

Westy · « **Reply #106 on:** September 13, 2004, 01:18:23 PM »

Thanks HiTech. Couldn't have asked for a better, fairer reply.

"Anyone care to do some research on the drop paramaters of different bomb racks?"

I'll give it a shot. Anything I can find I'll pass on.

Each B-17 was equipped with an autopilot and a Norden bombsight. The two were interconnected in such a manner so that on a bomb run the bombsight took over the flying of the airplane to assure that a constant airspeed, a constant altitude, and a proper heading were maintained. This enabled the bombardier to program the information into the bombsight, and once it was aimed at the target the sight would stay fixed on the target as the B-17 moved toward the target. At the proper time based on the altitude and the speed of the airplane, the bombsight would automatically trigger the release of the bombs. On a clear day when the enemy target was plainly visible, this amazing bombsight made it possible to bomb military targets of the enemy with uncanny accuracy from altitudes as high as 30,000 feet.

It just seems to me that for the Lanc and B17 (or any heavy future bomber) the bombs should be armed only when the player is in the bombardier position. And when in the bombardier position lock the plane in auto-pilot mode with the exception of simple lateral control via the rudder? Break autopilot by trying to bank, dive or climb and the bombs disarm. In real life there were no evasives or hard maneuvers allowed on the bomb run.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #107 on:** September 13, 2004, 01:59:09 PM »

True .. but if I understand HT's position, since it's possible to release bombs manually, and since you don't care about the Norden at 500 ft, then that kind of attack should still be possible.

There is logic to your argument though: IF you select bomber formations, THEN you can only release bombs from the bombardier position IFF you do not disrupt the autopilot during the run. This would simulate the Norden-autopilot circuitry, though put the release in the player's hands.

If folks still want to use solo Lancs and B17's as tactical bombers, fine - they lose 2/3 of their defensive gunner and payload. So be it. I can live with that - and the guys who want to level bomb don't get penalized at all.

-DoK

SlapShot · « **Reply #108 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:13:25 PM »

Could the payload in a Lanc or B-17 be released from the cockpit or could it only be released from the bombadier position ?

If they could only be released from the bombadier position, then bombs should not be able to be released from the cockpit.

This would then make things real difficult for trying to dive bomb in those planes and carpet bombing at low alt would be no piece of cake either due to the limited visibilty while in the bomb sight.

koda76 · « **Reply #109 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:20:22 PM »

I like the choice of bombing methods.

Westy · « **Reply #110 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:27:46 PM »

Don't get me wrong DoK. I just want to help eliminate what is IMO some gross gaminess aka "the divebombing heavies." note:I'm willing to help tackle the suicidee jabo maroons too!

I dont want to ask HiTech to model the Norden as IMO that would be a hefty chunk of code and time for what I imagine would be minimal return. Nor would I want to force players into formation flying at 25k or introduce a seperate bombardier requirement.

A 500' attack should be doable. Sure. As wildly innacurate as a real one would be.

However just look at a picture of the B17 racks and one can see they're vertical drop only. They aren't very hefty jobs and they run right from the top of the fuselage down to the bomb bay doors. I do not believe in RL they'd release well in a 25 or 45 degree, power off dive over an enemy CV. A level, stable-as-possible bombing platform is what was required for a successful release with any hope of hitting even near the target.

Trying to find, and supply, the facts re: the racks and allowable bomb angles is going to take time.

Karnak · « **Reply #111 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:40:47 PM »

Does anybody have "The Great Book of WWII Warplanes" and a scanner? I recall that there is a bomb bay diagram that shows the bomb bay shape of several bombers, including the B-17 and Lancaster. Might it be possible to calulate what angle the bomber would have to be at for the bombs to strike the aircraft when dropped from such drawings?

Westy · « **Reply #112 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:11:06 PM »

Pictoral example:

Nose this baby over in a dive or bank and release your bombs. Then when the shackles let go and the bombs, which are supposed to drop verticaly, now fall 25-45degress forward ... uh oh..... right through that bulkhead. While they may not arm you can bet that hundreds of pounds of iron bomb are not going to bounce off that thin aluminim.

