Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MetaTron on December 30, 2003, 01:39:34 AM
-
Bright flash direct hit with HE could take out all three no matter which one it hits. Of course, the dweebs won't have any idea how to use it.
:D
-
The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than 10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.
Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Actually I quite like the idea of watching dive bombers being caught in a cluster of explosions as the bombs he just dropped clatter around into each other and him.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than 10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.
Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.
My regards,
Widewing
You just cannot beat this solution, in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The very best way to cure dive bombing by heavy bombers is to model the bomb bay and shackles correctly. Stacked bombs don't leave the bomb bay cleanly if the nose in angled over more than 10-15 degrees. I spoke with a B-26 bombardier and he stated that dive bombing was out of the question due to the hazard of bombs colliding with the aircraft and each other.
Lancaster may be different, as the bombs are stacked in the bomb bay horizontally rather than vertically on U.S. types.
I like the idea though, maybe we will see Ju-88's actually being used as dive bombers.
-
I like that idea---only exterior-mounted ordinance ought be able to be dropped in dive
-
I subscribe to widewing's, plus I would add some accuracy to field Ack, especially short range shots. Besides it's weird behaviour (you more likely be dead if you make a very fast pass than a slow one), there is, IMHO, a general feeling of safety when you reach for the field, either in a Buff or in the regular suicide porker Jabo.
If that Cloclo AAR about attacking a field is trustworthy of what Real Life ack was, AH is way too tender to enemies.
-
Make it impossible to release bombs unless the aircraft is level to within +/- 5 degrees... Problem solved.
but only on level bombers...otherwise the stuka wont be able to bomb...
of course having the text turn green whewn you calibrate the bombsite ONLY if it is going to hit with above 70% or so accuracy would help to...
-
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false. If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false. If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.
HiTech
So, when he does not put 1G they don't right?
-
I meant the fleet 5" guns switched to HE ammunition. I find the larger bombers an easier target and see bright flash hits on them most frequently, so I thought the HE could be "enhanced" for formations. :D
-
Originally posted by hitech
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false. If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.
Exactly. Theoretically, a bomber could be pulling enough G's at the top of a loop that it could release bombs while the plane is inverted and the plane's maneuvering would be enough to pull the plane away from the bombs before the bombs hang up in the bomb bay.
And this is what makes the problem so complex; it requires that you model the actual bomb storage of each bomber, so that your FE can determine whether, at the moment of release, the bombs are going to fall out of the bomb bay or hang up. I suppose it would be possible to produce a G angle limit for each bomb bay on an aircraft, where if the G vector at the moment of release exceeds a limit angle from vertical, then the bombs hang up and refuse to drop.
This gets more complicated in that the failure of a particular drop attempt may or may not prevent other[/u] bombs from dropping. For example, the B-17 bomb racks are more-or-less vertical; if the bottom bomb(s) hang up, the rest of the bomb load will hang up, too, and the release limit for the upper bombs will be tighter than for the lower. The Lancaster, on the other hand, has its bombs arranged in a single layer running along most of the belly of the plane; if one bomb failed to come off its shackles properly, it doesn't affect the remaining bombs, and it would have a much wider limit angle. The B-24 had two bomb bays; bombs hanging up in one bay would not prevent release from the other, but it has the same decreasing-tolerance problem that the B-17 has. The internal bombs on an He-111 are stored vertically in individual shafts; the bombs will exit their shafts as long as there is a net positive G force of any strength pulling them out, and the failure of any one bomb to release wouldn't affect the others.
So the question comes down to "Do we allow players to use level bombers in a manner in which they were historically neither trained for nor employed, and either take the effort to model the actual physics of the bomb bays of each bomber or make a sweeping requirement that they have a minimum 1G force normal to the flight axis pulling the bombs out, or make an artificial restriction to enforce historicity by decreeing that all level bombers can't drop bombs unless in level flight, or leave things as they are now?"
