AH / Real life bombing

[nirvana]

Originally posted by zarkov
Compare a typical AH air battle with what happened historically.  The difference in tactics, outcomes, etc. are due to people flying until they die in AH while historically, people had a tendency to get upset when being shot at, let alone having bullets intersect the space their body was occupying.

I have that tendency to get a little angry...

[Mace2004]

I know this isn't precisely what was being asked but in addition to the single tallboys being dropped by lancs there were also the Dambusters (317 squadron I think?) that dropped single skipping bombs on dams.   Oh, and there were two B-29's that each dropped one bomb....

Mace

[xbrit]

617 Squadron  Dambusters

[Bruv119]

617 were the uber bomber pilots.  If you do any reading on bombing missions these are the guys to check out.

In answer to your question Macloed.  Yes you can drop just one bomb and be very accurate with it.

With the bombsight in AH and having no wind one can take the VH out from 20k plus with 1 click.  In formation = 3x1000lbs= dead vh.

[Brooke]

I saw a television show on the History Channel recently that talked about the Norden bombsight.  As part of the show, they took up a B-25 with a Norden in it and had two bombardiers try to hit a cross painted on the ground.  I forget the altitude they were flying at, but I think it was 12k or so -- it certainly was not 25k.  Also, the bombardiers didn't get much practice with the Norden before using it, which you could tell was a big issue (as the bombardiers were saying that they were having some trouble getting it all set up while on the bomb run).  They had one guy who flew in WWII and one who flew in Korea using the Norden.  Although neither hit directly in the center of the cross, both got decently close, with one of the guys putting a bomb about 100 ft from the center.

My guess is that it would have been possible for bombers to place single bombs fairly accurately.  However, there are many things that could hamper that ability.  Targets generally would take many bombs to be destroyed -- especially fortified targets.  So, more bombs or more bombers were needed.  Also, once one bomber drops, there is dust and smoke that obscures the target, so there is more guesswork on deciding where to drop if you are a following bomber, and again more bombers are then needed.  I don't think wind and air density were the main problems, though, as the Norden was there to calculate bomb trajectories taking into account such things.

If in Aces High we had (1) to contend with much poorer visibility (due to clouds over target that you couldn't see through, not just haze that you can still see through; and due to large amounts of smoke or dust, enough to obscure the target thoroughly) and (2) contend with ground landscapes that didn't make it as easy to spot and to know exactly where a particular building or AA gun is, I think you'd see people needing to put down sticks of bombs instead of one bomb for each target.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Brooke
If in Aces High we had (1) to contend with much poorer visibility (due to clouds over target that you couldn't see through, not just haze that you can still see through; and due to large amounts of smoke or dust, enough to obscure the target thoroughly) and (2) contend with ground landscapes that didn't make it as easy to spot and to know exactly where a particular building or AA gun is, I think you'd see people needing to put down sticks of bombs instead of one bomb for each target.

True enought Brooke.  Its important to note that we didn't really know what the Jet Stream was until B-29's started dropping from extemely high altitude over Japan.  In ETO it wasn't a factor, although normal winds aloft were.  

Remember, strategic bombing is based on a doctrine developed by Douhet back in the '20's.  His vision was one of massive formations of bombers dropping highly destructive incendiary and gas bombs on cities.  Unfortunately (for advocats of Douhet), politics interfered with his vision, after the Allies demonized bombing cities after the Japanese raids in China, the Guernica raid, and the Blitz.  They actually used the word "terror" in descibing the technique.  The Germans likewise used the same term to descibe Allied bomber crews later in the war by calling them "terror fliers".  After the war, there was a pretty big controversy regarding Harris and his belief in bombing cities.  Churchill pretty much abandoned all support (publically anyway) of the technique before even the war was over.  Some historians have even suggested that the propaganda surrounding the Norden's "accuracy" was to lend credibility to the U.S. claim of not bombing civilians when hitting industrial targets.  

My point is that the bombers and tactics developed by the Allies were for supporting this type of campaign, not one of striking point targets.  Before and during the war, point target bombing was the job of dive bombers like the Stuka, SBD and later, fighters armed with bombs.  And despite the limited examples of the dam busters, some skip bombing in the Pacific, etc., strat bombers didn't salvo single bombs while making multiple runs over point targets.

[macleod01]

Thankyou all for your reply's. It just crossed my mind while I was taking out an entire Vbase with one set of bombers. I just wondered if it was ever heard of. Thank you very much again

[rogerdee]

just wondering if for the forthcoming COMBAT TOUR will there be prober wind  and drfit ect to affect  the heavey bombers?.


 617 Squadron were the best of the best .The RAF used path finders  to mark the targets with flairs for the bombers to drop on,these guys were some of the best navagiators  pilots bomb aimers  and gunners around and there drops on target were the most acuuract they could get in 1944 1945.

   Te pathfinders went in low and marked the tgt for the higher bombers then if the tgt got obscured they went in again to mark it.

