Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance

[Buzzbait]

S!

Ok I've checked the records, and the average height would be around 25,000, not 23,000.  But that's still not 30-35,000.

Plus Bomb Groups were comprised of 3 Squadrons which flew in "box" formations which spaced the squadrons at 1,000 foot levels.  The low Squadron was 3,000 feet below the top one.

Here are some sample heights:

44th Bomber Group, Dec. 20th '42, Rominy, France:  23,000.

91st BG, Jan. 27th '43, Bremen, Germany, 25,000.

44th BG, Feb. 15th '43, Dunkirk, France, 20,000.

93rd BG, Feb. 26th, Bremen, 26,000.

100th BG, Oct. 10th '43, Bremen, 24,000.

366th BG, Feb. 8th '44, Frankfurt, Germany, 24,000.

93th BG, 4th March '44, Berlin, 28,000.

96th BG, 18th June '44, Bremen, 25,000.

379th BG, 20th June '44, Munich, 25,000.

44th BG, 13th Aug. '44, Rouen, France, 18,000.

96th BG, 2nd Nov. '44, Meresberg, Germany, 24,000.

385th BG, 21st Nov. '44, Wetzer, Germany, 25,000.

The examples presented above fit into this pattern.

It seems that the very heavily defended targets like Berlin were bombed from higher altitudes.  However this came with a penalty.  

An anecdote on cold:

Al Greenburg, 96th BG on a mission flown at 30,000 feet on Nov. 9th '44:

"The cold at altitude was terrific...  The bomb bay doors wouldn't close electrically and the pilot was having a fit.  He couldn't keep his airspeed up.  Finally after 15 minutes, the engineer cranked them up...  The trouble was, that at 30,000 feet, half the devices which worked on the ground wouldn't function."

Accuracy:

The much vaunted Norden Bombsight was supposed to be able to drop a bomb "in a pickle barrel from 20,000".  In fact it was much less accurate.

Hal Turrel, Bombardier, 445th BG;

"After dropping a few bombs, I no longer subscribed to the much advertised 'pickel barrel' theory...  our practice bombing was done from 5,000 feet with 100 lb practice bombs which were filled with sand and had a smoke bomb which went off on impact so we could see where we hit.  I did not think I was very good...  I gave some thought to the fact that in combat we would probably bomb from 20,000 feet which would reduce our accuracy quite a bit."

The USAAF eventually trained its crews to aim to hit within a thousand foot circle.

Charles MaCauley, 385th BG on a mission over Berlin:

"At the Rally point we looked back and saw the target exploding in flames.  We had scored direct hits.  Nearly all our Squadron's bombs had landed in the thousand foot 'bulls-eye' circle."

Most of the time, a group's bombs did not have such accuracy.

Even when bombs hit the targets, they didn't always do as much damage as the USAAF believed.  

For example on Oct 14th 1943, approx. 260 B17's hit Schweinfurt's ball bearing factory.

The USAAF Bomber commander for the mission, General Frederick Anderson, described the results as:  "...entire works inactive... may be possible to recover 25% of production."

In fact the actual result was 3.5% of the machinery of the factory destroyed, and 6.5% damaged.

Overclaiming by the Bomber gunners was also very apparent on the mission.  Gunners claimed 199 German Fighters shot down.  Actual captured German records showed 38 Fighters destroyed.  

60 bombers were lost on this, the most costly of USAAF missions.

[Toad]

So your point is that bombers in AH are not totally realistic?

Really?

When did this first occur to you?

Did you also notice that when you have been flying radial engine fighters extensively there's still no pool of oil under your computer desk?

Bombers are tweaked for gameplay. Who here does NOT know that?

You want the gameplay tweaked a different direction? Fine, make your case.

Realism, however, has little if nothing to do with gameplay. It's an old, old discussion and a zillion electronic inks have died in battle while trying to win the war... but the war rages on, doesn't it?

[Buzzbait]

S!

The Gunnery model for the Bomber aircraft in the game is not very realistically modelled.

I am prepared to accept that, since large formations of bombers are unlikely and single aircraft would be too vulnerable.

However, the Flight models of the fighter aircraft in the game are very realistically modelled.  Climb, speed, turnrate etc. are as close to historical as possible.

My point is, Bomber flight models should be equally accurate.

None of this 'uber' bomber nonsense at 30,000 +   feet.

[Buzzbait]

S!

