Skip Bombing

[Sakai]

Need this feature as well as merchant ships to practice it on that if protected aid your nation's survivability, if sunk lower it.  Railroads might feature into this as well.  This would bring Ports into play more with perhaps a "light" airfield of a few Marine-use fighter choices, no bombers, available there.    

Add a Recon/bomber floatplane like the many choices mentioned in the last years (Sunderland, PBY, H8K for flying boats; Maybe the Heron-Cant Z.506B Airone) and base these planes only at ports.  Giving BBs and CAs floatplane catapults and one of the better known lighter floatplanes, say a Kingfisher or something, would also be sweet).  The famous skip bomber, the B-25, isn't as necessary to gameplay just yet, but it would be a fine addition due to it's historical notoriety and widespread usage.  

The other wish is that the game needs to have a graded victory/bombing scoring system like it does for the fighters.  That is, succesful bombing runs by lighter bombers should be rewarded according to the difficulty of achieving that task with that plane.  This would make lighter bombers worthwile rides.  

Need a diversity of targets for the light-medium bombers that might include bridges or cover in tank towns.  

If any new planes are needed after that, it should be skewed towards the early portion of the war in which the USSR is so poorly represented.  So if I were to build a new plane, it would have to be say, the Mig or Lagg 3s and the Il-4.  After that, I'd ask for Desert options--Gloster Glads, Falcos, Sm79s-81s, Ju52s.  

If we need a hot plane, make it the Frank or the Tupolev.  Surely we have enough 109s, Spits, and American Muscle to allow for new craft from another land?

He111 and Wellington, and Do217 next.

If an armored vehicle is offered after the T-34, I'd suggest one of the lighter tanks for a solid representation of early war armor.   Perhaps a  PzkwII or a Stuart (M5?). These would be most welcome in the TOD and CT actions.  In CT, there would be those lovely old early war setups filled with Ostwinds, M16s and late model Panzers.  

While many have asked for the Betty, I'd rather see the Ki-49.  While not having the range or a larger payload, it was better armored and the Betty would be an instant Hangar queen and lend nothing to early war setups due it's insane vulnerability.  I'd love to see it, but I'd model it only after about 15 other Japanese craft/vehicles were out.  

Sakai

[Masherbrum]

I'm serious, where in the hell do some of you get these asinine ideas?  

Karaya

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm serious, where in the hell do some of you get these asinine ideas?  

Karaya

Oh, those stupid historical and generally agreed upon and verified accounts of aviation combat in WWII, which must be considered as being wholly unreliable when compared to the far more realistic action contained in Aces High, or the recollections of former airplane model makers (an as yet untapped source of historical veracity, I am most certain!),  you know.

Sakai

[Angus]

Skip bombing was used successfully even. Interesting factor.

[nirvana]

What was it used successfully for besides taking out dams (which we don't have)?  There must be an instance of it, i'm just not in the know.

[Ack-Ack]

If we ever get the B-25, I would like to see it come with the orndance loadout with bombs equipped with drogue chutes.

As for the skip bombing, Navy and Marine anti-maritime squadrons used tht technique against Japanese shipping.


ack-ack

[Bronk]

Wasn't skip bombing also used on german sub pens, and dambs?



Bronk

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Bronk
Wasn't skip bombing also used on german sub pens, and dambs?


Bronk

A predominantly Maritime Arena, rotating between say Mediterranean and Pacific locales, would be sweet to see with lots of shipping to defend/attack.  

Would give the guys who like to be on boats new targets, too.  

A nice Med Layout would also give you plenty of land action and fit the TOD concept ever so nicely.

Sakai

[Martyn]

I feel that a lot of strategic type targets - such as trains, convoys and supply vessels (barges) don't SEEM to have a significant impact on the game. They could make good target fodder, particularly for attack planes, but there's simply not enough of them to spend time hunting. It's a pity really.

A convoy with tankers, about the size of the current CV fleets (or maybe larger ) would make nice targets - but would be pointless if they didn't affect the game play somehow.

And then later maybe we'd get the submarine wolfpacks a lot of us have been hoping for.  

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Sakai
Oh, those stupid historical and generally agreed upon and verified accounts of aviation combat in WWII, which must be considered as being wholly unreliable when compared to the far more realistic action contained in Aces High, or the recollections of former airplane model makers (an as yet untapped source of historical veracity, I am most certain!),  you know.

Sakai

To attempt to "lecture me" on topics I already know, reinforces my point even more.   However, to make the game, more gamey is pointless at this juncture.  

Karaya

PS - Bronk,  "Grand Slam" (Pens, Bielefeld Viaduct) and "Tallboy" (Pens, V-1, 2 Launch Sites and Tirpitz) were used by the 617th.  "Up Keep" was used for the Dams, by the 617th as well.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
To attempt to "lecture me" on topics I already know, reinforces my point even more.   However, to make the game, more gamey is pointless at this juncture.  

Karaya

No one was lecturing you, just pointing out you were being a priggish little dork.  Now that you've googled a couple stories, don't try to impress us.

Let's consider your arrogant and wholly uninformed little premise here shall we?

Making the game reflect the actual war more is decidedly not making it gamey, or doesn't the idea of reflecting historical veracity ever sink into your ego?

The entire TOD notion is built upon this premise, you simplistic little twit.

Ever think about that?

Clear it up for you any?

Arrogant little tiny snipe.

Stick yer head in the can and flush what yer using for brains out.

Sakai

[Bullethead]

I heartily agree that we need skip-bombing in the game.  It was done to a great extent in real life, against both naval and ground targets, and its absence is a glaring omission at present.  The introduction of skip-bombing, however, needs to go hand-in-hand with greatly reducing the damage done to ships from near-miss bombs.  Otherwise, there'd be no need for folks to practice skip-bombing when they can just blanket the whole TG with 3xLancs with 14x1000s each.

[Oleg]

I strongly doubt skip bombing will work in AH. It require to be very close to ship during drop, significantly closer than even during torpedo attack. Clear suicide i say.
In RL "skip bombers" followed dive bombers in second wave to finish job if well defended target was attacked.

Will be nice to have it nevertheless.

[Bullethead]

Oleg said

I strongly doubt skip bombing will work in AH. It require to be very close to ship during drop, significantly closer than even during torpedo attack. Clear suicide i say.

Actually, the bombs would skip several hundred yards.  I've got pics to prove it .  IOW, about the same distance as an effective torp attack.  Sure, you can launch torps at much longer range, but if anybody's driving the TG, they're gonna miss.

I agree, however, that it's suicide vs. the only types of boats we currently have.  It would require something like lightly armed merchant ships, perhaps as a supply convoy system on an island-based map, instead of the trucks and trains we now have.

In RL "skip bombers" followed dive bombers in second wave to finish job if well defended target was attacked.

Most skip-bombing was done by buffs, and they mostly hit merchant ships.  That's one reason why B25s had all the guns in the nose--to strafe down whatever gunners were on deck during the approach.

[Oleg]

Originally posted by Bullethead
Actually, the bombs would skip several hundred yards.  I've got pics to prove it .  IOW, about the same distance as an effective torp attack.  Sure, you can launch torps at much longer range, but if anybody's driving the TG, they're gonna miss.

I believe distance for torpedo attack much closer to 1000 yards. But main difference is - you can drop torpedos from longer distance and still have chances to hit, while you must drop bombs at least from "several hundred yards" to have any chance to hit.
I think common distance for skip bombing was even less.