I don't see HTC making the effort to model bomb bays individually, with all the other things they have on their plates. A G-limit requirement would have some people screaming about the limits being wrong, and enforcing level bombing would have other people screaming that the planes were capable of dive bombing even if they weren't used that way. And leaving things as they are leaves other people screaming about bombers doing impossible drops. I'm sure HiTech is going to make the decision he thinks is the best compromise, no matter how many people scream about it.
-
I have a question. Given that the bombing acuracy those days was not very good (my home town was bombed accidently when the germans tried to bomb a Brit convoy or camp, not sure, 1 mile ouside the town) how come they did not try dive bombing in WWII? It seems to be more acurate.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I have a question. Given that the bombing acuracy those days was not very good (my home town was bombed accidently when the germans tried to bomb a Brit convoy or camp, not sure, 1 mile ouside the town) how come they did not try dive bombing in WWII? It seems to be more acurate.
With a realistically defended field, or strategic target, you would see many more guns and much more effective defensive fire. When an aircraft is in a dive attack it is open to the most effective fire, thus my suggestion to improve a CVs ability to defend itself. When a Lancaster dives on a cv it is lined up just like an HO attack, and HE in a 5" gun would end all that noise.
-
The best solution is WideWings. I've been in the bomb bay of a B-17 a few times. Theres ALOT of stuff in there for the bombs to hit if the plane is maneuvering.
-
While nothing WideWing posted is incorrect, I don't think he made a suggestion that would stop dive-bombing. Modeling the shackles correctly would only see the program grow in complexity without any substance being added (a waste of time), and the problem would continue. No doubt, the reason the B26 crewman discounted dive-bombing is that it would not work en masse, and it was en masse that our missions were conducted. A lone bomber could dive bomb without much danger of its own eggs striking it, but it would still be open to defensive emplacements.
I've been the gunner on a CV online and I can tell you that even an inexperienced gunner can hit the bomber formation when it makes the pitch down manuever. The trick is in doing it before it drops its ordinance.
-
Originally posted by MetaTron
While nothing WideWing posted is incorrect, I don't think he made a suggestion that would stop dive-bombing. Modeling the shackles correctly would only see the program grow in complexity without any substance being added (a waste of time), and the problem would continue. No doubt, the reason the B26 crewman discounted dive-bombing is that it would not work en masse, and it was en masse that our missions were conducted. A lone bomber could dive bomb without much danger of its own eggs striking it, but it would still be open to defensive emplacements.
I've been the gunner on a CV online and I can tell you that even an inexperienced gunner can hit the bomber formation when it makes the pitch down manuever. The trick is in doing it before it drops its ordinance.
Agreed, a CV group should be able to put up more lead.
-
Originally posted by hitech
The idea that a diving plane couldn't release bombs is a false. If from a dive the pilot puts 1 g on the airplane. The bombs will release exactly as if the bomber was level.
HiTech
In a simplified physics world you would think so, but it simply isn't the case. Because you have the nose pointed down, you have induced a vector component and it's the vector component that does this theory in. Then there is the issue of bomb stability with the bomb being pitched into a high-speed airflow at an angle off that for which it was designed to stabilize. One of the major problems with dumping ordnance in a dive from an internal bomb bay was the bombs tumbling and striking the aircraft and each other. The Navy had problems with this when dive bombing with the TBF/TBM. Procedures were developed to minimize the risk, but it was never completely safe.
Another issue was the 200% rule for bomb racks. in other words, the racks were rated for 200% their normal max weight loading. It was common place for bomb to rip off of external racks of fighters when subjected to G loads that exceeded the rating.
For example, the P-38's shackles could withstand loads of up to 4,000 lbs before the bomb would simply pull off. So, in theory a 500 lb bomb would stay attached at loads up to 8g. A 1,000 lb bomb could be expected to rip away at 4G. However, this ultimate loading is also mitigated by side loading (sway), yaw loads and all other vector components loading the shackles. None of these additional loads can be predicted by a pilot, so all bets are off.
Vectors are also induced when using pitch-up to toss bombs from the bomb bay. How the bomb will respond to that vector is unknown. But, you can be sure that it will be different than imagined.
