CV vs Level Bombers

[qcarech]

As the head of the Chawks Bomber wing, ive sank alot of carriers (in jan. 09 i sank over 200 carriers, not counting the cruisers) and almost everyone of em was from an alt of 7500'. an from what ive learned if at that alt, maybe 50% of the time ill lose 1 bird max, for some reason the 5"er's cant seem to hit me if ur 500-1000 feet diff. either way they tear me up. not sure if its a glitch or what but it is very effective. but there isnt a doubt in my mind that in RL that wouldnt work, the ack would be the end of the buffs at that alt. w/ a set of b-24's ive been able to sink 2 carriers w/ the 1000's. the next time i do it ill film it an post it to see if its something to send in hoping that they may increase the hardness or something cuz its just getting to easy. but for those of us that dont spend our time bombing factorys to make our score look good ( which is useless to me unless its done by a squad to stop the constent resuppling) we need a new challenge. IMO if they do increase the difficulty, then maybe they can increase the dmg points. not sure what can be done but if anyone has any ideas ill be more than willing to help w/ testin or provide films of some carrier runs or what ever that will prove we need a change or two. just pm me on here or look me up in the Orange Ma an throw ur ideas my way if i can help.
<<S>> QcareCh
CO Chawks/RTC Bomber Wing

[Kev367th]

As the head of the Chawks Bomber wing, ive sank alot of carriers (in jan. 09 i sank over 200 carriers, not counting the cruisers) and almost everyone of em was from an alt of 7500'. an from what ive learned if at that alt, maybe 50% of the time ill lose 1 bird max, for some reason the 5"er's cant seem to hit me if ur 500-1000 feet diff. either way they tear me up. not sure if its a glitch or what but it is very effective. but there isnt a doubt in my mind that in RL that wouldnt work, the ack would be the end of the buffs at that alt. w/ a set of b-24's ive been able to sink 2 carriers w/ the 1000's. the next time i do it ill film it an post it to see if its something to send in hoping that they may increase the hardness or something cuz its just getting to easy. but for those of us that dont spend our time bombing factorys to make our score look good ( which is useless to me unless its done by a squad to stop the constent resuppling) we need a new challenge. IMO if they do increase the difficulty, then maybe they can increase the dmg points. not sure what can be done but if anyone has any ideas ill be more than willing to help w/ testin or provide films of some carrier runs or what ever that will prove we need a change or two. just pm me on here or look me up in the Orange Ma an throw ur ideas my way if i can help.
<<S>> QcareCh
CO Chawks/RTC Bomber Wing

Thats the thing though, I don't see it bas a CV/buff problem.

If I can get 3 buffs to a position where I can bomb a CV with 30+ cons around who's fault is it?

The perceived CV/buff problem, or the 30+ cons all of whom are over the airfield?

Why?
Because the cons were to busy going to the airfield under attack and ignoring everything else.

There has already been a slew of changes the root of which are to sidestep the players CHOICE not to defend.
I think enough is enough.

[AWwrgwy]

From the same page Brook's pic was on:  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm

Then, somewhat after 0800, fifteen Army B-17s struck, raining down sticks of bombs from high altitude. Much was expected of this kind of attack, but no hits were scored, a result that further war experience would demonstrate was all-too-typical. On the other hand, the "Flying Fortresses" were little damaged by Japanese anti-aircraft fire and fighters. They made several fine photographs of the Japanese carriers maneuvering far below, an indication of the true role of these heavy bombers in contemporary maritime warfare: long-distance reconnaissance by aircraft capable of defending themselves.

I think the difference between RL and game. in this situation, can be summed up in one word: ALTITUDE

Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude.  The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.

Compare the successes of B-25s or PBY-4s at low level in sinking ships.  Big difference.  Granted, they are not cv's but a four engined bomber at low level is a formidable force against a ship.  It is also an easier target for AAA to hit.  Still, what percentage of low level bombers were killed by AAA?


wrongway

[CAP1]

From the same page Brook's pic was on:  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm

I think the difference between RL and game. in this situation, can be summed up in one word: ALTITUDE

Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude.  The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.

Compare the successes of B-25s or PBY-4s at low level in sinking ships.  Big difference.  Granted, they are not cv's but a four engined bomber at low level is a formidable force against a ship.  It is also an easier target for AAA to hit.  Still, what percentage of low level bombers were killed by AAA?


wrongway

no..i think kev's got it. a cv tht's not being watched is super easy to hit....i generally hit em from 10k. if someone is watching, and the buffs are above 7k, it's fairly easy to dodge the eggs. i've done it. i've had it done to me. the

 like kev said.......there'll be 30 cons...and they;re all over the airbase trying to do whatever.....and the buffs can go in unharrassed.

