Suicide bombers and why

[Yknurd]

What's wrong with fixing the bomb release to resemble reality?

Which part of flying a B-17 into a CV does not resemble reality?

Physics reality or historical reality?

[hubsonfire]

Flying into it doesn't resemble historical reality. Flying three of them into it simultaneously conflicts with physics reality.

[cbizkit]

Probably should simply set a programmatic limit to the degrees of pitch which a bomb can be released from a standard bomb bay. For example, if you're pitched +/-15 degrees from pure horizontal bombs from a bay will not release. Aircraft with external bomb hardpoints could release those ords at roughly any non-inverted orientation.

[beddog]

                        Anyone who would fly a bomber into a CV like that is worse then a dweeb. And AH ought to fix that entire dive bombing thing so it cant happen.

I real life a b-17 would do whatever the pilot in command caused it to do, so how could you possibly prevent something that could conceivably happen in real life?  However,.. I will agree that it's kinda silly...

[beddog]

Probably should simply set a programmatic limit to the degrees of pitch which a bomb can be released from a standard bomb bay. For example, if you're pitched +/-15 degrees from pure horizontal bombs from a bay will not release. Aircraft with external bomb hardpoints could release those ords at roughly any non-inverted orientation.

Now that's a good fix for the problem.  At least they would have to level out to drop.

[Blammo]

I real life a b-17 would do whatever the pilot in command caused it to do, so how could you possibly prevent something that could conceivably happen in real life?  However,.. I will agree that it's kinda silly...

In real life, you go out, get yourself and your plane shot up and you don't just come back and jump into a new one and be completely healed.

This is not real life, it is a game.  Because it is a game about real life things, there are elements that have to be coded out or limited to keep people from exploiting them.  All game programmers try to do this in one form or another.

It is hard for me to believe you would get a whole B17 crew to be willing to dive into a carrier just to deliver their bomb load with no motivation but to sink it.  It goes beyond all credulity to think that you would get three off them to all do it at it exactly the same time, again, with no motivation but to sink it.  Japanese suicide planes aside, you just did not see this happening on the scale it happens in AH2.  If we use the real life argument, then after a run like LYNX pointed out, you are done, your account closed because you are dead and you cannot fly again until a new map.

Point is, the bombers need to be prevented from doing this sort of thing.  Skip bombing, level bombing, dive bombing by dive bombers, or torpedo bombers are all legitimate.  Suicidal, dive-bombing gamey formations of heavy bombers is not.  It is exploiting the game.

PS.  Didn't always see it this way, but I have come around.

[MajIssue]

I agree... As one of the guys that believes in LEVEL bombing by buffs, I deplore this practice. I can truthfully say that I have NEVER dive bombed buffs and it escapes me as to why anybody would expose a box to low level AAA. There are so many BETTER ways to deal with ground targets and so many options in the game designed to counter CVs/GVs/base targets/strat targets that it is a mystery WHY guys do the lancstuka thing.
Personally I like to see such stupidity when I'm in a 5" gun on a CV/Cruiser... pads my stats!
 

[Brooke]

We would not have to worry about most suicide bombers if HTC made the CV's stronger. 8000lbs is no were colse enough. in reality CV's could sail back to port with a huge deal of damage.

I don't think AH is out of whack with regard to CV hardness (lbs of explosive to sink).  Here's a section from a previous scenario writeup.  (Please let me know if there are errors in it, by the way -- always welcome to corrections.)

Ship hardness

Research on ship hardness of battleships is based on what it took to sink battleships at Pearl Harbor and what it took to sink US carriers throughout WWII. The battleship data is from http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/history/pearlharbor_facts.html , and the carrier data is from Wikipedia on various carriers. For carriers that weren't sunk, some of them survived mutliple attacks separated by time or by ability to repair some damage in between attacks. For those, I list only the estimated most-damaging attack that they survived and not all the attacks. The torpedo typically carried by the Japanese B5N "Kate" torpedo bomber was the type 91 torpedo, which typically had 529 lbs of explosive. The largest torpedo typically carried by Japanese submarines was the type 95 torpedo, which had 893 lbs of explosive. The most-common bomb carried by the Japanese D3A "Val" divebomber had 551 lbs of explosive.

