ammo bunker blast radius

[popeye]

Maybe equivalent to 5000lbs. of bombs.  Seems like there should be some risk to strafing an ammo bunker.

[Ciaphas]

Typically you wouldn’t be 10ft off the ground haha.

But in all honesty, you would have to separate the ammo bunkers by ordnance weight to determine a blast radius. If not you would assume that 2,000 lb’rs were stored in all bunkers and that would require 1000ft cordon (HD Class 1.1). Collateral damage would destroy buildings with in 50-100 ft and soften buildings up to about 600 ft.

I have to get back in to AFMAN 91-201,202 and 203 for more specific numbers but you get the gist of it.

It would make defending bases more beneficial but at the same time you would be able to cripple a field much faster with less effort providing AAA wasn’t adjusted to account for the “new threat”. In the event of an airfield with a map room, well, they would become speed bumps at best.


Just my two cents... .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Fugitive]

I think he is looking to get the "strafers" killed if they are to low/close the the ammo bunkers when they blow. As it is, it is far too easy to kill ammo at a base these days. One guy in a D9 can run around and kill ammo at 3 bases by himself. Stopping them is very hard to to as they run very well and not many planes have the speed. It is a bit of an imbalance in the game.

Just another thing people have trained themselves to do to cut corners in the game.

[Ciaphas]

Don’t let them pork the field, stop them before they get there. If you can’t do that then the ord bunkers deserve to go down.


Why should the attacker be punished because the defending side can’t retain air superiority over their own field?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chalenge]

There is almost no way to stop a suicidal attacker. If you ever tried to stop one then you would know that.

[The Fugitive]

There is almost no way to stop a suicidal attacker. If you ever tried to stop one then you would know that.

exactly, just another way to "game the game". While most of us play a "war simulation" to a point... whether we furball or grab bases, or GV, far too many players are looking to cut the corners and avoid fighting to get to an "end game". The game use to be about fighting FOR that end game, now its just about getting there to win the war.

[mikeWe9a]

exactly, just another way to "game the game". While most of us play a "war simulation" to a point... whether we furball or grab bases, or GV, far too many players are looking to cut the corners and avoid fighting to get to an "end game". The game use to be about fighting FOR that end game, now its just about getting there to win the war.

To be fair, war is also about getting to the endgame, rather than about the fight itself.  The difference being of course, that individuals in a real conflict have a vested interest in making it TO the endgame, while in most simulations/games there is no significant penalty for dying.

Mike

[popeye]

there is no significant penalty for dying.

I once suggested that the downtime for an object destroyed by a "suicide" attack be limited to 5 minutes.  However, the idea got no support.

[The Fugitive]

To be fair, war is also about getting to the endgame, rather than about the fight itself.  The difference being of course, that individuals in a real conflict have a vested interest in making it TO the endgame, while in most simulations/games there is no significant penalty for dying.

Mike

To be truthful, we are NOT at war, we ARE playing a game.

Whats the point of adding all the content the creators did if the purpose of the game is to avoid using it all? No, I think it was all meant to be used, as designed, to further enhance the "end game".

That is what I think we have lost as a community, and why I think the numbers continue to drop.

[Ciaphas]

To be fair, war is also about getting to the endgame, rather than about the fight itself.  The difference being of course, that individuals in a real conflict have a vested interest in making it TO the endgame, while in most simulations/games there is no significant penalty for dying.

Mike

I think the Japanese proved us wrong during WWII.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ramesis]

While on the subject bunkers and the map rooms... can one still strafe
the map room to kill any nme that got in?

[popeye]

While on the subject bunkers and the map rooms... can one still strafe
the map room to kill any nme that got in?

Yes.  But, you can't get into the map room in towns; you can only get in the map rooms on airfields.

[Mongoose]

While on the subject bunkers and the map rooms... can one still strafe
the map room to kill any nme that got in?

  You can't go into the map room in the town.  What happens now is that pilots hide in the trees next to the map room.  If you strafe the map room, you don't kill the pilots hiding in the trees.  A couple of well spaced bombs is a better choice.

[Mongoose]

Maybe equivalent to 5000lbs. of bombs.  Seems like there should be some risk to strafing an ammo bunker.

 I would like to see this just because I would like to see the great big explosion.

 Of course, it would probably kill everyone's frame rate, but it would be pretty.

[pembquist]

Giant explosion wiping out 1/4 of the ack, breaking all the windows in the control tower and causing tracks to fly off gvs within 300 yards!

I was just reading that the cookie had a minimum drop altitude of something like 6000' agl, maybe that needs a revisit too!