Mission altitudes

[DREDIOCK]

So long as the mission altitudes remain artificially high. I will no longer be taking part in any more FSO's.

Call it a rant. A whine or whatever you want. but the fact remains that these missions continue to be flown at altitudes they werent historically flown at according to 8th airforce records which show that missions during this time period for the targets attacked ranged from a low of 9,000 ft to a maximum high of 25,000 feet. with the average altitude being at around 20K Not 26-30,000 feet of which I encountered in the event

 The unrealistic and un historical altitude limits only serve benefit of the allied side.
If we re going to do historical recreations. then Im all for it.
But if we are going continue to allow altitudes that only work to the advantage of one side and werent historically used and provide unfair advantage to one side. Then Im not interested.

I participate in FSO to have fun and recreate historical battles. Not to plod along like a drunken toddler struggling just to maintain a similar even if not equal altitude with that of my targets/opponents while they just zoom me at will.

http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews1/musser.htm

http://www.8thairforce.com/44thbg/search/legacy.asp?perIdentification=19685

http://www.8thairforce.com/44thbg/search/legacy.asp?perIdentification=20498

http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/080.pdf

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

[AKP]

Maximum altitude for bombers in this FSO was set at 25K.  I cant speak for the bomber groups in the south, but in the north our squads were at 24K to 25K... the whole time.

As for the links you provided...  there is one instance mentioned of a bombing altitude of 9K as follows:

Mission No. 5. 16 November 1943. M-536.
Target: Kellar, Norway where there was an ore mine, which produced important quantities of manganese, plus an aircraft repair plant.
Bomb load 12 500 demos. Bomb altitude 9,000 feet. Lowest yet. Temperate at alt. -10C.
We took off before dawn and for some reason didn't get our formation together, so our pilot, 2nd Lt. K. G. Jewell, decided to go along. I almost had a fit. Then, about 100 miles off the English Coast, we caught up with a formation of 12 planes. On the Norwegian Coast, we picked up 11 more planes. We never met any fighter opposition. The primary target was closed in by clouds, so we went to the secondary, which was a power installation, bombing it at 9,000 ft. on the second run. Good results were observed. There was no flak whatsoever. We broke formation after bombing and headed for home alone. Our gas supply was low and we had to sweat it out. The navigator, with the help of our radioman, did a beautiful piece of navigation. We hit the field dead center on the ETA under an 800 foot overcast. The pilot and crew were congratulated by General Johnson and Col. Dent. Tomorrow we go on a four-day pass.

The way it reads... this was unusual to bomb this low.  And, from the mission report they encountered no enemy fighters.  I would guess that this was expected, and one of the reasons the altitude was allowed to be so low.

In another instance mentioned in your links... bomb altitude was 29K...

TARGET: WILHELMSHAVEN, GERMANY--(-44 DEGREES)--HEAVY OVERCAST--FLAK TRAILING FIRE AND CONTINUOUS POINTING--GOOD ESCORT--SOME ENEMY AIRCRAFT--BOMBED SUBMARINE PENS AND CITY--BOMBED AT 29000 FEET--BENDS IN LEFT SHOULDER--VERY HEAVY ENGINE CONTRAILS--VERY LONG TRIP;

This would also most likely be an extreme as well.  The pilot noted he had "bends" in his left shoulder.  And from other found resources, it has been noted that at 30K... the guns on the B-17 had a tendency to freeze up.

My point is... that the mission altitudes for heavy bombers had a wide range...  and 25K was not uncommon at all in an attempt to get as high as possible to reduce the effectiveness of the opposing fighters.  AAF planners were aware of the inaccuracy of bombing at high altitude... which is why such large numbers of bombers were went to destroy single targets as noted here:

from: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.aspx

The planners were not misled by pickle barrel assumptions. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2 percent probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90 percent probability of destroying the target. AWPD-1 forecast a need for 251 combat groups to carry out the plan.

Most of the instances which note altitude in the links you provided indicate many missions were at 22K, 23K, & 25K... and yes... some were at altitudes of 18K - 20K as well.

Again... my point is that 25K is not an unrealistic or non-historical bombing altitude at all.  And when you compare the stats for each side...

Luftwaffe stats:
Pilots: 168
Kills: 113
Assists: 64


USAAF stats:
Pilots: 185    
Kills: 118    
Assists: 117

... I think the Axis did just fine.

[Viper61]

I have to agree with AKP on this one DEADIOCK concerning bombing alt's. as far as the "real" war time missions were flown.  And as the AAR's AKP posted indicate altitudes were adjusted based on the target type, location and threat.  I don't have any references I can post here but if the target were an industrial center (meaning large target).  And its late 43' (meaning the Luftwaffe is at good strength as compared to later on).  And the targets are deeper inside Germany.  Then any "real" ALLIED planner of the time would have sent in his AC as high as possible knowing the Luftwaffe AC shortcomings.