  IF Ah had wind and cloud and other things then the bombers wouldnt be as efective as they are now.

[Brooke]

Originally posted by rogerdee
617 Squadron were the best of the best .The RAF used path finders  to mark the targets with flairs for the bombers to drop on,these guys were some of the best navagiators  pilots bomb aimers  and gunners around and there drops on target were the most acuuract they could get in 1944 1945.

I saw video posted on YouTube, a show about the Mosquito.  It was very good.  It talked about the Mosquitos being used to do the marking.  It also talked about the radio methods the RAF used in the night raids.  They had two radio transmitters situated such that a Mosquito could figure out when it was over the intended target.  Then the Mosquito could visually verify the target and drop its marker bombs.

The show made me wonder if, contrary to what I thought, accuracy of night bombing was perhaps similar to day bombing.  Also, the show talked about large numbers of Lancasters getting shot down by German night fighters and talked about heavy losses among the Lancasters as a result of that and of course from flak.  This made me wonder if loss rates in night bombing were perhaps similar to day bombing, again contrary to what I thought.  It was an interesting show.

It is in 5 parts on YouTube.  Here's a link to part 1.  For the other parts, seach on the phrase "mosquito doc".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQ6pMb1Jsc

[culero]

Originally posted by macleod01
snip
However reading a book the other night, I read that only a tenth of the early bombs came within 5 MILES of the target!

That's true. But what you don't mention is that this was during NIGHT raids, when an entire formation was dropping into the dark on targets they couldn't see in a bombsight, on command when dead reckoning by the leader said it was time.

[MOIL]

I dont think in WWII it was the "norm" for bombers to drop a single bomb on a target at 1000' off the ground.
Like stated before the fighters or AA guns would take them outta the sky before they ever reached thier target.

I have always hated the dive bombing Lanc's or the B17's 500' off the deck carpet bombing targets. Yes, people can play as they wish, however I have always felt this to be unfair mainly because we have nothing to counter it with (at present)

I would not be as aggrevated by this if we had something to defend agaisnt it with like some 88's, 5" guns and multi-barreled 40mm Bofors guns. That way it'd be a little more balanced (IMO)

As it is right now (which is good) the fields are littered with lots of AA guns, the days of a single fighter de-acking the entire field then porking the entire base are almost non-exsistant.

I feel the same should apply when bombers are 500' off the deck on a suicide run to a field. They should be met with horrendous AA fire (just as they were in WWII)
I realize there has to be a balance to some degree because it's just a game, but town ack was increased heavily, field ack was seriously beefed up, yet the suicide carpet bombing  Lanc's and 17's just fly in and lay waste to everything. I think this might play out a little differently if they were met with more realistic AA fire than what we currently have.

I think this is one of those issues that have been discussed on the boards a million times. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance it, I do know that if were going to continue to encourage HT to make things more "realistic" and or "balanced" this issue (IMO) should get a long overdue facelift.

my 2 cents

[MadSquirrel]

Airfield AA beefed up.  Great.
Town AA beefed up.  Great.
V-Base AA . . . . . .   DOH ! ! !  Forgotten again.  LOL

LTARsqrl  <>

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by MOIL
I think this is one of those issues that have been discussed on the boards a million times. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance it, I do know that if were going to continue to encourage HT to make things more "realistic" and or "balanced" this issue (IMO) should get a long overdue facelift.

my 2 cents

Bottom line is that, unless someone cares about dying, they'll suicide pork/bomb all day long.  I've seen in other posts where folks even recommend the best bomber to "bomb and bail" in.  Can't do anything to anyone if they don't care about dying.  We've had our experiences with that in real life serveral times...Only thing you can do is kill them, but no one only lives once in AH.  

Personally, I make it a point to punish bombers that come in at low altitude as much as I can.  Don't think it makes much difference, but it makes me feel better about folks that game the game...

[bozon]

Originally posted by MOIL
I feel the same should apply when bombers are 500' off the deck on a suicide run to a field. They should be met with horrendous AA fire (just as they were in WWII)
 

In RL the risk of flying low is small caliber guns and far less from AA. Every soldier will be pointing his rifle up and fire. Heavy AA have trouble tracking a fast, low flying target due to the fast angular velocity and won't be able to switch to the next one fast enough. To drop a mustang, a bullet to the radiator or the meat in the cockpit is enough. To drop a bomber it takes a few more hits, but it could definitly injure and kill crew members and damage engines and equipment.

Originally posted by Stoney74
Bottom line is that, unless someone cares about dying, they'll suicide pork/bomb all day long. I've seen in other posts where folks even recommend the best bomber to "bomb and bail"

Perked ordinance may help here. Bomber perks are useless so nobody cares about earning them. If 1000 lbs would cost perks then bomber guys would like to land the kills and get the perks. It also means that suiciding with a heavy 1000lbs filled lancs/B17/B24 would be a big loss of perks. Then make formations cost a small number of perks (2-3 is enough) so people will not "shed" them off and go strifing with a B17.