30k b17s still are'nt fun

[Vulcan]

The 17's I saw came into 142 @ 23k (I was the 205 that was shadowing you guys on and off)

[branch37]

This frame you happened to be attacking (And shot down by Claim Jumpers B17s). We were never (Other than one rogue player during a hard turn back onto target) higher than 23k. You may have went on to later see other bombers, but this is the alt that you attacked B17s, with our P47 and P38 escorts.


I DO agree 30k 17s in an early war environment is the crapper for Axis, as their rides really suck at that alt. But I do want to point out that exaggeration doesn't help.

I dont recall anybody specifically calling out the Claim Jumpers as the 30K buffs, it was simply stated that buffs up that high are untouchable with the current Axis plane set.  On the other hand,  a late war setup with 152s/190-D9s/109-K4s/and 262s would be a different story.

[toadkill]

I dont recall anybody specifically calling out the Claim Jumpers as the 30K buffs, it was simply stated that buffs up that high are untouchable with the current Axis plane set.  On the other hand,  a late war setup with 152s/190-D9s/109-K4s/and 262s would be a different story.

Nope, no one did. But Filth spoke as if he had ran into the same thing as frame 2, and I knew we had met with him in the air.

[FiLtH]

Guess I should just say high buffs escorted and attacking with 205s sucked. Thanks for pointing that out Toad it is very important to get it right. Great reseach.

[Vulcan]

Slightly OT but there's a squad in the MA (AAC I think?) who bombs strats with 17s at 37k? Even a 262 can't get up there.... kinda wondering what the point is  it's kind of like playing ping pong with no opponent.

[Bino]

Easy solution for uber-alt BUFFs:

realistic bombing results, i.e., increasingly inaccurate bombing from increasingly high altitudes.




IMHO, of course.   

[Krusty]

That doesn't make them less of a threat at all.

Currently they are too fast, climb too fast (making 20k in very short time because they take off with 25% gas), accelerate too fast once they level, and cruise too fast (less drag because less weight, with 60,000lbs less gas the AoA is less and the drag less, thus enabling the plane to fly faster and better).

It's not an issue of the bombs or the aim. It's the speed and performance. It's totally unhistorical in all regards. Making them take 100% gas EVERY time (75% in special circumstances if you want to be kind to overly loaded planes) will slow them down both when in level flight AND when climbing out to the target. That makes them take longer to get to the target (auto speed is slow by default) and if they level out for speed instead it puts them lower, thus placing them as targets of diving fighters (again returning to historically accurate setting, slower and/or lower than the fighters hitting them).

Most B-17s flew 20k (many flew LOWER) and at 180mph to and from the target. These bombers cruised to and from the target. Gas was life. They conserved it. ALWAYS. The only times they flew full power was emergencies or takeoff -- and that does NOT include climbout. They used cruise power to climb.

What we have in-game needs some limitations placed on it to even remotely reflect the situations in WW2. Unfortunately we can't do that, so we have to compromise.

The easiest, best, and already-in-game, compromise is forcing all buffs to take full fuel. It's not perfect but it really evens the playing field a lot more than doing nothing.

[Squire]

Bombers did not arrive over target with 90 percent fuel either which is what would happen in a T+60 strike time line in FSO if they rolled with 100 fuel at burn 1.0. It also takes @ 30 minutes to climb to 20,000 feet with a 100 fuel B-17G and a bombload (@ 650 fpm) so in FSO they would have only 30 minutes to get to the target unless you had air starts which many terrains do not have. Playability becomes a problem when your bombers have to RTB after flying only 5 sectors.

The bombers flew at 150-180 Indicated. Not True Airspeed. Thats @ 210-240 TAS at 20k. It would vary per mission requirements of course. Flying to Berlin was not the same as flying to Le Havre. They didnt always need absolutely every gallon of fuel and land on vapors.

20k was far from an upper limit and USAAF heavy bombers flew 20k+ usually. Each mission was different. The higher they flew the better off they would be usually as AAA was less accurate and fighters had to climb higher to make passes. Flying below 20k over Occupied Europe and especially Germany was not something they liked to do. B-17 Flying Fortress Units of the 8th AF (Martin Bowman) page 88: "Bombs Away, at 29,000 feet", on page 92: "at 27,500 feet climbing to attain bombing altitude". Just to illustrate there was variety in alts.

