gamey bombing

[Ack-Ack]

i understand and empathize with the plight of those who do GV. the absurdity of being spotted by bombers when you are hiding in woods is completely unrealistic. i will draw your attention to operation market garden. 2 full panzer divisions where sitting in the woods just outside of Arnhem and they were invisible to the low flying recon aircraft sent in to photograph the area.

FLOTSOM

Recon flights clearly photographed German tanks 9 miles from the British drop zones.  These recce photos, along with intel supplied by the Dutch Underground were dismissed by Montgromery. Montogromery ridiculed SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith when Bedell Smith raised the threat these armored units posed to the airborne assault.


ack-ack

[FLOTSOM]

Recon flights clearly photographed German tanks 9 miles from the British drop zones.  These recce photos, along with intel supplied by the Dutch Underground were dismissed by Montgromery. Montogromery ridiculed SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith when Bedell Smith raised the threat these armored units posed to the airborne assault.


ack-ack

ill have to do some research on this. i was under the impression ( maybe incorrectly) that they only managed a few pictures of a few tanks and troop transports moving on the roads, that the limited number of vehicles photographed was what lead Montgomery to believe they were of no consequence. i was under the further impression that the allies missed the bulk of the vehicles in the area because they were parked in the woods to avoid detection and drawing the attention of allied bombers.

but you could be correct ack, its been awhile since i reread Montgomery's excuses for not heeding the warnings that the underground had sent regarding the tanks in the area of Arnhem. i thought he said it was due to a lack of supporting photo's by the Ariel recon of the region.

FLOTSOM

[Ack-Ack]

ill have to do some research on this. i was under the impression ( maybe incorrectly) that they only managed a few pictures of a few tanks and troop transports moving on the roads, that the limited number of vehicles photographed was what lead Montgomery to believe they were of no consequence. i was under the further impression that the allies missed the bulk of the vehicles in the area because they were parked in the woods to avoid detection and drawing the attention of allied bombers.

but you could be correct ack, its been awhile since i reread Montgomery's excuses for not heeding the warnings that the underground had sent regarding the tanks in the area of Arnhem. i thought he said it was due to a lack of supporting photo's by the Ariel recon of the region.

FLOTSOM

I think what contributed a large part in Montegromy's and other's dismissal of the intelligence was the wide held belief amongst SHAEF High Command was that the German army was a broken entity, unable to re-organize into an effective fighting force.  From what I understand, SHAEF High Command looked on Market Garden to be some what of a cake walk.


ack-ack

[SmokinLoon]

It isn't all entirely inaccurate about the Lancaster and some other heavy bombers being used to dive bomb.  The problem is that some people in these forums take 'dive bombing' quite literally and equate it to diving like a Stuka or other dive bombers.  As was noted in previous threads and in this one, Lancasters and other bombers were used to dive bomb but they used shallow dive bombing tactics, not the near vertical dive tactics used by regular dive bombers.  1st Air Commandos in the CBU frequently used their B-25s in the shallow dive bombing role.  IIRC, the only known account of a bomber using standard dive bombing tactics was a B-17G that was dumping their bombs in the North Sea on returning to England and they almost didn't make it and it wasn't on any target, just open ocean.


ack-ack

I think most of us know that the B25 was used in low level and "dive" bombing missions on a regular basis.  This argument is not about the B25, A20, Boston, Ju88, or any other factual low level/dive bombing bomber... it is about the gross abuse of those bombers that were simply not used for reasons of incapability or logistical reasons in WWII in the manner in which they are being usedin this game.  Of course, many couls argue that there are many aircraft that are bing abused in this manner.  For starters, the Fw190A-8 was used to hunt bombers, not take on ground targets.  The 190F-8 was used far more vs ground targets but yet we see the A-8 used over-whelmingly in the ground attack role.  Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter.  Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters.  Ditto for the Tempest.  How many cry babies would we have if HTC removed the abilitly for the Typh/Temp tobe scored as a "Fighter"???  How many cry babies would we have if the 190A-8 could only be scored as a fighter?  I'm not advocating that, but just think what would happen if HTC clamped down on the realm of realism across the board and limited scoring or ability to some of these planes to only that mission they actually performed in WWII? 

[RTHolmes]

Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter.  Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters.  Ditto for the Tempest.

Typhie was introduced to deal with 190s, which the spits and hurri werent fast enough to intercept. the first year or 2 it was used for low-level fighter sweeps against low-level raiders (190s mostly) only later used as a ground attack platform (which it excelled at). The Tempest was considered by its pilots as the Typhie done properly, so it could really compete as a fighter. It was used mainly for high-level fighter sweeps, but also for some ground attack and V1 hunting duties. It bagged many A2A kills of 109s, 190s, sundry bombers and was the best bet for pursuing and killing 262s. neither were just bomb trucks.