Having had some long conversations with 2 "real" aces from the 325th FG operating out of Italy at the time (44').  They both stated that during bomber escort missions the "AXIS" attacked them using the following tactics.  NOTE - AXIS because they were dealing with German, some Italian pilots, Romanian squadron's.

      109's would come up and stage with very little fuel load to make themselves as light and maneuverable as possible.
      They also believed that they only carried enough ammo for one pass to further lighten the 109's.
      The would position themselves ahead of the bombers and higher at 5-7K
      They would make only 1 slashing attack through the front or frontal flanks of the bombers and continue down to the ground and back to their bases
      Because of the mission ranges and durations every often the same AXIS squadrons would attack the bombers coming in, land and rearm /refuel and then position themselves for "one" outbound slashing attack
      This AXIS tactic lead in a small part to the ALLIED pilots and squadrons turning and chasing them to the ground to finish them or CAP their bases as they could.
      These 2 surviving aces of the 325th FG also stated they hardly ever returned with the bombers.  They mostly chased the 109's down to the ground and finished them when they could.


 So if you want to recommend changes to the FSO scenario then you should think about how to replicate what some of the AXIS squadrons did in real life.  In this case the designers would have to allow multiple AXIS air spawns, limit AXIS AC to 25%, let the AXIS planes spawn in and where they want as they want,  Any AXIS planes that can land would be able to rearm / refuel and then re air spawn in where and when they want until frame end.
 
As for the FSO.  This is a game and we're not battlefield reinactors.  At least I'm not I can tell you.  I just want to enjoy myself on a Friday night.  As the CM's have stated many times before as well.  The FSO is a game and meant to have fun with just a little mix of realism so that we can all connect to the WWII battlefields and major engagements.  Every FSO scenario should allow either side a "fair" chance to win.  Regardless of the "real" life battle outcome.

DEADIOCK I would hope you would continue to fly.  Your a good pilot and part of a good squad.

Personally:  I think the AXIS CIC's are taking the wrong approach to winning this scenario.  Instead of staying and fighting until your dead.  Use what the AXIS really did.  Make "a" slashing attack, get your kills and then quickly land and tower out.  I suspect if the AXIS did this we on the ALLIED side would lose in points.  But this is just my opinion here.

[Spikes]

His name is Drediock.

I think that slashing attacks would be successful however having to climb to 30K is a chore. I'd love to go over 350 level, but we were in 110s...both frames. Woohoo, lots of opportunities to do "high speed slashing attacks" in 110s.

[Viper61]

Drediock my apologizes for miss spelling your name sir.   

[AKP]

Personally:  I think the AXIS CIC's are taking the wrong approach to winning this scenario.  Instead of staying and fighting until your dead.  Use what the AXIS really did.  Make "a" slashing attack, get your kills and then quickly land and tower out.  I suspect if the AXIS did this we on the ALLIED side would lose in points.  But this is just my opinion here.

I agree...  

I think that slashing attacks would be successful however having to climb to 30K is a chore.

And again... I agree.  

I'd love to go over 350 level, but we were in 110s...both frames. Woohoo, lots of opportunities to do "high speed slashing attacks" in 110s.

But even though the 110's are pushing their max speed at about 22K and 360mph, and at 30K they struggle to do 340... they are faster than the bombers.  Max speed on the B-17 at just over 300 fully loaded at 30K... and about 285 - 290 at 25K.  The B-24 is even slower.  The problem are the allied escorts.  The P-47 & P-38 both outperform the German defenders at these altitudes.  

So... the best tactic for the axis would be to hit the bombers... ignore the fighters if possible... get as many kills as they can and land as soon as possible.  Thereby limiting their exposure to allied fighters and limiting their losses.    Again though... the allied fighters are their problem.  They arent just going to let them hit the bombers and get away.  After re-reading the original post, and thinking about this some more... I think I understand Drediock's frustration.  It's not with the heavies... those can be caught and killed.  Its the escorts that can run circles around them at that altitude.  Unfortunately... that is historical.

Personally... (and I am surprised no one has mentioned it) I think the thing that may have hurt the Axis more than anything this frame was their inability to see the buffs shooting at them due to the "bomber-tracer" bug.  Their losses may have been a lot lower had they been able to avoid the bullet streams better.  Some of the top killers on the Allied side this frame were bomber pilots.  How often does that happen?

