Mossie and bombing accuracies

[Serapis]

My $.02. You could start by making the heavies drop full salvos only, and perhaps the mediums a half salvo (yeah, still gamey, but it does differentiate the platforms somewhat). As already noted, you could remove the bombsight zoom as well. The result: the ability to drop heavy loads accurately on large strat targets but be limited to severe, but rather random damage on smaller targets. Ack modifiers could make low level (up to 10,000 feet or more) bomb runs by large slow bombers as dangerous as they would have been in real life.

In the future, when more dive bombers arrive, you could tone down the accuracy (through dispersion) of the bombs and rockets carried by fighter platforms. They weren't really that accurate in RL and shouldn't be here, even with an obvious AH experience factor taken into account. Unfortunately, since the current playstyle is so well established, these changes would likely not be appreciated in the MA.

As for the Norden pickle barrel, pre-war PR copy, look at the inaccuracies with the atomic bombings. What was it at Hiroshima, 800 feet or so (fine, though, when you're talking 15 kilotons of blast) by an elite crew that practiced a single bomb release for months?

Charon

[AcId]

Guys, I wasnt trying to say that the B-17 had LGB accuracy. You know what, I wasn't there so I can't say, and I'm gambling you weren't a WW2 bombardier either,   whoever the pilot was that made that statement was clearly exagerating but for that time and with current technology it was an improvement, and his statement was probably meant to reflect the improvement over previous bombing methods.  

[Toad]

Here you go; might as well go to one of the better sources and argue from a position of some knowledge.  
 http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tfdo


"THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
Summary Report
(European War)
September 30, 1945

...The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged from poor to excellent. When visual conditions were favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried than hit German installations."


All in all and interesting and informative read. I highly recommend it.

[qts]

Just a thought, but one thing the Mossie has which the heavy bombers lack is speed. Would it not be better to compare it to the Arado?

[Nash]

Maybe.... but then... what's the use of speed if you can bomb with altitude? Arados can make pinpoint drops from 25k. Dive bombing means having to come in low and be at the mercy of ack, enemy fighters, and all sorts of nastiness in order to make drops that are often less accurate than what the Arado or any other buff will be making from his perch.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Karnak]

I have to agree that in some ways it would be nice to click the button once and have all of my Lanc's eggs release at once.  None of the .05 second delay He111 crap.  Just click, they all drop, and I get the hell out of Dodge.  Right now the heavies are forced to make repeated passes or even loiter which greatly increases the danger associated with them.

Add in some light dispersion and real blast effects and voila, the level bombers still work, but work differently.

[Nash]

It's like this... (imho   )

At one point in Aces High, there was only one bomber. Bombers were needed to play a certain role in the MA wrt field capture. So they were given the ability to make accurate drops from way high selecting and dropping on individual targets with the full knowledge that those targets would be blasted into scrap.

They could drop a single bomb on an ack emplacement from 30k, make another single drop on another target, extend, come back and make a single drop on maybe a bunker, another one on ack, extend, come back, make a single drop on... well... you get the idea.

And because they were given the ability to do this from orbit, they could be more or less safe to hover around up there for as many passes as needed until all the bombs were away. Then they'd just go home. Or, if you *didn't* want to climb to those altitudes, you could do more or less the same thing from say 20k. Of course, you're at a bit more risk here - et voila - the gun effectiveness is increased, problem blunted.

As for the risks involved, and the role only they were able to perform, I can see why these concessions were made. But with the selection of AC becoming more well rounded, buffs aren't needed *solely* to fill that void in quite the same way any longer. I think it's time for them to take a bit of a step back into what the rest of the plane set is contending with; namely realistic characteristics, performances and roles.