[Ack-Ack]

I think most of us know that the B25 was used in low level and "dive" bombing missions on a regular basis.  This argument is not about the B25, A20, Boston, Ju88, or any other factual low level/dive bombing bomber... it is about the gross abuse of those bombers that were simply not used for reasons of incapability or logistical reasons in WWII in the manner in which they are being usedin this game.  Of course, many couls argue that there are many aircraft that are bing abused in this manner.  For starters, the Fw190A-8 was used to hunt bombers, not take on ground targets.  The 190F-8 was used far more vs ground targets but yet we see the A-8 used over-whelmingly in the ground attack role.  Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter.  Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters.  Ditto for the Tempest.  How many cry babies would we have if HTC removed the abilitly for the Typh/Temp tobe scored as a "Fighter"???  How many cry babies would we have if the 190A-8 could only be scored as a fighter?  I'm not advocating that, but just think what would happen if HTC clamped down on the realm of realism across the board and limited scoring or ability to some of these planes to only that mission they actually performed in WWII? 

I really do hate to burst your bubble but shallow dive bombing was a tactic used (depending on the mission and target) by Lancasters and other heavy bombers.  If the mission and target required this kind of approach, the shallow dive bomb angle was usually between 20-30 degrees.  To be clear, I am not saying this was a regular occurance and the Lancasters approached each bomb run using these tactic but it was capable of using shallow dive bombing tactics and did. 

For someone using shallow dive bombing tactics in a Lancaster or other heavy bomber would not be historically inaccurate, using the Lancaster and heavy bombers as pure dive bombers like they are sometimes being used in AH is historically inaccurate. 

Someone mentioned in an earlier post about how commanders wouldn't waste men and equipment to attack ground vehicles in Lancasters, well, unfortunately for that particular poster, they were incorrect about that as well. 

Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area.  They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions. 

Put a dive angle limiter to prevent bombers from exceeding 30 degrees when dropping bombs and you'll eliminate the 'Lancstuka' while still allowing bombers to use shallow dive bombing tactics.


ack-ack

[Rich46yo]

Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area.  They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions.

So they came in at 1,000 and dived like a jabo to take out the armor?

Someone mentioned in an earlier post about how commanders wouldn't waste men and equipment to attack ground vehicles in Lancasters, well, unfortunately for that particular poster, they were incorrect about that as well.
 
Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area.  They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions.

What altitude? Try studying the carpet bombing, precursor to Operation Cobra, and then tell me how low they flew Lancs, 24s, and 17s? Dude as far as I know no heavy every flew below 12,000' and most of it was 15,000' +. Could you imagine Lancs coming into german 88s and 37mms, in daylight, at 2,000'?

I really do hate to burst your bubble but shallow dive bombing was a tactic used (depending on the mission and target) by Lancasters and other heavy bombers.  If the mission and target required this kind of approach, the shallow dive bomb angle was usually between 20-30 degrees.  To be clear, I am not saying this was a regular occurance and the Lancasters approached each bomb run using these tactic but it was capable of using shallow dive bombing tactics and did.

Name the missions. My bubbles fine. Your post is all hot air with no facts presented.

[SmokinLoon]

I knew the Typh/Temp were introduced to be fighters, but they were implemented as attack craft due to the faster Spitfires being produced and the lack of a new for a new fighter, at least in late 1943/early 1944 anyways.

Like I said before regarding the low level attack made by Lancs and other hvy bimbers.... I seriosuly doubt they hit 1 or 2 or 5 gv's, but instead hit sprawling industrial complexes or prepared defensive positions AND they didnt do it unless there was minimal chance of enemy fighter interception and/or minimal AA defense.  However anyone wants to paint a "but they did do it" or "they were capable of doing it" in a WWII picture... go ahead.  I've got the guts to say they didint float 500ft off the ground, dump eight 1k bombs on a few gv's, pull up 800ft past the target and do a stall turn and head back to target for a second drop.  Aircrat in WWII were not expendable and no pilot in their right mind would ever expose themselves to that kind of risk.  Get those hvy bombers at least to 3k before they're able to drop.  Mind you, I dont cringe when I see the B25, A20, Ju88, or other such buff at low level dive bombing or floating 500ft off teh ground, just the Lanc, the B24, B17, B26 (medium, I know), and Ar234.

HTC would very well eliminate the above described travesty in any nymber of ways.... will they??? I doubt it.  They dont even read these forums anymore.     

