Bombsight calibration accuracy - involve the human

[BaldEagl]

Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know.  From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?

I haven't flown buffs in a couple of years now but when I did regularily I'd estimate:

Lancasters @ 23K - 60-70% unopposed
Bostons @ 18K - 50-60% unopposed
AR234's @ 16K - 95%+ unopposed

Being opposed meaning there was a real and serious threat to my aircraft.

Regarding distance shots, I've gotten plenty of kills over the years at 1000 but never beyond that.  I also set most of my convergences at 650 so there's less dispursion at long distances.

As to Jabos being meat on the table for fighters I've fought to victory on many many occasions in the F6F-5 without dropping my rockets (I rarely do if engaged) and occasionally with my 1K bombs and rockets still attached.  Of course I always fly fighters with 100% internal too.  I ignore the weight and do my best with what I have which is no different than flying any "inferior" plane in the MA.

[Lusche]

Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know.  From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?

Let me answer it this way:



As you can see if you compare B-17 and B-25C, altitude alone doesn't mean much, the chances of being intercepted depend on several factors.

[bozon]

Let me answer it this way:

(Image removed from quote.)

As you can see if you compare B-17 and B-25C, altitude alone doesn't mean much, the chances of being intercepted depend on several factors.

Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?
I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?

Mission profile and environment matter a lot. We are discussing here mainly bombers over front bases bombing the field and/or town.
Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters. The latter will arrive in suitable fighters and climb as high as necessary to meet the bombers (I am sure you know that Snailman, I think you are one of them). However, over the front, it is difficult to differentiate 25k B17s from a 3k Brewter, until they are within dot range. The very few fighters you may randomly encounter over the front at 20+k are usually noobs in P51s. In very very rare occasion you may find one of the few alt-monkey vets . Still, at 25k fighters have a hard time positioning for an effective attack on the bombers, if the latter have picked up their speed. On top of that, it depends whether the bomber attacks a deserted field or one that supports an ongoing furball.

What does "a2a combat" means in your table?

[The Fugitive]

Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?
I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?

Mission profile and environment matter a lot. We are discussing here mainly bombers over front bases bombing the field and/or town.
Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters. The latter will arrive in suitable fighters and climb as high as necessary to meet the bombers (I am sure you know that Snailman, I think you are one of them). However, over the front, it is difficult to differentiate 25k B17s from a 3k Brewter, until they are within dot range. The very few fighters you may randomly encounter over the front at 20+k are usually noobs in P51s. In very very rare occasion you may find one of the few alt-monkey vets . Still, at 25k fighters have a hard time positioning for an effective attack on the bombers, if the latter have picked up their speed. On top of that, it depends whether the bomber attacks a deserted field or one that supports an ongoing furball.

What does "a2a combat" means in your table?

My guess would be Air to Air combat meaning he had to fight his way in/out.

Nearly half his missions ARE to bases/town. Check out the "Boston, G4M, HE111" groups. 155 missions and a third of the time he runs into a fight losing twice as many planes as he takes down.. Seems like many get to find good angles to make good killing runs.

[Lusche]

Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?

Only for bomber sorties: Date, time, plane, mission type, target country, fuels settings & bomb loadout, altitude, actual dropped tonnage, destroyed targets, kills & deaths by type, sortie duration, perk gain, displayed damage, score points,remarks.
Sheet computes immediately computes things actual lb of destruction, bombing efficiency, perk efficiency, as well of derived statistics by plane, by mission type and so on.

I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?

It's fairly limited to AH, so it's not really chronic yet

What does "a2a combat" means in your table?

Air to air. Just wanted to make clear that the kills & deaths did not include GV or AA fire.

[Lusche]

Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters.

It used to be that way. With the disperesed strats we now have, it's often difficult to impossible to identify factory attackers early enough. Many factories are now very close to the front line, and you can't know if that darbar next to your own base is ib the base or to the strats.
And as the factory downtime is still 180 mins, it also still pays off to invest 60 mins to climb to 30k. And there's no way to intercept such a 30k strat raider over the frontline strats.
Bombing the factories has become a very safe thing now... there ain't even any puffy ack any more.