It was not uncommon for heavy bombs to break away from shackles when the bomber was subjected to severe wind shear. Nothing quite like having a fuzed 1,000 pound GP bomb bouncing around the bomb bay. If you were lucky, it was the lowest in the stack and it could be jetisoned by opening the bomb bay doors, as long as it didn't tear up fuel and hydraulic lines or electrical conduits in the bomb bay. If it was at the top of the stack, odds where that it would knock more bombs off the shackles. Shackles sometimes failed under minimal load.. things wear out or are sometimes improperly adjusted.
Some years ago a problem developed during ordnance tests of B-1Bs dropping retarded Mk.82 and Mk.84 retarded bombs. The retard mechanism is called a "ballute" (combination parachute and balloon). If the retard ballute deployed too soon, it could cause the bomb to pitch up and strike the underside of the bomber. I designed the retard sensor for the safe and arm fuze. I had to redesign the sensor to accomodate a reduction in peak G because the ballute deployment was delayed to allow the bombs to clear the aircraft and this delay resulted in bomb velocity being degraded, reducing the peak G at ballute deployment. The bombs are retarded (slowed rapidly) to allow the bomber to clear the fragmentation zone (bombs are dropped from low level) before detonation. I also designed the sensor for the contact fuze.
Anyway, dynamics associated with dropping bombs are extremely complex and not remotely as simple as you have indicated.
Whether or not a dive angle limit for level bombers is practical from a programming point of view, I can't comment as I do not have any idea. I do know that the physics of releasing ordnance from aircraft is extremely complex from my own experience in designing fuzing system components for modern ordnance (FMU-139 and FMU-143 unitary fuzes).
My regards,
Widewing
-
<----votes widewing smartest person of the year.
Even with my expirence with physics this seems reasonable widewing, which is why i think he is right.
-
Well, Widewing, from reading many of your previous posts I concluded you know a LOT about what you're talking about, and this thread confirms it. My compliments, and thanks for the info you share. Always very civilly too. Admirable.
-
The guys are engaging in a practice that is very nearly suicide now. A few more lose eggs killing them a little more often isn't going to slow them down. Failing outright will.
-
Can the bombs in AH right now cause splash damage to things around them?
-
How about this novel approach:
Anticipate the direction and altitude of threats to your high-value target (cv) and fly a CAP sufficient radius out to intercept the threat. :eek:
-
"Divebombing Lanc" is only a part of the whole "suicidal mentality" that needs to be repressed/cured. Implementing a makeshift solution that would prohibit level buffs from making suicidal divebomb runs, I would love to see.
However, the same type of problem still remains with the same kind of people coming in with those typical, suicidal "1k bomb runs" right off the deck.. also, if divebombing heavy buffs go the way of the dodo, then we're just gonna see that much more suicidal jabo attacks from fighters.
All of the three major problems:
1) people using divebombing methods with heavy bombers
2) people using heavy bomber formations at extremely low-alt attacks
3) people using jabo attacks in a sucidal manner
come from the same problem group:
1) No penalty with death
2) Available ordnance is free, too large, and too effective
3) Near impossible jabo interception
4) A2G attacks concentrated solely against airfield objects
5) Immediate tactical advantage gained by destruction of few field objects
The combination of above five problems, creates the "ends justify the means" mentality, mixed with the "reward is higher than risk" mentality. No penalties to suffer from foolish, suicidal attack runs, and yet it is deadly effective if it succeeds. In a sector of tightly matched battling grounds, just encourage and send in some unwitting noob lackeys strapped with bombs and make them kill fuels.
Voila, within 5 minutes the tide of entire battle changes - the enemy cannot get up and grab alt.
If we should seek to stop this, it is clear that we need either a solution that touches all of the five main reasons of bozoism, or a series of solution that touch each and every one of those five.
-
there is one aspect of AH Ive never understood--puke comes in, kills a gas or 2..augers--ya see that repeated 5 times with 5 similar pukes..base is useless for like an hour. Now if those guys wanted to kill the HANgars, wouldve need heap more said pukes, and hangars would only be down 15 min.....Why strats stay down so long in comparison?