[WWhiskey]

found you some info on low level bombing
http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/13thaaf/13th868th.html


Starting August 27, 1943 nearly nightly missions were flown primarily against the "Tokyo
Express". This was a nightly procession of Japanese ships which sailed down the "Slot"
attempting to reinforce and re-supply enemy garissons from Bougainville to Guadalcanal
itself. These missions amounted to flying for up to 11 hours at 12 to 15 hundred feet
all the time searching for enemy shipping throughout the area shipping lanes. On the night
of September 28, 1943 five "Snoopers" attacked an 11 ship enemy convoy. The attack
took place near Cape Alexander. An enemy destroyer was sunk and the rest of the convoy
was forced to turn tail. While there was great success there were also problems. Since the
"Snoopers" flew at night it meant they were not available to fly regular daylight missions
which reduced the effective size of daylight missions. To alleviate these problems the
"Snoopers" were reformed into a brand new squadron, the 868th. It was activated in
January 1944 and operated independently within the 13th AAF. By this time they had
already sunk 34,000 tons of enemy shipping
The planes flown by the 868th were often called SB-24s and sometimes LABs (Low
Altitude Bomber). They were equipped with SRC-717-B search and navigation radar,
AN/APQ-5 LABS bombing radar, SCR-729 IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) and an
AN/ARN-1 radio altimeter. The ball turret contained the antenna for the SC-717-B radar

Plane for plane the "Snoopers" were sinking and damaging more shipping at night than the
heavies were during the day. During an early raid on Rabaul a "Snooper" is credited with
disabling the heavy cruiser Haguro, the flagship of the forces stationed there.

From January through April 1944, when they moved to Los Negroes, they bagged another
12,000 tons of Japanese shipping sunk, 1,800 probably sunk, and 11,000 damaged.

They participated in the destruction of Truk in April 1944.

In August 1944 they conducted nightly 1100 mile two-plane attacks from Los Negroes
to the Palaus.

The following is quoted from "From Fiji Through The Philippines With The Thirteenth Air Force"
by Lt. Col. Benjamin E. Lippincott, Newsfoto Publishing Co. (1948):

"Ten B-24 "Snoopers" of the 868th Bomb Squadron struck Soerabaja, Java, on 7 May,
flying a total distance of 2660 statute miles, in 17 hours and 40 minutes, one of the longest
flights ever made by B-24 aircraft in combat formation. Seven "Snoopers" shattered their
own record soon after by flying a strike against Batavia, Java, 3 June 1945; they flew in
formation from Palawan to Batavia and return to cover a distance of 3000 statute miles,
in 18 hours and 40 minutes. A measure of success was achieved in both strikes against
Java; in each case, the Japanese were taken by surprise and shipping in the harbors was
left either sunk or damaged."

[WWhiskey]

and here is some on lancasters
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/damsraid4.html
The aircrew selected included the best in Bomber Command and training began with low-level training over lakes in Britain. The flying was most demanding, requiring pilots to descend rapidly to sixty feet and then maintain that altitude and the required speed of 230 miles per hour

"What they did was put a great sheet across the runway at one end and then so many yards down, another sheet. You had to start at the beginning of the runway at 1500 feet and dive, cross the first sheet at 70 feet, cross the second sheet at seventy feet, and at the end of the runway be at 1500 feet. It was quite tricky."
- F/Sgt. Ken Brown
kinda sounds like the gv dive bombing  we hear about in here!

 but wait there is more this is about the bombsights and combat manoeuvres during bombing

Bomber Harris and his aircrews were not slow in voicing their strong dislike of both the Mk lX and the ABS. and called for their early replacement. Their strong views were registered with the Tizard Committee and a founder member of that committee Prof. Blackett volunteered to design a new sight to meet the needs of Bomber Command. He was given facilities at Farnborough and the services of a small team of engineers. The bombsight that resulted was the Mk XlV regarded then as the wonder sight of the day. It was designed to enable the run up to the target flying straight and level to be restricted to a mere ten seconds and enable the pilot to carry out evasive manoeuvres on his approach to the target. It could be used to bomb both on the climb and the glide. The bombsight consisted of a computer cabinet mounted to the left of the Air Bomber and a stabilised sighting head with optical graticule. The sight was one of the first practical uses for a mechanical computer and Babbage would have been proud of it.
 the bomb sight in the lancs were also able to aim at up too 12 degree up or down level, and some had sights that allowed for up to 30 degree down bombing (dive bombing)
 certainly a plane with the ability to carry 22000 pounds of ord.  at 275 plus mph.  would be strong enough to do some radical moves once some or all of that ord load was gone, so the aircraft can do what it does in the game, now the crew might have had a few resevations about it!
 i posted a long time back about the ability of the a-20 and why on earth we needed any other fighter
 just a bunch of very good pilots, trained by cobia<<S>> could wipe out the whole german airforce! that plane does amazing things, i dont know how many of you have run across him or nkl5 in one but if you have i imagine you were transported to the tower alot faster than you thought you might be!
 is this correct? i doubt it, but the plane is modeled correctly and i was told that it is capable of doing those things they make them do  and i am satisfied with that answer, i also aproach them with much more caution, instead of just barreling in!