[BnZs]

Try some of the faster heavy fighters.  P-51's 1700hp engine makes it rather poor for hauling ordnance.  Including the climb to 10,000ft the P-38 is the fastest heavy fighter to target, followed by the Mosquito. Adding 2000lbs of bombs and, in the P-38's case 10 rockets, is a smaller percentage increase in weight and drag for the twin engined fighters.  They are also working with about double the P-51's power.

The 3200 horsepower P-38L at 10,000 feet with half fuel and a max ord load will go 343 on WEP, thus making it slightly more vulnerable to being run down and shot by common late war fighters than was the case for the P-51, and of course, it much more vulnerable to being run down after the drop, if surviving the drop is an important consideration.

Let me sum up an argument some people are using on this thread: These people admit that bombing accuracy is far, far greater than is plausible for real life, but they say it must stay this way, because if level bombing "precision" was made realistic people would use jabos instead of bombers for certain jobs (hitting individual buildings, vehicles, ships that sort of thing) that dive-bombers were selected for in real life, precisely because in real life (but not in Aces High) dive bombing was far more accurate than level bombing. So stated even more succinctly, some people are arguing in favor of an unrealistic modeling aspect so that players may use bombers in unrealistic mission profiles, instead of using dive-bombers for the sort of missions they were actually used for. I think that line of "reasoning" deserves about a million of these little guys   but I'll content myself with a baker's dozen.

[Zimme83]

If were able to launch a bomb mission w 100+ buffs then we could have real world accuracy on level bombing but for now we have to compensate for the low number of buffs in a raid by having more accurate bomb sights. Nothing in this game can be called realistic in any way. Its a game - live with it. 10000hrs in a P-51 in the game will not take u any closer to being able to fly a real one. But why not demanding complex engine managment, no radars. Bad wheather etc etc if we want realism.

[caldera]

The 3200 horsepower P-38L at 10,000 feet with half fuel and a max ord load will go 343 on WEP, thus making it slightly more vulnerable to being run down and shot by common late war fighters than was the case for the P-51, and of course, it much more vulnerable to being run down after the drop, if surviving the drop is an important consideration.

Let me sum up an argument some people are using on this thread: These people admit that bombing accuracy is far, far greater than is plausible for real life, but they say it must stay this way, because if level bombing "precision" was made realistic people would use jabos instead of bombers for certain jobs (hitting individual buildings, vehicles, ships that sort of thing) that dive-bombers were selected for in real life, precisely because in real life (but not in Aces High) dive bombing was far more accurate than level bombing. So stated even more succinctly, some people are arguing in favor of an unrealistic modeling aspect so that players may use bombers in unrealistic mission profiles, instead of using dive-bombers for the sort of missions they were actually used for. I think that line of "reasoning" deserves about a million of these little guys   but I'll content myself with a baker's dozen.

If this game were in any way based on real life, we would all only use P-51D/F4U-4/Tempest/262/B-29/TigerII/Wirble and never go back to anything less.

[bozon]

Before you continue with the sim vs. game arguments, I just wanted to point out that the OP was made entirely with gameplay in mind. The suggested solution was based on realism argument but was not intended to make level bombing entirely realistic. Not at all.

[BnZs]

If this game were in any way based on real life, we would all only use P-51D/F4U-4/Tempest/262/B-29/TigerII/Wirble and never go back to anything less.

This game is supposed to be based on the physics of real life. That is why bullets fired from a given gun disperse instead of staying in as tight a group 1000 yards as they were in at 50 yards. Since I've been playing, the optics on tanks have been redesigned to conform more closely with real life. These are two examples of AH's general commitment to physical realism when it comes to modeling the equipment. Level bombing accuracy is a startling and bizarre exception to this principle. If you want to say "well it's just a game anyway" that opens the door to making every other aspect arcade-mode as well. Why not also get rid of black-out, red-out, stalls, and spins to make dogfighting (arguably) more "fun"? Why have the complex modeling of armor piercing for GVS, it just seems to piss people off anyway? Etc.