[kvuo75]

Few things -

d) Anything hitting a CV does damage, bomb, cannon round, MG round, torp, tank round (LOL), prob even a pilots sidearm.

im not so sure of that.. I've bounced many a mg and tank round (ap and he) off a cv.. maybe it still counts as damage, but on my FE, it shows the rounds ricochet.

[strong10]

IMO CV's should be harder to sink than just 8,000 lbs of bombs. They aren't made of paper last I checked. (Did someone say A6)

I believe the Jap CV's at Midway were sunk with only around 4,000lbs of bombs each or less.  I believe Akagi only took 1 1,000 lbs to destroy it.  This was done by SBD dive bombers.  It depends of course where the bomb hits to the extent of damage.  Remember the Arizona took only 1 key hit to destroy it unfortunately. 

[Ratpack1]

I understand the historical and physical effects of damage and CV's. My point was they are fun to sink and making it a bit harder to do so might had to the challenge of it and maybe force people to acquire some new tactics. Just my $.02.

[WWhiskey]

I think all boats should be maned at all times, or should automatically be sunk, because real boats always had a crew at the helm.

          i agree with that idea, atleast during combat !someone should have to be in command of the cv  and must be on it , not flying , maybe manning a gun!!
          it would also be nice if you could lock out flight during a cv mission like when your shelling down a field or town!
          but that might give someone to much control over all the other players,and could allow someone from another side to switch sides and take control,maybe a time limit on
          how  long you have to be on a certain side before you could gain control!


2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
               
          can we get the cv ack to stop firing above the feilds they are parked near?
          like when they are almost on the beach?

HiTech

sorry i messed up you very nice and well thought out post!!
What was you like to drink again??

[strong10]

Ratpack1    I was just throwing some history in there cause I love sharing that stuff with everyone.

I like the idea of the AP bombs that cost perkies needed for sinking CV.  This would keep the low bomber formations down, maybe.  It would also add time of the return trip to bomber pilots that immediately ditch after dropping bombs hence cut bomber formations down by half.       

[Demetrious]

Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude.  The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.

[/thread]

This is it, percisely. The Norden bombsight was said to be able to put a bomb "in the pickle barrel," and that was no idle boast. The reason Allied daylight bombing was so inaccurate was that they were doing it from 25,000 feet to avoid murderous ground fire, (and they still got hammered, as was.) At least at that altitude only the 88s could reach you; at 7,000, even the 37 and 40mm is going to have a go. Consider the spectacular success and horrendous casualties of the low-level raid on Polesti.

From 25,000 feet, the bombs have to fall through more then a few wind layers, and that is what destroys their accuracy. Now, when a bomber has an oppertunity to fly lower, watch out. They'll put those bombs where they bloody well please. Historically, B-24s could- and did- nail more then a few Japanese ships (and warships,) but they were generally lone vessels, unable to put up significant AAA defense. That's percisely why the B-24s were able to get low enough to make those accurate strikes.

I saw people on these boards elsewhere saying that the five-inch ack was downright murderous. Why doesn't it have that effect on low-level bombers? Perhaps the bomber damage models simply need to be tweaked. And perhaps the better question is, how are big lumbering bombers able to mosey on up to the CV without getting pounced upon by a CAP, or even an opportunistic pilot? It's not like fast-climbing, cannon-armed, carrier launchable interceptors arent' availiable. Isn't the carrier version of the Spitfire in this game? Eh?

EDIT:

The amount of times I've come in at 8k on a CV with enemy planes all over the airfield and not one protecting the CV beggars belief! But oh yeah plenty will chase you once you've sunk it.

WELL THAT EXPLAINS THAT.   

[RTHolmes]

been trying to remember which ship it was that the RAF hit with 15 Halifaxes from Stanton Harcourt (about 10 miles from me), found out it was Scharnhorst. lots of damage but didnt sink it. not sure about the alt, my guess 10k ish.

[Ghostbuster]

[/thread]
Isn't the carrier version of the Spitfire in this game? Eh?

The Seafire?

[CAP1]

The Seafire?

ya, i think the seafire is the equivalent of the spit5. if i up off a carrier though, unless i'm trying to chase down buffs, i up one of the zeeks. if i'm chasing buffs.......f6f.