The problem is one of combat avoidance and the lack of consequence for it. It's all well and good if someone wants to fly at 35k, but bombing accuracy should not be anywhere near as good as it is in the game. Flight models are made to be accurate as possible, as are the physics for bullets and shells. Why aren't bombs? A bomber pilot can hit a target from 35k as easily as from 5k. Does nobody see the problem in that? Players that have hours to burn going AFK on climb out are rewarded over ones that fly at altitudes where they might actually run into other players. Bombers should be more accurate from lower altitudes, just like La-7s perform better at lower altitudes.If a bomber pilot climbs into low earth orbit, he should not also enjoy the same accuracy as he does at 10k. There is no trade off for altitude and there should be.
The problem is one of combat avoidance and the lack of consequence for it.
It's all well and good if someone wants to fly at 35k, but bombing accuracy should not be anywhere near as good as it is in the game.
We remember that formations were introduced at the same time as the calibrated bomb sight. The notion was that, if you were going to have the extra bombs carried by the two additional planes, you would have to compensate by using a less-accurate bomb sight. I thought this was a great idea - much more accurate historically. But the "you fighter dweebs hate us bomber afficionados" became so loud that the laser bomb sights were re-enabled - yet the formations didn't disappear.
With a bad calibration there could be a 12-ship formation, and it would still achieve nothing.
They all ready do scatter.HiTech
"An example of the difficulties of precision bombing was a raid in the summer of 1944 by 47 B-29's on Japan's Yawata Steel Works from bases in China. Only one plane actually hit the target area, and only with one of its bombs. This single 500 lb (230 kg) general purpose bomb represented one quarter of one percent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission."