Battleship; Damage Taken; Result
 
California (BB-44); 2 torpedo hits; 1 bomb hit; sunk
Maryland (BB-46); 2 bomb hits
Oklahoma (BB-37); 5 torpedo hits;  sunk
Tennessee (BB-43); 2 bomb hits
West Virginia (BB-48); 6 torpedo hits; 2 bomb hits; sunk
Arizona (BB-39); 1 torpedo hit; 8 bomb hits; sunk
Pennsylvania (BB-38); 2 bomb hits
Nevada (BB-36)  1 torpedo hit; 6 bomb hits
Utah (BB-31); 2 torpedo hits; sunk

Carrier Damage Taken Result
Lexington (CV-2) 2 torpedoes; 3 bombs sunk
Saratoga (CV-3) 6 bombs  
Yorktown (CV-5) 2 torpedoes; 3 bombs sunk
Enterprise (CV-6) 3 bombs  
Wasp (CV-7) 2 torpedoes sunk
Hornet (CV-8) 3 torpedoes; 5 bombs sunk
Essex (CV-9) kamikaze  
Yorktown (CV-10) 1 bomb  
Intrepid (CV-11) 1 torpedo  
Franklin (CV-13) kamikaze  

[toonces3]

Couple of quick points:
In reply to Brooke, notice that all of your CV kills were due to torpedoes.  A great mod to the game would make it impossible to sink the CV with bombs alone.  This would force players to use the torp planes.  I managed to torp a CV the other night with a Ki-67, but unfortunately got whacked on egress with no fighter support.

Second, I agree with disabling level bombing in excess of angles that were historically impossible.  This is a simple fix that HTC could coad in an afternoon I'd bet. 

Third, most bomb damage to ships took a while to become terminal.  I would propose across the board that when ord is dropped on a target, if the bomber/jabo fails to survive to RTB, the damage is immediately removed.  Call it 'repaired' in game terms.  If that's too drastic, require some sort of time criteria- 10-20 minutes before damage is considered permanent.  This would provide an incentive for bombers/jabos to actually try to survive.

Unless you penalize suicide tactics, folks that do it will continue to do so.  Bomber perks are worthless to most folks.

[Brooke]

I don't think the CV's are unrealistically fragile in AH.  However, AH CV's have some disadvantages compared to real life.

In AH, CV's often aren't manned at all, so they are pretty easy to hit as they chug along in a straight line.  When they do maneuver, it is usually done less adeptly than real life.  In AH, many turns of the CV are just selected before the bombers are all that close, just to have it turning as the bombers come in, which means the bombers can adjust.  Instead, when they are turned right before the bombers release, this can often cause misses.  Some people manning CV's do this, but it is less common than just turning the CV when bombers are nearby, which in turn is less common than no one turning the CV at all.

Also, I don't think AH CV's can turn as tight as real CV's could.  Looking at some pictures of maneuvering CV's from WWII, it seems they could maneuver more quickly, which would make it harder on the level bombers and possibly even divebombers.





As for complaints about glide-bombing B-17's -- those are *easier* to defend against than level bombing B-17's.  People should be glad when bombers attack like that.  Not only are they easier to intercept because they are lower, they are much, much easier to hit with the 5" guns.

People are complaining about tactics that weren't used in WWII -- but they are complaining from the wrong direction.  B-17's probably could glide bomb in real life.  Lancasters could and had a design spec for it.  Ju 88's could.  The problem isn't the B-17's, it's that people often don't man and maneuver the CV's, don't man the 5" guns, and don't fly CAP.

[Blammo]

A great mod to the game would make it impossible to sink the CV with bombs alone.  This would force players to use the torp planes.

So, why would this be a great idea?  Sounds like it would just penalize legitimate level bombing or dive bombing by dive bombers.  Ships can and were taken out by bombs alone and if someone allows their CV or Cruiser or whatever to get bombed to oblivion (using legitimate methods, not exploits), then so be it.

