More ordnance updates....

[Karnak]

I would like to see the. PTAB clusters modelled on the IL2-m3. This was the battlefield weapon that made the IL2 such a tank killer.

I'm not sure how well they'd work in AH right now.  I recall dropping both 500lb bombs from my bomb bay on a Tiger I and seeing one explode right next to the Tiger and the other generating a hit sprite by actually striking the Tiger.  The only effect was to have the player in the Tiger exclaim "That was loud!"  If a 500lb bomb hitting it won't kill a Tiger I, I am not sure what the PTAB bomblettes would do.

[Tank-Ace]

Depending on how effective those would be at clearing out large formations of vehicles (both the historical and logical way to do things), it would need to be made either hard as hell to use, or perked.


I mean to me, it seems like this will remove the Il-2's biggest vulnerability to tanks: the need to fly nice strait paths while on a straffing run.

[bangsbox]

looks like it wouldnt work very well in ah...dispersion was 1 ever 15meters( dropped at 200ft of ground so scattering would only get worse and higher) so it would work well a against formations and columns. but seeing that this is AH i can see dive bombing il2s dropping 130 to 320 anti-tank bomblets

[HawkerMKII]

That is a good info, thanks for posting.  I had forgotten that the P38 had a variant that has the Norden bomb sight and that a lead plane with the sight would usher a group of P38's not equipped with the sight to the target and while in formation would release the bombs based on the lead bomber.  Cool stuff.

Thanks, I think this site has alot of good info on it

[Tank-Ace]

looks like it wouldnt work very well in ah...dispersion was 1 ever 15meters( dropped at 200ft of ground so scattering would only get worse and higher) so it would work well a against formations and columns. but seeing that this is AH i can see dive bombing il2s dropping 130 to 320 anti-tank bomblets

Well, given that tanks work best when used en masse (although not nessicarily with huge numbers), this would really only serve to blunt the most effectve GV attacks. And because the defenders are going to be more concentrated, this will also hurt those defending against hordes the most. While it would be somewhat effective against campers, the camp would remain unbroken for the most part, due to the typical spread of campers over multiple possitions, often with more 1000m or more seperating two groups.

Essentially, it would discourage most the very type of gameplay that should be rewarded and encouraged.



Anyway, everyone in favor of more ordnance options for more aircraft, in particular the F4U, F-38, and 190?

[Karnak]

F4U

No, not really.  I'd rather see more reasons to use CV strike aircraft.

F-38

F-38?  Yes, if the ability to carry six 500lb bombs was standard I'd like to see that.  Not sure I like the idea of a fighter bomber carrying 2000lb bombs in the game though.  It might have unfortunate side effects on other aspects of the game, like GVs.

190?

Yes, for the Fw190F-8.

[Tank-Ace]

No, not really.  I'd rather see more reasons to use CV strike aircraft.

Probably not going to happen. Torpedo attacks are ineffective because of the required procedure. That is to say, low, slow and steady aircraft make VERY easy targets.

And the dive bombers just seem to lack the nessecary capacity to compete in LW, where many aircraft are hauling over 2000lbs of ordnance at 300+mph. Oh there are some that would be decent, and might see more use than an F4U provided HTC changes the perk reward for using them, or for destroying ships and their guns or something.

But effectivness is the biggest motivator, followed by either personal likes (including history) or wanting a challenge.

F-38?  Yes, if the ability to carry six 500lb bombs was standard I'd like to see that.  Not sure I like the idea of a fighter bomber carrying 2000lb bombs in the game though.  It might have unfortunate side effects on other aspects of the game, like GVs.[/quote] Typo  .

Personally, I'd like to see the outer pylons be able to mount bombs. Or just go with the 4x 500lb bomb option instead of the 6x 500lb option. Also another good argument for perked ordnance.

Yes, for the Fw190F-8.

Yippie  .

[Ack-Ack]

Personally, I'd like to see the outer pylons be able to mount bombs. Or just go with the 4x 500lb bomb option instead of the 6x 500lb option. Also another good argument for perked ordnance.

Yippie  .

Bombs only carried on the internal hard points on the P-38.

Here is a P-38 Droop Snoop carrying 6x 500 pounders.


P-38L with 6x 500 pounders.


P-38 with 2x (only one side pictured) 2,000 pounder.


ack-ack

[JVboob]

on the p38s there was a test done multiple times over europe the "droopsnoots" flight leads had no guns but a bomberdier with a norden (spelling terrible sorry) the members of the flights as well as the flight leads carried 1 2,000lbr and 1 300gal DT(300 something not sure exact number i would have to find my source again). When the lead dropped his bomb the rest of the flight would as well. The idea behind it was the 38s could run/fight their way out a helluva loteasier than the buffs and if 1 was shot down the loss was 1-2 lives instead of 10. 38s could carry 2x 2,000lbrs or 2 300g+ DTs, they rarely used but it was used in combat for a few weeks/months. my point is it was done and should qual for in game usage but would have to be perked out the wazzzu. 1 38 could drop 2 hangars with 2x 2,000lbrs, 10 rkts and some strafing. prolly why its not in the game.

<S>49Boob
49th Fighter Group
XO 9th Fighter Squadron

[Tank-Ace]

Could outer pylons carry DT's, or were they for rockets only?


And thinking about the 6x 500lber option, I think it would be best to perk an option like that. We could give the following options for the inner pylons:

2 2000lb bombs (perked)
2 1000lb bombs
6 500lb bombs (perked)
4 500lb bombs
1x DT 1x 1000lb bomb
And presumably, the 250lb bombs could also be carried, so:
6 250lb bombs
4 250lb bombs

[bangsbox]

I never liked the idea of perked ords...just lower eny. Also it will encourage people to fly 38s instead of all the 51 base grabs we currently have.

[Tank-Ace]

I don't think we should leave out historical loadouts just because they might be unbalancing. Thats the entire reason for perks. Its the same think as perking an unbalancing vehicle, just like the Tiger II.

If people want to pay, say 5 perks, to carry 2x 2000lb bombs on their P-38, I see no problem with that.


And P-38s are (in my opinion) easier to deal with, especially when flown by average sticks. Not a whole lot of people are real adept at using the P-38 to its strenghts, while the P-51 is much easier to do that with. Just up something fast, and you'll either force them to drop ords, or kill a lot of P-38s.


I rarely flew the P-51 after I got into Luft aircraft and GV's, and I know some who would only call me an average stick. Check my sortie stats if you care to (49Jager, or Jager for the most relevent time period). But after maybe 6 months without using the P-51 as anything but a bomb-truck, I took it out to a furball and promptly landed 6 kills with it.

[JVboob]

always liked the idea of perked ords. and sorry for the redundency on the droop snoots. but the 38 is very very dragged down by the game the Jcould run 420 at 21k and make 20,000' in 6 min. not to mention the ords letdown. the F4Us could carry more ords than whats in the game. perk ord loadouts!!!!!!!!!! b25s 26s 24s 17s lancs didnt carry 1,000lb bombs every sortie typical loadouts were 250lbers or 500lbers. perk the 1,000lb and up bombs. GIVE the 38 better load outs!!! thank you

<S> 49Boob

[Tank-Ace]

Boob, how are the 49'ers doing?

[JVboob]

49rs are great sittin at 32 and of the 32 players 28 active the of the 4 unactive 2 are deployed 1 in basic and 1 having some RL issues