Guys like the DHBG take their buffs as seriously as say, the 56th takes it's 47's. I'm sure they'd welcome the added complexity of realistic buff performance. As far as the weekend buff driving warrior types... we *needed* those guys at one time. We don't any longer. There are other planes that can get the job done... and gameplay concessions *to the extent* we have now on buffs aren't neccessary. Take away the 100% accuracy, and have it so buff drivers should be expected to learn to master their AC just as anyone else. The buff drivers will be happy, the fighters will be happy, and the "blow stuff up" crowd nailing zig zagging CV from a Lancaster... well... why are they getting such a free ride anyway?

[Buzzbait]

S!

Most daylight level bombers were part of a larger formation.  And a lot of the bombers didn`t use the Norden.  Instead only the Lead bomber in a Group would use the Norden.   The rest of the group would drop upon seeing his bombs go.

Individual guns or small tactical targets were never targeted successfully by level bombers.  The best they could hope for in a level bombing attack on an airfield for example, was to crater the runways and damage larger structures like Hangers.

Taking out tanks, guns or other small targets was only achieved successfully by Fighter Bombers or Dive Bombers.  And even their accuracy was in doubt.  Which was why you saw 500kg or 1000lb bombs being use in these types of attacks.  That way, `Close counted`.

[Karnak]

Buzzbait,

I wouldn't say "never".

Lancasters destroyed the Tirpitz using 12,000lb bombs.  Lancs also destroyed an underground V1 launch base in France just before it could become opperational, one 12,000lb bomb actually going down the launch tunnel and blowing up inside of the installation. The bomb that blew up Arizona was dropped by a level bomber from IIRC, 7,000ft.

But in general you are correct, level bombers were very poor at destroying small or tactical targets.  I know of no cases in which level bombers destroyed ships that were under way.

[Toad]

Threads like this always get me out cruising the net looking for stuff. Always end up enjoying it and learning something.

Neat story here, probably a "Best Ever" for the 8th or very close to that:
 http://www.merriam-press.com/m_024_author.htm

While leading the 486th Bomb Group over Germany on Eighth Air Force Mission No. 928, on 5 April 1945, he was fated to be involved with one of the most accurate high altitude (above 18,000 feet) strikes carried out by a unit of the Eighth Air Force, when his lead bombardier, Captain J. J. Kane, placed 78 per cent of the group’s bombs within 1,000 feet of his briefed AP from 24,500 feet altitude—while in intense flak and using an intervalometer setting in the Norden bombsight. This “pickle-barrel” drop produced a CEP of 677 feet, a SE of 574 feet and a MRE of 719 feet.

Here's another interesting bit from a bio of Carl Norden (these are probably the "pre-war test range numbers"):
 http://www.nationalaviation.org/enshrinee/norden.html

The Air Corps, in 1935, installed Norden bombsights in Martin B-10s of the 7th and 19th Bomb Groups to develop the tactics of high-altitude, precision, daylight bombing. The first day of testing saw the B-10s coming within 520 feet of the targets from altitudes of 12,000 to 15,000 feet. By the end of the tests, the bombs were hitting within 164 feet of the targets.

...In the succeeding years, the bombsight was improved. The ultimate model, designated the Mark XV, was a complex assemblage of more than 2,000 cams, gears, mirrors, lenses, and other components. With it, a fixed speed and altitude had to be maintained for only 15 to 20 seconds. Technically, the sight could place a bomb inside a 100-foot circle from four miles up. But, the bombardiers said it could "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet."

Here's a kicker:

"Norden was a quiet and unassuming man who was proud that the bombsight could be used for strategically striking military targets while minimizing collateral damage to surrounding civilian populations and structures such as churches, schools, and homes. It's interesting to note that he didn't make money on the bombsight during the war, selling his rights to the sight to the government for one dollar. Carl Norden returned to Switzerland shortly after World War II and died there in 1965."

[Nash]

Yeah... but Toad, a bit of selective bolding and quoting going on here... no? On the first part you put in bold the results, but didn't really lend equal emphasis to the fact that this was one of the most accurate strikes ever carried out by this group. So much so that someone was "fated" to be involved with it. Even still, it's 78% within' 1000 ft - a very good result for them on that "fated" day, but nowehere near 100% within' 50 feet like probably 5 minutes ago over A3.

Your next quote very conveniently jumps from the 6th paragraph into the 8th, leaving out the paragraph in between that says:

"To get bombs on target with acceptable accuracy requires an aircraft to correct for drift while maintaining a constant altitude and airspeed. Even minor fluctuations can cause a miss, and the greater the altitude, the greater the error."

Why would you omit that if you wanted to present a rounded case? Unless you didn't want to for some reason... so the question is why? Are you just tossing out quotes or are you using them to back your position? Is your position then, seriously, that bombs can be placed in a pickle barrel from 20k? And thus *AH's modelling* of of the bomb drops (you know, the subject we're discussing) is accurate?

At least *this* time you didn't drag up these quotes from Fox news.  

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Toad]

Nash, you misunderstand.

I'm NOT presenting a case. Note there are no "suggestions" or "proposals" by me with respect to HTC.

I don't care how they do it in the game. I'm not the one that worries about that stuff.

I just PLAY The Game.

However, I do enjoy researching the historical aspect of it. I like trying to find out stuff like how good the Norden actually was or could possibly be.

As far as bolding and clipping.. think about this.

I COULD have cut and pasted each of the multi-page articles right into that post. Would be about 2 feet long probably     but I could have done that.

Who would read it all?

Instead, I clipped what I thought was significant and germane to the discussion at hand (a judgement call on my part, I admit) and then I PUT THE BLOODY WEB ADDRESS OF THE ARTICLE RIGHT AT THE TOP.

If you are implying that these guys are too blind to read anything but the bold, too "challenged" to figure out how to click on the web link... well, if you are right, no one can help them anyway.    

Anyone truly interested can easily (and probably would) read the whole thing. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm trying to provide a bit of fact in a thread that is primarily supposition and unsupported opinion.

If people are only interested in supposition and unsupported opinon... well, I can't help that either.

So read and enjoy. Do a little research. Form your own opinion. Implore HTC for changes.

Or not.    

<EDIT> Oh, Nash? Did you look at my earlier clip from the US Strategic Bombing Survey? Particularly the part where I BOLDED the statement that : "in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area"?

Seems like I have bolded BOTH sides of the case, haven't I?  

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Nash]

I COULD have cut and pasted each of the multi-page articles right into that post. Would be about 2 feet long probably  but I could have done that.

Or you could just have left in a two sentence paragraph that was in the center of the two you *did* use, but just so happened to be conflicting with the other points of your post.   And by bolding, you *are* trying to draw attention, make a point, add selective emphasis, whatever.

Anyways that's totally off topic.

I can't remember where I read it but I *think* it was Pyro who said something along the lines of: "If you get the details right, everything else just works out accordingly on a larger scale". Horribly misquoted I'm sure... but in essence what it means is that if you model each aspect the best you can to its real world counterpart, then everything else falls into place. I think this is very true. But the buffs have been the exception to this - thus its role and behaviour in the sim is accordingly out of whack.

[Toad]

Well, Nash, as I said, I have no axe to grind. I have no dog in this fight. I simply don't care what they do.

I just Play The Game.

However, the emphasis was put where it was put because those are the FIRST hard numbers I've seen anyone put up. Thus, the emphasis.

Your implication that I'm arguing for or against anything is based on the assumption that intelligent people either won't read the whole article... which the truly interested will do.... or will read only the bold which is unlikely in my opinion given this groups dedication to getting it right.

As I said, the links are there.

Try to think of it as a public service. Instead of all this speculation, there is some data that can provide the beginning of a factual argument.

Your attempt to portray it as anything else is simply bogus. Check any "argument" thread you like about gameplay or other issues like this...I've said the same thing in all of them. HTC does what HTC does... I just play.

[Nash]

Righto.....  

Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled topic...