Harden the Ordnance Bunkers

[Widewing]

Please.... What we have now can be strafed down with ease. Ordnance bunkers were usually made of reinforced concrete, and then buried under earth. Ordnance bunkers should be harder than hangers, wouldn't you think?

One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?

How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.

[Lusche]

One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?

It is always pointing north by default. Simply giving the 88 it's (RL) ability to traverse in high gear should be very helpful

How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.

I really, really abhorr the thought of having proximity fused manned AA guns on land bases.

[bangsbox]

Agree snailman +1

[Ack-Ack]

Please.... What we have now can be strafed down with ease. Ordnance bunkers were usually made of reinforced concrete, and then buried under earth. Ordnance bunkers should be harder than hangers, wouldn't you think?

One other thing... Any time I jump into an 88 on a base, it always starts pointing in the opposite direction of the approaching enemy. Why is that?

How about an M2 90mm American anti-aircraft gun, firing VT fuzed rounds? The radar layed M2 was the best land based anti-aircraft gun of the war.

My wish thread from 5 years ago.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=278048.0

ack-ack 

[bozon]

+1 to harder bunkers.

-1 to the fused AA guns on a base . If they will be anything close to the navy 5" guns it will be a nightmare. we want to promote air combat, not having players in groung guns pointing and clicking.

[Lucifer]

Ofc they must be hardened : How comes enough MG bullets can kill a ..."bunker" ? 

[Randy1]

What weight of a bomb, bombs and or number of rockets were you thinking about to destroy an ord bunker?

I could see a 500 pound'er since that was the most common size bomb if I remember right.

[BuckShot]

Thoughts off the top

It would be cool if we had different types of damage; bomb/rocket and bullet <30mm. That way, you could not strafe an ord bunker, but you could take it out with a 250 lb'er.

Or, have reduced damage for guns against structures, say x 0.5 or less. That way, it would  take more than a pass or two to take them out.

[-ammo-]

The VT fuzed AAA ammunition wasn't used in the ETO until near the very end of hostilities and in very limited quantities.  Eisenhower feared the technology falling into enemy hands.

It was used from mid 44 on in the PTO with great results.  And if you think 5" guns are effective now, correctly modeled VT ammo would blow it away.  The fuzes sent out radio signals which would detonate the warhead when a reflection was received.  IOWs, you wouldn't have to use your mouse or keyboard to match range when firing at enemy AC.  You would only need worry about leading the target correctly.

[Lusche]

  And if you think 5" guns are effective now, correctly modeled VT ammo would blow it away.  The fuzes sent out radio signals which would detonate the warhead when a reflection was received.  IOWs, you wouldn't have to use your mouse or keyboard to match range when firing at enemy AC.  You would only need worry about leading the target correctly.

This leaves me a bit confused, as our manned 5" guns already use proximity fuzes that work this way. Shell get's close = boom.

[-ammo-]

This leaves me a bit confused, as our manned 5" guns already use proximity fuzes that work this way. Shell get's close = boom.

No, you adjust when the shell detonates using inputs; ie. you want it to explode at a range of 5000 yards you adjust before firing.

If the VT fuze was modeled in AH correctly, that is one step you wouldn't need to accomplish.  Just point the gun with the right lead and boom.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm

[Lusche]

No, you adjust when the shell detonates using inputs; ie. you want it to explode at a range of 5000 yards you adjust before firing.

If the VT fuze was modeled in AH correctly, that is one step you wouldn't need to accomplish.  Just point the gun with the right lead and boom.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm

What do you adjust? In the 5" you just lead and press fire...

[-ammo-]

What do you adjust? In the 5" you just lead and press fire...

I could be mistaken - I thought you adjusted range.  I don't use them much - more of a fighter guy.

[Lusche]

I could be mistaken - I thought you adjusted range. 

Nope, just point & shoot. That's why they are so extremely powerful compared to the land based 88 we have, in which you indeed have to set range before firing.

[SmokinLoon]

I love these discussions/debates.

First, investigate how the damage dealt by the different ordnance.  Bombs, rockets, and HE shells (and AP) are all scaled, to a degree, based on the objects (OBJ) available to destroy.  I can post the damages if need be.

Likewise, each of the OBJ have a hardness setting.  HTC has scaled, it appears, the different OBJ based on the amount of damage they believe needed to allow the widest range of aircraft and gv's able to get the job done.  Ever notice that it take two rounds of HE from a King Tiger all the way down to the lowly Panzer IV F/1 to bring down a typical OBJ (ammo bunker, radar tower, fuel tank, barrack, town building)?  Mind you, the M4/76mm, M18, and Firefly all need 3 rounds due to their lackluster HE round, kudos to HTC for modeling that correctly.    Yet, the King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85 all do 234 lbs of damage to the typical 156 lbs of damage (Panzer IV, Panther, T34/76, etc).  The M4/75 does 178 lbs of damage.  Point being, HTC has tiered the damage system to try and keep things "level", to a point.  Now when going up against a hanger or other such OBJ (shore batteries, HQ, etc), the M4/75mm is supreme thanks to its 178lbs of damage and 4 second reload rate.  The Tiger is next in line, then T34/85, then King Tiger, respectively due to their reload rates.  So the heavier calibers are only really given their due against the larger OBJ.    


I believe HTC should almost start from scratch in terms of OBJ hardness settings.  Each OBJ should get a different hardness setting based on how fragile it would really be.  A reinforced concrete bunker should NOT have to worry about most guns, cep't maybe the IL-2, Hurricane IID, and Stuka G-2.