-
Not only the bombs, but also the crew would be affected by pronounced dives.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
How about this novel approach:
Anticipate the direction and altitude of threats to your high-value target (cv) and fly a CAP sufficient radius out to intercept the threat. :eek:
You are right, from now I will be flying in circles at 20K over the fleet just in case some diving LANCs show up and hope that I can dive with them. I bet you if I did that, some idiot would show up at 30K. How about a sudgestion for you? Why don't you learn how to level bomb. You know, the way it is suposed to be done? Is that too hard for you?
Diving heavy bombers are bull. No matter what HT says, it cannot be done. It has not been done in the past and it is not done now.
Somebody should tell the airforce about this bombing technique cause they have not figured it out yet.
As for the fuel, an easy solution would be: no less than 50%. If you want to stop me from taking off, cap the field or destroy the hangars.
-
Widewing, you make a lot of statments but they do not contradict my point. Dive angle alone when pulling one 1g (i.e. 1g lift not combined) does not change the way it drops from the plane. The bomb will leave the plane in the exact same maner as if you were flying level. Realitve to the earth it will have a different trajectory, but realitve to the plane (the resone stated it wouldn't drop) it will be the same. You bring in lots of other paramaters like speed,More than 1 g,side load. All these are completly different subjects.
There are a lot of weapon release paramaters that could be implemeted. But most are very plane specific. And implementing 1 (i.e. Dive) which is false is no better than leaving it the way it is.
This hole argument comes from a disire to change the way people fly, i.e. because is wasn't done (not couldn't be done) in real life people don't want it done here.
The problem is not weather dive bombing buffs should be changed (this is purly game play related and should be argued as such), but with most of the bogus "selective reality" arguments as to why they don't wish dive bombing buffs to happen.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Widewing, you make a lot of statments but they do not contradict my point. Dive angle alone when pulling one 1g (i.e. 1g lift not combined) does not change the way it drops from the plane. The bomb will leave the plane in the exact same maner as if you were flying level. Realitve to the earth it will have a different trajectory, but realitve to the plane (the resone stated it wouldn't drop) it will be the same. You bring in lots of other paramaters like speed,More than 1 g,side load. All these are completly different subjects.
Maybe I just don't understand how this is possible, so please help me here. How can a plane in a dive pull 1 or more Gs unless the pilot pulls back on the stick as the bombs are being released. If he does not do that, depending the angle of the dive (dive to me means pretty stip) he will end up with bombs floating in the bomb bays. I understand that if the 1 or more Gs are there the bombs will be released. I don;t understand how a diving plane can pull 1 or more Gs.
-
He pulls back on the stick and release from an arc.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
He pulls back on the stick and release from an arc.
HiTech
I think we are in agreement here. That is the only way to safely do it and thats perfectly fine. I am not complaining about someone that points the nose down a little to gain some speed and aim better.
The problem is that they don't do that. Most of the times the LANCs hit the carier at the same time (or a few seconds latter) the bombs do. I guess you can say that a suacide attack is valid (and it is) but they get to penalize 50 people when they sink the carier with no penalty to them for dieing ( they actualy get rewarded with perks for that)
-
only trick is as soon as the lanc stops working for em...they'll switch over to the stuka...and lo while widewings solution could work...it wont...the only way to stop it is by making something bad happen when you die...may i suggest a if a person dies they have to wait X amount of minutes before there allowed to reup (there are problems with this but Americas Army has a similar thing and they still have near a million active players...)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
only trick is as soon as the lanc stops working for em...they'll switch over to the stuka...and lo while widewings solution could work...it wont...the only way to stop it is by making something bad happen when you die...may i suggest a if a person dies they have to wait X amount of minutes before there allowed to reup (there are problems with this but Americas Army has a similar thing and they still have near a million active players...)
Yes, but they can bring only one stucka with them and I can out run it with a panzer. Bring the stuckas in. They are dive bombers anyway. I think with the stucka having no defence and being so slow, it would be panishment enough for dieing.
-
what would stop them from bringing more...anyway there not much slower than a lancaster...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
what would stop them from bringing more...anyway there not much slower than a lancaster...