Most SEA squads that fly bombers do not fly at max throttle for the same reasons they could not in real life; you cant hold formation like that. As a result most formations are not doing max speed. That being said they usually do fly faster than they did historically and im not trying to say they don't.

All that said the bombers in SEA setups are not perfect and do what we can with what we have. One of the tools we have for alt limits is to ensure that it takes an hour to get to the target from T.O but thats not always practical in every design.

[Krusty]

Bombers did not arrive over target with 90 percent fuel either which is what would happen in a T+60

Ahhhh... BUT they would arrive over target less than 200mph. As I said this is merely the best compromise. A performance limiter. Depending on fuel states a light B-25 can outclimb a heavy P-47. Not very historical, no? So in light of keeping all the planning and mission profiles as "up to the CO" as possible, the best compromise would be make the bombers fly at 100% and the results will much much much more closely match the effective combat state of the plane when the enemy engaged them.

As for the rest of your post, we've been over this before. I've been mocked but resources were produced to back up my comments. Funny how they get ignored.

And no, max cruise was not in indicated speed. These bombers were SLOW. Within a number of minutes a headon attack could be made, the fighters could turn around, overtake, line up well ahead and do multiple head-on attacks in short order. Even the older slower Italian rides had NO problems overtaking bombers (B17s but also the slightly faster B-24s) for repeated attacks at whim.

In this game you can NOT catch a bomber stream 99% of the time. You get one chance. Then it's over. Many's the time my squad has sat in 109s topping out at 30K while HEAVY JUGS flew over us at 36-38K and proceeded to bomb the target. Unstoppable. Many's the time the FSO has had bombers that flew FASTER than the planes intended to stop them. Prolonged tail chases ended because bombers passed the "no fly zone" or the disengage point before chasing fighters could catch up.

There's far too much unhistorical stuff regarding attacking and bombing in the FSO. It's become a game of which CO can game the game the most. The pilots suffer because of it.

Simply taking off with 100% fuel won't stop the bombers from climbing. It will only make them decide if they want alt or if they want time to manuver. Top speed will still be very fast but it will keep them lower. Or they climb and risk getting jumped at auto climb speed. You can still cover a sector in 5 minutes at 300mph TAS. That's plain math. So a target 5 sectors away only needs 25-30 minutes when you are at full speed. That's half a map and back and plenty of time to spare for additional climbing.

My suggestion doesn't limit anybody except the folks that like getting bombers to and from the target unescorted and having them survive and often get the highest kill streaks of the frame. It's happened before. My suggestion merely seeks to curb such events.




So why do you want to defend bombers flying 30k+ in FSOs at over 300mph TAS, higher than they historically could fly and faster than they historically could fly?

[Krusty]

PS, from a guy that flies them in real life, and talks to people that flew them in the war.

Even the light B-17 I flew for Collings didn't indicate 180...closer to 160-165.  A WWII B-17 guy said it "was a 150 mph airplane -- climbed at 150, cruised at 150 and descended at 150".

Light, he says, in a discussion about weights and speeds. Heavier it would have cruised slower still.

There's a reason they couldn't fly at 30k+ without a LOT of effort. Same problem with flying a Komet at 50k... You're stalling out as your TAS goes higher. You still cover ground fast but you can't stay up.

[Viper61]

Good exchanges above especially on real world vs cartoonland.

Personally I don't think we need any changes.  The 325th VFG runs our fair share of Strike Package Lead's for missions and more than often that means your level bombing with a period/scenario bomber AC.

We very seldom ever drop bombs from above 22K for a couple of reasons:
     Need time to get into position, in formation (entire Strike Package) - this means reduced throttle climbing / speed
     Bombing accuracy drops off above that altitude to the the point that your risking to many "points" (your entire point value of the Strike Package)for the possible "return in points" (Distruction on the ground in points).