[Lye-El]

and here is some on lancasters

kinda sounds like the gv dive bombing  we here about in here!

Go ahead and drop your bombs at 70 ft.    Also the article didn't say they had a full load of bombs. Just that it was training for changing and maintaining  an altitude. Not pushing over a formation at a steep angle and dropping bombs on a jeep. Basically they had to lose 1430 ft. of altitude in the length of a runway.

[WWhiskey]

Go ahead and drop your bombs at 70 ft.    Also the article didn't say they had a full load of bombs. Just that it was training for changing and maintaining  an altitude. Not pushing over a formation at a steep angle and dropping bombs on a jeep.

 sorry i added some more info to my post, you might want too check it out!
and no, i don't want to blow my lancs up by droping at 70 feet, my rule is never below 450, and no , they had to dive 1400 feet fly level for atleast ten seconds them climb back up 1400 feet in the length of a runway
the reason was to drop a bomb in that ten second time frame

[humble]

The real issue here is that this is a tactical and not a strategic simulation. The reality is that formations are a bad idea and there is no need for any heavies in this game. further no bombers medium or heavy EVER flew formations like they do in AH. The losses due to accidents in both training and combat were very high do to collisions. Formation flying in a fully loaded B-24 was exceptionally difficult.

[Dadsguns]

The real issue here is that this is a tactical and not a strategic simulation. The reality is that formations are a bad idea and there is no need for any heavies in this game. further no bombers medium or heavy EVER flew formations like they do in AH. The losses due to accidents in both training and combat were very high do to collisions. Formation flying in a fully loaded B-24 was exceptionally difficult.

Who's reality?  This is a game.  You could not be more wrong in your first sentence.  This is as much as a strategic simulation as is a tactical one.

When you collide with your own you dont explode, or fall to pieces while 10 guys are chasing a con, certainly that isn't real either. 

I dont see where all the bomber haters are coming from, is it because you are used to shooting down newbs to get and land all your kills and when you get your arse handed to you by someone that isn't so "easy" to kill in bombers you all of a sudden dont find a "Need" for bombers in this game. 

This game incorporates strategy not only in air warfare and the way you fight, but the ability to conduct a fight strategically.

I dont even care what half of you say about bombers until you at least spend the time in them and understand that point of view, until then your just crying about bombers being in the game, or they have to many bombs, they wont let me take my fighters up with my friends, or whatever heartache complaint there is,,,,,  good that's the intent on taking away your ability to fight.   

Each plane in this game is used for strategy and tactical situations based on its strengths and abilities, if you have not figured that out yet, your on your own. 

 

[Rich46yo]

Wow whiskey, what a pull.

I already mentioned Operation Chastise and the training you are referring to is the training that led up to the damn busting mission. Not only did the Lancs bomb level but one was so low the bomb bounced back up and shwacked the Lanc. They lost almost 1/2 their aircraft on that mission and only tried it cause it had to potential to cause serious disruption in Ruhr production and transportation.

I can just imagine Bomber Harris sending his Lancs against Panzer-lVs at 1000'

Bomber Harris and his aircrews were not slow in voicing their strong dislike of both the Mk lX and the ABS. and called for their early replacement. Their strong views were registered with the Tizard Committee and a founder member of that committee Prof. Blackett volunteered to design a new sight to meet the needs of Bomber Command. He was given facilities at Farnborough and the services of a small team of engineers. The bombsight that resulted was the Mk XlV regarded then as the wonder sight of the day. It was designed to enable the run up to the target flying straight and level to be restricted to a mere ten seconds and enable the pilot to carry out evasive manoeuvres on his approach to the target. It could be used to bomb both on the climb and the glide. The bombsight consisted of a computer cabinet mounted to the left of the Air Bomber and a stabilised sighting head with optical graticule. The sight was one of the first practical uses for a mechanical computer and Babbage would have been proud of it.

And what altitude did they do it at? Any airplane can go up, down, left, right. What we are talking about is an airplane modeled in the game that disrupts GV'ing, in a smelly, gamey way, that in no way has any connection to what it actually did in the war.

And you can snoop all you want. At night, with radar, against an enemy whose defensive convoy system was a joke. Like Japans was, "and they still bombed level". Whats that got to do with pulling a stuka job with one formation of Lancs after another during an Aces High tank battle?