AH Buffing: What does the future hold?

[Wanker]

Right now, I find buffing in AH to be very easy and over-simplified. There seems to be no real reason to have dedicated Bomber squads in AH right now, because anyone with half a brain(like me!) can do it.

I was wondering if Pyro could tease us a bit and give us an idea of what to expect for the future of the dedicated buffer. Are we going to see a new, more complicated system for buffing accurately?

[Replicant]

I think it will prove more interesting with 1.03 what with the 88mm Flak to deal with and also remember that if a Pnzr lays down some smoke shells then you might not even be able to see your target!  Also I understand that clouds are going to feature more at varying altitudes.  Initially it's a big step so it's going to be some fun!

'Nexx'

[bloom25]

I think having more clouds around will make it harder to bomb accurately.  This is totally realistic in the fact that during WWII US heavy bombers often had to deal with heavy cloud cover obscuring the target.  (Not to mention the Flak while on the bombing run.)

I think the addition of Flak and more clouds in 1.03 will force bombers to drop to lower altitudes to maintain accuracy.  I'm eagerly looking forward to 1.03 to see if I'm right.  



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[popeye]

Yes, clouds will make a difference.  I've had to bomb through the clouds two or three times, and those have been among the most immersive, white-knuckled buff missions I've flown.  

popeye

[Greg 'wmutt' Cook]

Yes, clouds are good    I do think that the zoom feature closes in a bit too close from higher altitudes.  I have a dream of seeing effective bomb blast radi, and then having a formation of 10 b-17's carpet bombing an airfield.  I mean, we can set bomb delay, but no one uses it because we can score direct hits with single bombs.  I think it would be fun to plan a bomb run where you have to measure your target and set the delay to achieve max coverage on the target.
Of course we will need to have bomb craters have an effect on ground travel too.

------------------
Greg 'wmutt' Cook
332nd Flying Mongrels

[funked]

I wouldn't mind seeing a better model of the Norden bombsight.  I know that ]-[onker of Warbirds' 925 CABS has a lot of information on the use of this weapon and how interacted with the controls of the plane.

I also think the in flight AWACS radar display is quite silly and makes bombing a bit more difficult than it oughta be.  The icon ranges, giving IFF at 5 miles, don't help either.

Other than that, things seem to be going the right direction.  The new ack system and the new mission system sounds great.  Lancaster and Ju 88 are great choices to join the current bombers.  Can't wait to bring some cookies to the HQ.  If we can get a bomber for the USSR and Japan we will be in business.    


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-15-2000).]

[Fury]

 

Originally posted by Replicant:
....and also remember that if a Pnzr lays down some smoke shells then you might not even be able to see your target!...
'Nexx'

Wow, I never even though of using smoke shells this way.  It will be interesting to see how well this works!  Lay down smoke on your own base to screw the buffers, sounds like an excellent idea.

Fury

<<edit:  wait a minute, I *am* a buffer, this ideas sucks royally   >>

[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 06-15-2000).]

[Dinger]

nahh... acks aren't the solution, nor are dweebs in panzers laying smokescreens.  We do need a more challenging bombsight than the current "nerden", and better arena settings.
Of course, whole sections of the map socked in with early morning fog would be cool.

[Replicant]

 

Originally posted by popeye:
Yes, clouds will make a difference.  I've had to bomb through the clouds two or three times, and those have been among the most immersive, white-knuckled buff missions I've flown.    

popeye

Definitely, some of my favourite bombing sorties have been whilst bombing through the gaps in the clouds (though not that often 'cos they are pretty sporadic!)  Just reminds me of the film 'Memphis Belle'!  

'Nexx'

[snafu]

And didn't someone mention Wind in 1.03, now that's gotta make it more intesting  

TTFN
snafu

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Yes I believe that wind may make bombing more difficult.
Want to get more real and see several buffs on one run, get the salvo setting to higher numbers. Stop the laser guided 1 drop bomb.  

[Gadfly]

The Norden didn't control the airplane, there was another device(the Auto pilot) that did that.  Not all planes were equipped with an Auto-pilot and a Norden(or Sperry, for that matter) Bombsight.  Some had one, some had none.

We don't want to get too accurate on the bombsight for several reasons, prime being the complexity of the instrument.  Here is a brief description of "greening up" the Norden:

Level Gyros(which is a whole 'nother process)

Enter via dials:
Bombing alt.
Bomb ballistics.
Air speed.
Air Temp.
Barometric pressure.

These settings partially synchronized the (bombsight's) telescope's Mirror with the aircraft's movement over ground.

Next the bombadier killed drift caused by the wind, using turn and drift knobs to fly the aircraft(through the auto-pilot).

Then he killed rate by adjusting the rate knob(of course), this completed the synchronization between the mirror and the ground, leaving the target apparently motionless in the viewfinder.

Finally, the bombadier used the displacement knob to center the target in the cross hairs.

From here, the Sight and the Auto-pilot would fly the plane to the drop point and release the bombs.  Any (flight)deviation from true broke the synchronization and the ability of the sight/autopilot to guide the plane to the drop point.


The second reason we do not want too accurate a representation of the Norden sight is it's appaling lack of accuracy.  They didn't fly large groups of bombers for protection from fighters;  They flew them because it was the only chance they had of damaging the target.

All info paraphrased from "America's Pursuit of Precision Bombing, 1910-1945", 1995, Stephen McFarland.

Lizking

[Wanker]

Ya, I agree Liz, but maybe there's a good compromise.

[funked]

I think it's fine to have realistic accuracy on the level bombers.  Level bombers plinking AAA emplacements from 25,000 feet is ridiculous.  Even a modern bomber can not do this with iron bombs.  The only way to get bombs on point targets in WW2 was with dive bombers or low level bombing.  

Create area targets for level bombers (that's what they were good at) but leave the point targets to fighter-bombers and attack aircraft.

Of course for the dive bombers and attack aircraft to be useful, we need to have WW2 AAA instead of WW3 AAA.  And it sounds like that's what we're getting in 1.03.    

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-16-2000).]

[funked]

Another thing to keep in mind:  Even if the bombs and bombsights are modeled perfectly, we will get better accuracy than a real plane because of the lack of wind or turbulence.  I.e. the bomb will fall exactly the same way every time.