By the way, Radial engines don't leak significant amounts of oil.  You're thinking of the World War I era Rotary engines.

[funkedup]

Yeah Toad and his family know nothing about radial engines.  

[Apar1]

Realism, however, has little if nothing to do with gameplay. It's an old, old discussion and a zillion electronic inks have died in battle while trying to win the war... but the war rages on, doesn't it?

I think it should be an exceptable compromise between realism and gameplay Toad. By reading all the posts on the high alt b17 performance it doesn't look like it is exceptable anymore Toad. So realism does have something do to with whether we like to fly AH, as does gameplay. I think many people already made their case more than enough to have this thing changed.
On-line simmers do strive for realism, for that same reason people choose to fly AH rather than other sims, that indicates that realism DOES have allot to do with how we experience AH. If I want gameplay more than realism I go to FA and not to AH.
S!

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

[MANDOBLE]

Possible solutions keeping the actual gameplay level (each option excludes the others):
1 - Introduce Me163 (unperked).
2 - Introduce much earlier versions of B17 and perk B17G.
3 - Add much more hvy ack and make if much more effective against large targets and much less effective against fighters. Put at least a pair of 88 in the small fields.
4 - Hide the aiming reticle (crossair) above 20k.
5 - Reduce the max zoom limit for buffs to make impossible to aim above 25k even large targets.
6 - Eliminate external views for buffs above 25k.

[straffo]

So much confusion ...  
It was just a U-17 or SR-17 (*) RTBing after a recco mission  

(*)I've just noticed a patern here  : 17 reversed give 71 !
  That's it !
I see the light !
The B17 share the FM of the SR71 !!
Muahahahah  

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]

[Toad]

OK, lets us slaughter another zillion or two electronic inks! Man the keyboards!

Bombers are the way they are in AH because without the tweaks no one will fly them. Without the tweaks they are really, really easy to shoot down, instead of just easy.

For my part, HTC could just take them out of the game. I'm here for the fighter v fighter combat.

However, HTC must feel like they need them IN the game and I know there are other players that like flying buffs. So, I have no problem with them. It's just part of the game.

Therefore, HTC tweaked them to make more survivable. This tweaking makes them less realistic.

Whatever.

I think if HTC made a truly realistic bomber, it would totally solve the buff problem. Simply because very few would fly them in the MA (and most likely CT) environment. No buffs, no problem.

Basically, though, any changes to the bombers won't affect me much. I just don't worry about that stuff.

I didn't have to make appointments with an analyst to get in touch with my true feelings on the F4U-1C. The N1K2-J's don't populate my nightmares and make me wake up screaming. I just play....and I really enjoy it.


Buzz, let me ask you a few questions, starting with why did you chase that buff for :30 minutes anyway?

[Buzzbait]

S!

Why did I chase it for 45 minutes?

1)  It was going to bomb our field.

2)  After it had bombed the field, and I was unsuccessful in preventing it due to the climb rate of the B-17, I followed it as a test to see how it performed at these very high altitudes.

[Paxil]

I followed a bomber from co-alt 12K D 4K in a Ki-61 (granted... not a great climber) and couldn't catch a climbing B-17. Gave up at about 25K. You really have to be able to get quite a bit above them in order to get enough speed to attack anyway, I doubt I've ever killed a buff above 25K.

[Toad]

Buzz,

As near as I can tell from your narrative, you chased the buff while he was enroute to and also in the act of bombing your field about the first 15 minutes.

I'm guessing it was probably obvious to you that you weren't going to be able to stop him from bombing your field within the first 3-5 minutes of the chase.

Then you chased him about another 20-25 minutes just trying to see if you could get up there to keel him. The answer was "no".

I assume you've played enough to know that the bomber FM's are tweaked in favor of the bomber BEFORE you started this 30-40 minute wild goosechase.

So now, my next question is... did you have fun?

[hitech]

Misinformation:

1. Lethatlity of buffs is exactly the same as in fighters. I.E. Like guns such as the 50Cals are the same.

2. There have not been any performace based flight model modification on any plane for game play consesions.

HiTech

[Toad]

Well, then I stand corrected. I had assumed the FM's were tweaked for better performance at altitude.

[Urchin]

Hitech- I've showed that it took an average of 22.5 .50 cal bullets from just the twin .50s in the tail of a B17 to bring down a 190a8- if I can find someone to come back into the TA and up a P51B, that means it should only take an average of 22.5 rounds to bring down the 190a8 again, yes?