Same with the B-24 and Lancaster: each with large bomb bays designed for iron bombs to drop from a horizontal flight path.

Westy · « **Reply #113 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:18:03 PM »

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #114 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:23:24 PM »

I'm looking for a compromise that can be quickly put in place, Westy. I think one reason the sewercide heavy bombers are so prevalent is that they have 3X defensive firepower over a single tactical bomber, and 2 spare "lives" they can lose during their knuckle-dragging attack.

So if you restrict heavy's to only bomb from the bombardier position when in formation mode, then if people really want to Jabo a B17, they only have one plane to do it in - like any other Jabo. This won't completely stop the behavior, though - as I pointed out before you can get pretty good at guessing as long as you're willing to fly straight. But it really cuts the accuracy and easiness down to where you're better off with an A20.

As for the rack systems themselves, I don't have enough data to say what is accurate. But looking at them and remembering a little about fizzicks, we can maybe make some assumptions. One is that the racks are meant to hold the bombs ready to release downward and most likely not meant to sustain heavy G loads because of the concentration of mass (3 to 7 tons of HE in a small area). So it makes me wonder about ...

- if you push -G's, are the racks set up to prevent bombs from flying up through the roof of the plane? We know that if they're released in level flight they'll rip the bay doors off if they're closed, so I'd expect similar damage in the other direction.

- If there are safeguards for -G's, what will this do to the release mechanism (which is meant to regulate downward travel)? Do the release catches get bent by bearing loads in the "wrong" direction?

- If heavy +G's are applied, how much force can the racks sustain before the bombs break free by shear weight of F=MA? A 3G pull-out for a low-level dive bombing attack from a Lanc could put as much as 21 tons of force on the center of the plane, let alone the racks themselves - that can't be good for structural integrity. If the stress can be taken, will the racks still function? Will they get bent?

Some of these same questions apply to the bomb shackles on Jabo fighters.

-DoK

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #115 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:26:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy
Pictoral example:

Nose this baby over in a dive or bank and release your bombs. Then when the shackles let go and the bombs, which are supposed to drop verticaly, now fall 25-45degress forward ... uh oh..... right through that bulkhead. While they may not arm you can bet that hundreds of pounds of iron bomb are not going to bounce off that thin aluminim.

Same with the B-24 and Lancaster: each with large bomb bays designed for iron bombs to drop from a horizontal flight path.

Hmmm ... looks like the shackles pivot on the racks. So I guess they'd hold under -G's as well as +G's ... except for the bomb swinging up on the shackle and bashing into the rack. That can't be good.

Westy · « **Reply #116 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:36:49 PM »

I think I'm on the same side of the fence as you DoK. I'd much rather work for and see about getting a postive compromise than pushing for macro-realism which would drive players away. IMO anything that takes more than a basic "point&click" player skill while eliminating some really bad gameplay matters would be nice.

I'll dig into this. Make some phone calls to see what info is available and see if anyone has official papers on limits, allowances, etc. (for the B-17, Lanc, med bombers or anything I can find)

Sure beats reading the OT forum

Karnak · « **Reply #117 on:** September 13, 2004, 04:29:47 PM »

DoKGonZo,

The Lanc obtained it's payload be having a long shallow bomb bay rather than a short deep one.

TBolt A-10 · « **Reply #118 on:** September 14, 2004, 12:43:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
The arguments I agree with so far.

1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.

Wow. HT actually agreed with something I said.

Now, all the gamers will blame me.

Tilt · « **Reply #119 on:** September 16, 2004, 04:50:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

The arguments I agree with so far.

1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.

2. Find out what the limits on bomb drops are.

(btw people are mixing terms ,please do not use the term AOA, for climb angle)

HiTech

Would 1. above also include limiting bomb dropping to F6 view for pure bombers(or even just formations)? Probably a little more work required to "make it so".

I think 1. above would be a significant 1st step in any event.