And why be concerned about "forcing" anyone to use any particular plane?  Why should I, if I prefer dive bombing and I am good at it, have to use a torp plane or get someone else to use one in order to sink a ship?  Again, just seems like penalizing one method to favor another.

[toonces3]

Again, most CVs were sunk using torpedoes, not bombs.

Most CVs had damage control- the CV didn't 'die' immediately.

Institute a need for torps to crack the integrity of the hull.  Institute a time mechanism to force bombers to 'live' for a period of time.  Call it damage control effots.  If the bombers live, DC fails.  If they die, DC succeeds.

[1Boner]

Not sure what all the hullaballoo is about here.

I've only been playing for a couple years, but still don,t see the huge life altering problem with the Divebombing buffs.

I can honestly say that I've witnessed this once, maybe twice.

Certainly not enough for me to rant about on these BBs.

If somebody wants to divebomb with Lancs, god bless em, It doesn't affect me at all.

I have seen quite a few bomb and bails.

But why should that bother me?

I,ll laugh and move on.

Has it become such a HUGE daily,hourly,problem as to cause such an uproar in here?

I doubt it. But yet here it is.

By the sounds of this post I should be ducking and running from the torrential downpour of suicide buffs.

But if it wasn't this, it would be the ever present HOs,LA7,Spawncamping drivel that litter these BBs.

I read through these posts and was absolutley floored at the outrage caused by such inconsequencial incidents.

But I guess if ya can't think of anything better to talk about-------




Movin on,

Boner

[Brooke]

Couple of quick points:
In reply to Brooke, notice that all of your CV kills were due to torpedoes.  A great mod to the game would make it impossible to sink the CV with bombs alone.  This would force players to use the torp planes.  I managed to torp a CV the other night with a Ki-67, but unfortunately got whacked on egress with no fighter support.

Second, I agree with disabling level bombing in excess of angles that were historically impossible.  This is a simple fix that HTC could coad in an afternoon I'd bet. 

Third, most bomb damage to ships took a while to become terminal.  I would propose across the board that when ord is dropped on a target, if the bomber/jabo fails to survive to RTB, the damage is immediately removed.  Call it 'repaired' in game terms.  If that's too drastic, require some sort of time criteria- 10-20 minutes before damage is considered permanent.  This would provide an incentive for bombers/jabos to actually try to survive.

Unless you penalize suicide tactics, folks that do it will continue to do so.  Bomber perks are worthless to most folks.

It's hard to figure the extra effectiveness of torpedoes.  In AH, they are sort of given extra effectiveness in that they do more damage than 500-700 lbs of explosive by a lot.  Bombs only, though, with enough of them, should be able destroy a ship, in my opinion.

As for the bomb damage taking a while to sink the ship, that is true, but they put it out of commission sometimes with one hit, which doesn't happen in AH.  In AH, CV's are flight operational until they sink.  Also, in real life, if a CV was damaged enough to become non-operational, it would often take a long time to get it back on line.  In AH, a sunk CV spawns fresh and can get back to the position where it was sunk generally in less than 2 hours.

Torpedo bombing CV's in AH is very, very hard with ack the way it is (to the point of it not being useful).  If someone mans one 5" gun, you cannot get in.  Even if there is no 5" manned, you will rarely get in close enough to hit.  You can launch outside or barely inside the ack radius, but the hit percentage there is useless.  In scenarios, the way we deal with this is to crank down the lethality of the ack (a lot) and crank up the hardness of the ships.  Then, you can get in to hit, but it takes more hits.  Without the ack adjustment, though, torpedo bombing isn't much of a threat.

[2bighorn]

B-17's probably could glide bomb in real life.

Yes, but it was limited to something like 30 degrees IIRC. Lancaster was probably in the same ballpark. When Ju-88 became operational, one of its functions was dive bombing, it was even equipped with dive brakes. Later version were limited to 45 degrees because frame couldn't withstand the stress.

In AH you can release bombs at any angle. That could be fixed...