[Zimme83]

But u dont want bombers to bomb your hangars because u want to fight? How realistic is that? We maybe should make the runways destructable and have real bomb craters so buffs can turn a field into a moon landscape. That would be more realistic.

[Karnak]

This game is supposed to be based on the physics of real life. That is why bullets fired from a given gun disperse instead of staying in as tight a group 1000 yards as they were in at 50 yards. Since I've been playing, the optics on tanks have been redesigned to conform more closely with real life. These are two examples of AH's general commitment to physical realism when it comes to modeling the equipment. Level bombing accuracy is a startling and bizarre exception to this principle. If you want to say "well it's just a game anyway" that opens the door to making every other aspect arcade-mode as well. Why not also get rid of black-out, red-out, stalls, and spins to make dogfighting (arguably) more "fun"? Why have the complex modeling of armor piercing for GVS, it just seems to piss people off anyway? Etc.

You do realize that bombs do the same in AH, right?  Just as we don't suffer wing flex and buffeting as causes of increased dispersion in fighters, so the same is true for bombers and bomber gun mounts.

[BnZs]

Oh where to begin with this?

If were able to launch a bomb mission w 100+ buffs then we could have real world accuracy on level bombing but for now we have to compensate for the low number of buffs in a raid by having more accurate bomb sights.

Launching 100 buffs on a raid in this game would be perfectly realistic-IF and ONLY if you had 1,000 players to man the various crew positions. Allowing one player to control 3 planes and effectively do the work of 30 crewmen is already a very large realism compromise.

Nothing in this game can be called realistic in any way.

Really, so you think HTC fudged on the flight models, the ballistics, the armor penetration modeling, etc? It looks to me more like they went to a lot of trouble to base those things on real world data.

Its a game - live with it. 10000hrs in a P-51 in the game will not take u any closer to being able to fly a real one.

Hitech once flew in a mock dogfighting tourney against ex-military aviators...and won.

But why not demanding complex engine

I've played a sim with complex engine management before actually. What complex engine management amounts to is pushing a few more buttons to get off the ground, and that's about it. It makes zero difference to the tactics of dogfighting. Extra button pushing or not, a 190 still performs like a 190, a Spit still performs like a Spit It is completely unlike a situation where level bombers can snipe individual buildings on a field from 20K, when in reality it might be difficult for them to reliably hit the field itself from that alt.

managment, no radars. Bad wheather etc etc if we want realism.

Most fighters in WWII didn't have onboard radar, but they sometimes DID have radar controllers radioing them vectors to the enemy, including a good idea of the altitude of the enemy. Sooooo.......

"Bad wheather?" Hmmm...unlike sniping from 20K, CAVU days actually sometimes occur in the real world. 

[BnZs]

You do realize that bombs do the same in AH, right? 

The accuracy of a bomb-an unguided munition dumped from the bay and stabilized with freakin' fins-in AH is greater than the accuracy of rifled projectiles fired from our guns. This can be demonstrated by comparing what is possible with high-alt bomb drops against the dispersion one sees with guns at just 1,000 yards using the .target command. When bombs stay inside a tighter MOA cone than rifled projectiles, something may be just a tad off, wouldn't ya say?

Just as we don't suffer wing flex and buffeting as causes of increased dispersion in fighters, so the same is true for bombers and bomber gun mounts.

Gunfire in AH plainly DOES disperse, as can be demonstrated by the .target command. If you have evidence that the dispersion is insufficient, I would be interested in hearing about it. However, as game distortions go, the bombing accuracy is a far more obvious and glaring distortion than the putative excessive accuracy of guns you mention.