a problem with behaviour.....

[hazed-]

cool im glad you guys wouldnt mind the disableing of internal high angle drops for aircraft that werent designed or didnt perform that task in real life.

As for the dweeb type behaviour i understand it wont go away but at least we can make their tasks more  difficult to accomplish.

[ET]

I wouldn't mind it on planes designed for level bombing.

[RDSaustinTX]

Innominate hit this one on the head, way up there.
 
This thread is a whine. Lancs ain't no good for dive bomming cvs. Lord knows I've tried.
 
The real problem is that lancs aint good for much of nothing right now.
 
mullah

[bj229r]

I dont know if fighters DID have 1k eggs..(I assume they did, else they wouldnt have them here)...but one way of forcing 17's..lancs..etc to be more relevant is to limit fighters to 500 pounders...makes buffs look a lil more desireable

[Ecliptik]

CV's as a whole in AH are extremly gamey. A real CV is far more vulnerable than ours when attacked. A divebomber, or torpedo bomber scoring a hit on a CV will at least cripple it. In AH, it takes four torpedos, or 8000lbs of bombs. The only planes able to deal out this kind of damage in a reasonable amount of time are the bombers.

Yes, but a real CV is also better defended than in AH.  To be realistic, carriers should have proper damage models, but at the same time, the number of ships in the convoy should be increased, and the AI ack should be considerably more lethal, partly for realism, partly to compensate for the fact that real CV's had a relatively thick CAP cover at almost all times.  Perhaps the 5" guns should be AI manned unless a player hops in one.

[Don]

Whew! Lottsa comments here about the "realism" of dive bombing heavy bombers  The germans tried to innovate with what they had, and didnt do very well in some cases. However, if its realism as part of the question here, or the lack of it, there is a book about the Fifth Air Force during WW2 that I recommend.
It is entitled "Flying Bucaneers" by Steve Birdsall. Its an older book but can be found in libraries. It describes the 5th AF from its beginnings (MacArthurs' airforce) and the innovative techniques employed by General Kenney. They used twin engine medium buffs and 4 engine buffs in unusual ways, and developed the method of skip bombing, and strafing bombers. Each of these methods required low level attacks against shipping and airfields, with great success. They didn't use 4 engine heavies as dive bombers because the a/c simply weren't designed for that but, a low level hi speed approach was possible and worked with good effect.
Hehe, when I flew in AW we had "dancing,dog fighting buffs"; now that WAS frustrating. And there were many dweebs who liked it and made no excuses about it. The game allowed it, so therefore they saw it as totally acceptable.
You can't stop anyone from playing the game as they want to, annoying as it may be. Hehe, I notice few complaints from pilits who continually vulch the poor saps who  try to up from a totally capped field Nope, that aint gonna happen...ever
 There are also guys who will hide a CV for weeks on end, and justify it as tactically and strategically sound Imo, its stupid and childish but, I can't stop it, and the game allows it. So, accept those things you can't change, and change those things that you can. We might all enjoy ourselves a bit more.

[RDSaustinTX]

Yes, but a real CV is also better defended than in AH. To be realistic...

 
... the cv should never been within 100 miles of an enemy airfield.
 

 
mul

[hazed-]

god almighty you people wander off the point.


its pretty simple here really,

first we try to find some evidence about lancasters or b17s doing dive bombing......
Then look for some info about the way the bombs were released from the racks, see if they worked ok even if the bomber was in a 90 degree dive......

if we find accounts of this then ok , fair enough , we can leave AH as it is.The dweebs can divebomb all day long.
If theres no evidence of dive bombing (not shallow angle bombing,that was used and is ok) then why on earth allow it in AH??? You people cannot ask for something to be allowed that couldnt be done in RL surely?
if the racks for the bombs couldnt be used in this manner in real life then they shouldnt in AH right?

Its a pretty simple thing asked here. If you dislike the roadkill use of heavy bombers as divebombers then ask with me for HTC to limit the angle at which the bombs can be released.

(obviously pending any evidence to the contrary but i can find nothing,all evidence ive found suggest they would tear up on pull out or need the bombs outside on the wings at the least)

If this is a request that would require HTC to write mountains of code then again i'll agree its not important enough to warrent the time but if it turns out to be a simple matter then PLEASE htc stick it in.
This is a very similar subject to the carbombing on runways.It was no good for AH and put people off playing.Im not trying to dramatise this but it really puts a downer on AH when i see people taking out a CV thats taken 4 hours to get to an enemy held zone only to die in a few minutes because one guy decides he can afford to lose a life to get a CV.

[brady]

If this is done, then whats to stop bomber formations coming in low and doing the same thing? Way back when When I was in the Night Hawks squad mates would sink Cv with leval bombers at 5 or 6 k they would be killed by the ack but not untill they had realesed their bombs.

 No matter what the CV will be killed by anyone who is willing to die in the doing of it.
 AH is frought with unhistorical aspect's on a list as long as my arm, why pick this issue? Not that I disagree making making any change that promotes more historicaly usage is a good thing imo.

 But realy is it less offensive to see a couple JU 88's dive bombing the CV to death and dying doing it than it is one Lancaster?, I mean the CV is dead, does it realy care what killed it?

[hazed-]

brady i see your point but I for one would rather defend against ju88s than b17s or lancs.

ju88s are easier to kill and harder to defend and flying to the CV is a lot more difficult in a ju88.(or other tough planes like val or SBM)

Also as far as i can see in WW2 the lanc or b17 didnt dive bomb whereas the ju88 did.That to me is reason enough to limit their use for this role.

As for low level attacks have you noticed how much easier it is to defend against these? A low level attack forces the suicide bomber to run the gauntlet of fighters even if they have just taken off the CV.Also for any gunners its a lot easier to hit them.

result? less suicide bombers succeeding.

thats all im after.

Just noticed Hitech has posted in the general forum(??) on this very subject.I guess we may as well read that thread and forget this one even though its about the very same thing and in the correct forum

[brady]

Ya it is prety lame seing a B 17 or a lancaster doing head stands into the CV, and I do agree 100% that making the JU 88 and AR 234 more historical corect in terms of highlighting their abaility to dive bomb is a good idea.

The path of least resistance will as stated above will still be the favored choice for CV killing, they those namless hords:), will find a way around it though and still make the ultimate online sacrifice.

[DREDIOCK]

Seems to me a   simpler wayt o accomplish this would be  to make it so when in level type bombers like the 17, Lanc etc Have it so you can only arm and drop bombs from the bombadiers position and not from the pilots position.

 Drediock

Originally posted by hazed-
The answer? well it may not be the answer but how about if we use a method to stop the release of bombs from bombers which were certainly not designed for dive bombing?


well how about we limit the dive angle release? how about if you exceed a certain angle the bombs refuse to budge?

I realise im in no position to demand anything here but I have to say this: