Collisions

[Silat]

As soon as Hitech can find a way to eliminate internet lag, I agree this would be a great idea.  Until then, what we have is the best collision system available.

What about less lethality in the collision model?

[Squire]

The last thing I think we need is the idea out there that colliding isn't likely to cause major damage to somebody. It would just make offending pilots worse than they already are. Its not a perfect model but its the best option we have currently. At least sometimes the offender gets what they deserve; a missing wing.

[Ack-Ack]

What about less lethality in the collision model?

That's already modeled in.  Damage is in relation to the severity of the collision.

ack-ack

[Drano]

What about less lethality in the collision model?

One of these days Alice!

[Zodiac]

Drano stated he was attempting to "rope" the 205, so to explain "roping" means that the 205 was on Drano's 6 and either had or was near a gun solution, so Drano went vertical to bleed off the 205's E, which would cause the 205 to "Nose down" and start to fall AWAY from Drano, at which time he planned to roll over dive DOWN on the 205 which should regain level flight allowing Drano to fire a burst into the TOP of his canopy.

On February 20, 1944, in the spirit of Arnold's directive, the USSTAF launched a series of missions against Germany that became known as "Big Week." The planners intended to lure the Luftwaffe into a decisive battle by launching massive attacks on the German aircraft industry. By defeating the Luftwaffe, the Allies would achieve air superiority and the invasion of Europe could proceed.

BIG WEEK, formally known as Operation ARGUMENT, was the Allied code name for a coordinated assault in February 1944 upon German fighter factories and ball-bearing works located in Germany, Austria, and occupied Poland. These attacks were mounted by the U.S. Eighth Air Force flying from England and the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force flying from Italy. Daylight raids by U.S. bombers were supplemented by Royal Air Force area-bombing by night. Operation ARGUMENT sought to disrupt fighter production, compelling German fighters into the air where they could be destroyed. Only thus could German airpower be defeated and the success of the forthcoming Allied invasion of the continent be assured.

As far as "Big Week", what you claim sounded "NUTS" was viewed as acceptable losses by Allied Air Command. "lure the Luftwaffe into a decisive battle" sure does sound like they were engaging the Luftwaffe not just HOing and hoping for the best. "Big Week" is well documented since it was an Allied offensive, and yes there was a question of air superiority, unless you think our bombers and fighters only showed up after the Normandy Invasion.   Allied bombing was going on for a long time before there WAS a front line.

[kvuo75]

hitech should write in some code in a future version they can turn on at will for specific players.. give them "you take damage when someone collides with you", and see how long it takes for them to come back whining about how they "weren't anywhere near the other guy and collided!". so whenever someone posts in collision thread that both should take damage, hitech or skuzzy can go turn their "idiotic collision flag" from 0 to 1 and let them have what they want! 

i could swear hitech almost quoted my idea yesterday. I shall expect it! 

[EVZ]

If you commit to the HO with the Bf109s in your scenario you get one shot and one shot only, you'll never make it back before they have attacked.  If you do a lead turn you will be right behind the Bf109s and can put pressure on many of them.

It's simple really, as noted, you have ONE SHOT at the attackers before they get to the bombers... if you fail to take it, they WILL all attack the bombers ... putting "pressure" on them is NOT the job and isn't going to save any bombers ... The escorts job after they meet the threat is to reverse and force the 109s out of position preventing them from doing it again ... NOT to chase them down ... Unless they are under attack themselves, they are to break off and return to the bombers.

Remember, the '51s would not be doing close escort, co alt and speed with the bombers, so don't make a fake scenario where they have to respond from such a position.

? Wouldn't be doing close escort ? DUH ... Close escort generally flew around 500 ft above the bombers and used racetrack and weave manuvers to stay in position. 51s were the plane of choice for that job ... High escort (2,000 -5,000 ft) had other jobs, if possible they'd  prevent those 109s from making an organised attack ... THEY might go in on the 109s that got past the close escort -IF POSSIBLE- but given the number of bombers being escorted, there were always holes in the high escort ... (which is WHY there WAS a close escort) 51s were preferred, lots of 38s were used, 47s were sometimes used in both roles, but had limited range.

[Ack-Ack]

? Wouldn't be doing close escort ? DUH ... Close escort generally flew around 500 ft above the bombers and used racetrack and weave manuvers to stay in position. 51s were the plane of choice for that job ... High escort (2,000 -5,000 ft) had other jobs, if possible they'd  prevent those 109s from making an organised attack ... THEY might go in on the 109s that got past the close escort -IF POSSIBLE- but given the number of bombers being escorted, there were always holes in the high escort ... (which is WHY there WAS a close escort) 51s were preferred, lots of 38s were used, 47s were sometimes used in both roles, but had limited range.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective.  I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective.  I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.

ack-ack

He is trying to set up a situation where doing an HO is the only correct answer so he can say something to the effect of "Ha! Gotcha.  HOs are a valid tactic and in AH the collision model hurts this most common correct tactic!"  Note that in his initial question to me he doesn't even mention bombers so when I treat is as a fighter vs fighter engagement with the Bf109 trying to HO my Mustang and describe the tactic I'd use against it, he changes it to a close escort of the bombers in which I am going too slow and am to close to the bombers to get anything other than an HO before the Bf109s reach the bombers.

It is an entirely ignorant and loaded question.

[ink]

why oh why........


thickheadedness

[Zodiac]

I can understand if someone doesn't understand the collision model wanting it switched. What I don't understand is when someone wants both planes to go down no matter, and even after the shortcomings are explained, hold on to that belief so doggedly. At any rate, the CM we currently have is the best you are going to get period, so enjoy the game.

[EVZ]

As I mentioned in a previous post, the 8th AF dumped the idea of close escorts after they finally came to the realization that closed escorts weren't effective.  I don't know why you keep referencing it to prove your incorrect point or what it has to do with your 1) lack of skill and 2) collision model.

As distastefull as replying to you is ... people should not be misled ... Close Escort was never "Dumped." Tactics evolved as more escorts became available and the number of interceptors the Germans launched dwindled due to the effects of strategic bombing and pressure on the eastern front. With the drop in the number of attackers and the increased coverage allowed by the growing allied escort corp, the number of fighters managing to penetrate the screen dropped to the point that close escort was a waste of resources ... it had served it's purpose and saved a LOT of bombers and crews ... There wasn't any "Free-Ranging" fighter tactic ... Close escort became advance escort and covered attack vectors in FRONT of the bomber stream ... once engaged, elements of the HIGH ESCORT replaced them. "Just the facts mam."

[EVZ]

Note that in his initial question to me he doesn't even mention bombers

I mentioned you were FLYING ESCORT ... and assumed you realized you were not escorting betty boop to a cartoon (my mistake).

he changes it to a close escort of the bombers in which I am going too slow and am to close to the bombers to get anything other than an HO before the Bf109s reach the bombers.

Please note, the assumption remains the same, nothing changed ...  AND ... you don't seem to understand that close escort did NOT involve flying SLOW ... they didn't fly formation with the bombers ... they flew at standard cruise, just like every other P51 on their way into enemy territory. As previously mentioned they flew WEAVE patterns and used racetrack manuvers to maintain position slightly above the buffs. It' seems clear you don't really have a clue about the subject OR the tactics ... If you did, I wouldn't be explaining it to you.

[VonMessa]

This thread is an unrelenting source of workday amusement.   

Please carry on 

[Drano]

... people should not be misled ...

Oh yeah we certainly wouldn't want that!