They don't fly in formations and they don't have tail guns ( that can actually hurt you). The last time I flew one, it was climing at 1000 feet per minute at 150. It would take them an hour to get to the cv with some alt. The CV ack would be enough to stop them.
-
they only need one...they are armed with a 1800kg bomb (thats similar to the lancaster 4000lb bomb)
The last time I flew one, it was climing at 1000 feet per minute at 150. It would take them an hour to get to the cv with some alt. The CV ack would be enough to stop them.
150mph = 10 minutes to go 25 miles...that means by the time it reaches a CV 1 sector away it will be at 10k alt if it were to take off at sea level...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
they only need one...they are armed with a 1800kg bomb (thats similar to the lancaster 4000lb bomb)
150mph = 10 minutes to go 25 miles...that means by the time it reaches a CV 1 sector away it will be at 10k alt if it were to take off at sea level...
Well, thats fine. They are a dive bomber and if no one gets them flying at 150, at low alt, and heavy for 10 minutes, and then they make it through the ack, they earned the kill. I don;t think it is the same as a diving formation of LANCs or even worse B17s. Two guys can brink two stuckas. 2 guys can bring 6 b17 that have very good defences and one of the six will make it through the ack/fighters.
-
Last I checked your drones will not follow you in a dive?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Well, thats fine. They are a dive bomber and if no one gets them flying at 150, at low alt, and heavy for 10 minutes, and then they make it through the ack, they earned the kill. I don;t think it is the same as a diving formation of LANCs or even worse B17s. Two guys can brink two stuckas. 2 guys can bring 6 b17 that have very good defences and one of the six will make it through the ack/fighters.
doesnt matter if they make it through the ack...all they have to do is release before it kills em...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
doesnt matter if they make it through the ack...all they have to do is release before it kills em...
As mach as don't like losing the CV and the furball with it, thats how it was in real life. If you released the bombs it did not mater if you died after.
Think about it. The stucka would have to fly heavy, slow, and for a big part of its fligth, low. Then it would have to make it over the furball, then through the ack (its not a 17, a single ack ping will take it down), stay alive long enough to aim and then release the bomb. I think if it got to that point, the guy earned the kill.
I bet you you will never see a stucka killing a CV (OK maby rearly)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Last I checked your drones will not follow you in a dive?
HiTech
I can get the Drones to follow me .. (guilty of HQ porking w/ lanc's successfully :D ) and I do it all the time porking zone supplys w/ JU 88 drones . just slow way down start to dive, the drones fly by '.' drop payload and level off shove the throttle to the dash and zoom away .'.
the thing i notice thats in error is the zero G drop and when the bombs come up thru the plane and back down .
-
Limiting the heavies to level bombing sounds fine, but...
1) If we ever get the He 177; it was a dive bomber (dumb, but true).
2) Lancs "dive bombed" (bombardier's words) the third of the dams in the "dambusters" raid (Sorbel?)
3) Do a google on "toss" or "loft" bombing.
(http://www.b-47.com/gallery/pic12/012.jpg)
(That's a B-47 starting it's bomb run, that is...)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Last I checked your drones will not follow you in a dive?
HiTech
They follow alright.
-
For some interesting info on WWII aerial bombs, their fuzing and safe release altitude see this webpage (http://www.icaghq.com/icaghq/weaponsschool/Bombing-savety.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Lancs are a LOT faster then Stuka...Lanc does 230-240 level, Stuka takes about 3 days to get ONE plane up to 12-15k, which is where ya might wanna start dive from..im thinkin goons are even faster than Stukas
(Hitech, ok, allow eggs to be released in dive at 1 G....if plane is at 2 G's or more, egg blows up in bomb bay?...not totally an unlikely possibility----one could ensure the 1 G with a SHIFT X dive, but it would be hard to do last moment compensations for cv turning, etc)
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Limiting the heavies to level bombing sounds fine, but...
1) If we ever get the He 177; it was a dive bomber (dumb, but true).
2) Lancs "dive bombed" (bombardier's words) the third of the dams in the "dambusters" raid (Sorbel?)
