Amazing bombing ability of HomerS

[RODBUSTR]

   I  miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet..  And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense.  In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway .   The bomber performance  and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do.  I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock  them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load.  I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level.  Perhaps AH can  include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research  bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions.  A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay.  Anyway Have a blast.

[perdue3]

The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense.  In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan

That is very interesting. I would like to read more into this, do you have a source by chance? 

[Ack-Ack]

   I  miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet..  And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense.  In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway.

Like pretty much everything you've posted on the forums, your above claim is not correct.  In the mid-30's the USAAC was looking for a replacement for the Martin B-10 and proposed a multi-engine bomber with the requirement for it to carry a "useful bombload" at an altitude of 10,000 ft (3,048 m) for ten hours with a top speed of at least 200 mph.  The USAAC then would base its decision on a fly off between Boeing (B-17), Douglas (DB-1), Martin (Martin Model 146), with the winner getting the contract.  The idea behind the proposal behind replacing the Martin B-10 was to develop a more advanced strategic bomber.

[Ack-Ack]

That is very interesting. I would like to read more into this, do you have a source by chance? 

He's probably confused and thinking the B-17 was designed for coastal defense because until an agreement with the US Navy in 1943, the US Army Air Force was responsible for anti-maritime operations and coastal maritime operations.  It wasn't just the B-17 used in this role by the USAAF, the B-24, B-25, B-26, A-20, essentially all USAAF bombers were used in anti-maritime operations, which is why until 1943, for example, B-26 pilots were trained on dropping torpedoes.  The reason for the USAAF having the primary role the USN should have had was the lack of heavy bombers for the USN.  In 1943, the USN and the USAAF came to an agreement that the USAAF would surrender the anti-maritime role to the USN in return for the use of production facilities in the US to produce the B-29 and the USN got heavy bombers from the USAAF to take over the anti-maritime role.

[1stpar3]

Probably not too many avid GV'ers that didn't receive an egg or 2 from NKL5. Got to where if there was an AR234 around you scooted from cover to cover.  1STPAR nowadays is getting pretty consistent with his Spit and egg delivery.

AWE,shucks   Havent seen you in a while...where you been? Not that I want to egg you, just really havent seen ya

[The Fugitive]

   I  miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet..  And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense.  In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway .   The bomber performance  and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do.  I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock  them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load.  I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level.  Perhaps AH can  include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research  bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions.  A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay.  Anyway Have a blast.

Again your comparing a GAME to real life. We have the opertunaty to bomb CVs over and over and get very good at hitting them. Most pilots in real life could go through their whole career and NEVER see a CV let alone sink one.

[Mano]

NKL5 = HomerS.   

==<—O—O—>==

 

[MajWoody]

==<—O—O—>==

[Vinkman]

   I  miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet..  And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense.  In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway .   The bomber performance  and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do.  I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock  them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load.  I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level.  Perhaps AH can  include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research  bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions.  A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay.  Anyway Have a blast.

As always in AH people are MUCH better at gunnery, ACM, and Bombing than the troops were in real life. This is not due to poor modelling or gaminess but due to PRACTICE.  AH players have thousands of hours for practice including pushing the envelope of maneuvers that no one during the war could match.

So the AH results by seasons veterans are...in a word...amazing.  And it makes perfect sense. 

[wil3ur]

Night is too dark, WEP should be unlimited, and bombers shouldn't be able to drop bombs 

[John Galt]

Coming from the OP that his only contribution to the game is circling at 30k waiting for picks and avoiding any fight. 

[Vraciu]

Coming from the OP that his only contribution to the game is circling at 30k waiting for picks and avoiding any fight.

He tried that with me today in his SBD.   He rammed me and lost a wing.   

[100Coogn]

Why is this post still in General Discussions?
People report bugs in the Bug Forum, but they get moved to Technical Support or Help & Training (can't actually be a problem with the game, huh?)
This should be moved elsewhere, according to the way things are run around here...

Coogan

[RODBUSTR]

   Mongoose ,Homer need not teach Me, I know how to do it. I can bomb ships from 10k without using a bombsight and hit them with great frequency.  I just refuse to do it. To Me that is fantasy play not a simulation.   I play for the sim. not the game or map wins. So I am happier with  planes that  are closer to a real plane's performance and handling characteristics and that is what I stick with for the most part.  I guess I'm a purist of sorts.  Many who Are ignorant of WW2 airplane history and performance wouldn't care. I also understand why Ah would not want to model bombers in the same  performance realm as the actual  ones.    Many bomber players would object do to that  because it would affect the quality of their game play in as not being as successful and unmolested as they are now.  My thinking is contrary to that .  I think It would improve game play by enhancing the chance of opfor engagements. IE. air combat at realistic altitudes and more realistic bombing results would mean more sorties to  destroy targets.  Have a blast. 

[RODBUSTR]

   And Brooke The germans lost WW2..... The commies won.   We got second place.