[Digr1]

I came across the first group of bomber at 28k not 25, as for realism only two bombs were dropped at such altitude and both were dropped on japan. most bomber missions were between 19 k to 23 k (info came from 8th air force diary which has every 8th mission and bda reports) to be realistic. Whe you have a 30k fighter cap which did fly over 30k the bomber should not be at 27 to 29k alt. Before anyone says this is just sour grapes it is not, I enjoy FSO and even enjoy being killed in a fight and do not post complaints but if were going to call it realism lets try to be real, or this might as well be in the MA

[AKP]

I came across the first group of bomber at 28k not 25, as for realism only two bombs were dropped at such altitude and both were dropped on japan. most bomber missions were between 19 k to 23 k (info came from 8th air force diary which has every 8th mission and bda reports) to be realistic. Whe you have a 30k fighter cap which did fly over 30k the bomber should not be at 27 to 29k alt. Before anyone says this is just sour grapes it is not, I enjoy FSO and even enjoy being killed in a fight and do not post complaints but if were going to call it realism lets try to be real, or this might as well be in the MA

Both of the below entries came from the 1st link that the original poster provided... and both are 28K and higher.  Of the 14 entries in this particular log, only two others list an altitude (12K).  The other links list altitudes ranging all over the place.

SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 1944    TARGET: BRUNSWICK, GERMANY--6 HOURS--(-40 DEGREES)--MEDIUM FLAK--HEAVY OVERCAST--GOOD ESCORT-- CONTRAILS VERY HEAVY, HAZARDOUS FLYING CONDITIONS--BOMBED AT 28000 FEET--DEVELOPED BENDS IN SHOULDER--BOMBED AN AIRCRAFT ENGINE PLANT.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1944    TARGET: WILHELMSHAVEN, GERMANY--(-44 DEGREES)--HEAVY OVERCAST--FLAK TRAILING FIRE AND CONTINUOUS POINTING--GOOD ESCORT--SOME ENEMY AIRCRAFT--BOMBED SUBMARINE PENS AND CITY--BOMBED AT 29000 FEET--BENDS IN LEFT SHOULDER--VERY HEAVY ENGINE CONTRAILS--VERY LONG TRIP;

As for encountering bombers at 28K in this frame, if that is where you met them, they were outside of their allowed altitude.  They should have been no higher than 25K per CM rules.  Would be no different than the axis crossing the "no fly line".  Its a rules violation... albeit a hard rule to enforce.

Just to point out... I have no issue with being in bombers at 25K or 15K if that is what we are restricted to by the rules, or restricted to by the aircraft capabilities and/or the mission requirements.  I am not arguing against a lower mission altitude... I am simply arguing that altitudes of 25K were not that uncommon or unrealistic.

[Squire]

Its not a hard rule to enforce. If you guys see bombers above the max alt film it using "alt-r" then send it along to the FSO Team. Violations will be noted and we will take action. If anybody has film of frame 1 or 2 bombers above 25k I would like to see it my email is glbold@telus.net
 

[oakranger]

Is it historical accurate for Germany fighter outnumber the allied fighter escort? Not trying to flame on the issue, i understand the frustration. It is hard to bring all aspect of historic event of the air combat into AH. I recall flying A6M2 in an early war PTO where we had to take out the B-17G. How far is that to have a late war B-17 in an early historical war battle? Same with the Ju-88s in BoB.

I asked the CM of having 100 or so AI AC for each sides to make things interesting.

[Bino]

IMHO, if Aces High modeled high-altitude level bombing such that accuracy declined as altitude increased (as in real life), then this would be less of an issue.

Drediock, as for what constitutes "historical" bombing altitudes, just a small selection from the 303rd Bomb Group web site which you cited shows the following:

mission # 356
Bombing Altitudes: 24,000, 23,800 & 24,600 feet

mission # 357
Bombing Altitudes: 25,000, 24,000& 26,000 feet

mission #358
Bombing Altitudes: 26,500, 26,000 & 27,500 feet

[AKP]

IMHO, if Aces High modeled high-altitude level bombing such that accuracy declined as altitude increased (as in real life), then this would be less of an issue.

Wind layers might do the trick...  not the hurricane force levels that are used to prevent people from flying over a certain altitude... but wind that is of different lower speeds and different directions as you go through the wind layers.

Have to make sure it is off on the deck though... or people will be flipping their birds on the runway... not much fun there.

[kilo2]

Why not just have bombers max alt change from frame to frame.

[Arlo]

If realism can be maintained via enviromental settings than that would be preferable, imo. Artificial limitations (one side or group of a side must maintain such and such altitude, speed, course, etc) is the unfortunate step-child of not having the tools or not knowing how to use the tools given. The more the arena enviroment can dictate practicality, the less whine about artificial limitations that really didn't have to be applied in the first place.

[AKP]

If realism can be maintained via enviromental settings than that would be preferable, imo. Artificial limitations (one side or group of a side must maintain such and such altitude, speed, course, etc) is the unfortunate step-child of not having the tools or not knowing how to use the tools given. The more the arena enviroment can dictate practicality, the less whine about artificial limitations that really didn't have to be applied in the first place.

Agree... if there is an alt cap in place... it should be for all aircraft... fighters and bombers... and it should be set by a 200mph downdraft from the cap alt on up.  If the alt cap is set at 30K... then the bombers are going to need to be 4 - 5K under that for their escorts to be effective.