The only time I would ever climb above 22K to level bomb would be if I were attacking a city target where accuracy doesn't matter.  And that doesn't happen very often in any of the FSO scenario's.

The key to separating real world from the FSO is that our targets are normally always individual buildings "Hangers" which are not the city quadrents that our grandfathers attacked.  To be more accurate you'd have to evaluate what we do in the FSO with the tactical bombing of key targets done by the medium bomber units.  Which to my understanding was generally from 8-12K.

Also as a defender for many missions over the years I don't ever recall encountering enemy bombers coming in much above 25K either.

I recommend that we not institute changes which force a fight between the bombers and the fighters.  The FSO is as much about the better plan as it is above "forcing a fight".  Leave it alone it works just fine 95% of the time 

[Squire]

Good exchanges above especially on real world vs cartoonland.

Yes indeed.

The best guideline I can see for keeping bombers to reasonable alts is the T+60 time limit in FSO especially when we use ground starts. Also when the Admins think its required we have in the past done designs with alt restrictions and as memory serves they are usually abided by (I recall the B-29 FSO had them). As has been stated above there are other issues in the SEA that are a challenge to make game play more realistic and "bomber issues" are not the only thing. The entire fact that we have to wrap up in 2hrs and are flying our PC planes on terrains that are often not 1:1 scale poses all kinds of challenges. Thats been true in SEA events from Air Warrior to present day sims including our beloved Aces High. We do what we can and despite some seams showing I think we get close to a real feel for actual operations more often than not. In any case it's good to thrash things out and it shows we have a player base that cares and thats a good thing. I will really worry when we stop debating. 

[Guppy35]

Just read through the thread and thought I'd comment.  I've got a fair number of bomber group histories.  I grabbed the 447th off the shelf and it lists the missions and bombing alts.  The majority of their bombing alts were 22-26K.  Keep in mind that this was made up of boxes of 17s at different alts up and down.  Anything flown below 20K was missions to France where they came over the coast lower.

The 24s tended to be a bit lower, but even those got up there.  The 24 crew I researched for a long time from the 454th of the 15th AF got taken down by Flak at 24K.

I'm a fighter driver in AH, but I do tend to believe we too often worry about making it easier for the fighters to get the bombers.  Keeping it within the range of history seems reasonable.

BTW the 477th history indicates that 170 or so was cruising for them

Edited to add:  Found this where a guy has posted the actual "Flimsy" from a mission in March of 45, when the bombers had more escort then they knew what to do with.  Still at 24.5K

Did some more digging in the group histories.  It appears the alts were higher in 44.  351st BG was 29K on the first raid to Berlin in March 44.  91st was 30K+ in May over Berlin.  I think the deeper they went the higher they went.  I also think when the escort numbers increased, alt was less of an issue although it was still 20K +

[Guppy35]

OK I knew I had it somewhere.  From the 1945 447th BG history that was sent home with the vets.  It's the list of all their missions and includes bombing alts.  This was the first page I looked at and it's October-November 44.  I knew the 17s were up there higher.

[Krusty]

Guppy I've also read a number that indicate even lower alts. Stacked bomber boxes means only a small fraction is at the top. Many are in the middle, and many are lower. I read an entire B-17 pilot's mission diary and he went through some thick stuff. Only once did he get above 22k, often being 18k.

For every pilot that flew at 26K (generally the higher end of the spectrum) there were far more that flew below that pilot to fill out the formation. For all the tens of THOUSANDS of bomber pilots flying in huge formations, those that spent their time up at 26k, like you show, were in the minority.

When the Luftwaffe encountered them, they did not have to struggle up to higher alts to chase down the highest of the high. They could simply engage those below that level using diving attacks with great efficiency.

In the FSOs now with high alt bombers, you are replicating the worst case scenario for the LW and best case for the bombers. It just didn't happen that way all that much. Here we have every bomber at the same alt (no tail end charlies, no low boxes, no staggered boxes, all hugging the same alt in a flat formation/gaggle).

I almost wish HTC would develop AI bomber formations for FSO so that we could have the AI follow historic setups. Players never will. You have to do things like enforce 100% fuel to reign the players in.