3) Do a google on "toss" or "loft" bombing.
(http://www.b-47.com/gallery/pic12/012.jpg)
(That's a B-47 starting it's bomb run, that is...)
With regards to Grief, I'm talking by heart, so bear with me ;), they never were able to dive bomb properly, althought the RLM requirements asked for that.
With regards to dambusters raid, it seems strange, because the bombs were designed to rebound on the dam surface, and needed to be dropped at a certain speed, certain alt (definitely not diving).
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by Pepe
With regards to dambusters raid, it seems strange, because the bombs were designed to rebound on the dam surface, and needed to be dropped at a certain speed, certain alt (definitely not diving).
Cheers,
That's true of the first two concrete and brick built dams; which were the classic bouncing bomb attacks.
The third dam was an earthwork dam; which wasn't suitable for the same attack profile.
The Lancs flew along the line of the dam; having to dive into the valley from the sides; and dropped (as far as I know) conventional iron bombs directly onto the dam's parapet.
The phrase "dive bombing" in this context may be stretching the mark (I'm sure they didn't pull up to stall; drop flaps; roll over and dive onto the target like I do in the MA in a P38); but non the less that's how it's been described by some of the aircrew. It is certain that the run in to target was a very steep descent, with a very hard pull up after drop: Dive bombing similar to the Grief, as it were.
Could the Grief really not dive bomb? I know the specs called for it to be able to do so...
-
by dedalos
You are right, from now I will be flying in circles at 20K over the fleet just in case some diving LANCs show up and hope that I can dive with them. I bet you if I did that, some idiot would show up at 30K. How about a sudgestion for you? Why don't you learn how to level bomb. You know, the way it is suposed to be done? Is that too hard for you?
I have never dive-bombed a cv in a level bomber. I'm one of the best in the game at taking out a cv from 11k - 14k in B-26's, B-17's or Lancs. I rarely get shot down sinking a cv and have a cv kill percentage of 90% because no one anticipates and challenges me at the lofty height of 12k.
It's still a matter of anticipating the threat and that is a huge part of the game. You anticipate your target's position when B&Z-ing in a fighter and bombers dive-bombing (from 6k-10k - no one dive bombs from 20k...) are big targets.
Three fully loaded P-47's can sink a cv and how do they do it? They dive bomb. Should we alter P-47's so they can't dive bomb?
Dive bombing is how ships were sunk (among other ways). SBD's and TBM's dive bombed ships. JU-88's dive bombed during sorties all the time.
I think out-thinking the opposition is fun. I like that part of AH.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
by dedalos
I have never dive-bombed a cv in a level bomber. I'm one of the best in the game at taking out a cv from 11k - 14k in B-26's, B-17's or Lancs. I rarely get shot down sinking a cv and have a cv kill percentage of 90% because no one anticipates and challenges me at the lofty height of 12k.
It's still a matter of anticipating the threat and that is a huge part of the game. You anticipate your target's position when B&Z-ing in a fighter and bombers dive-bombing (from 6k-10k - no one dive bombs from 20k...) are big targets.
Three fully loaded P-47's can sink a cv and how do they do it? They dive bomb. Should we alter P-47's so they can't dive bomb?
Dive bombing is how ships were sunk (among other ways). SBD's and TBM's dive bombed ships. JU-88's dive bombed during sorties all the time.
I think out-thinking the opposition is fun. I like that part of AH.
If read my other posts you would see that I have no problems with dive bombers doing what they are supposed to do. Dive bomb.
You are also right about CVs getting killed by dive bobmers. Thats how is should also be here. I also don;t have a problem with level bombin the CV.
I just hate the fact that everytime there is a good fight going on involvin a CV some one decides that it needs to be sunck and instead of doing what you do, (use p47s, 88s, torps, etc) at high alt, the bring in lanc after lanc after b17 and suaside trying to kill it.
Its pointless.
Sorry if I implied that you did do that :p
-
Some really good posts here, lots of information to mull over.
But after the dust settles, since this is essentially a gameplay issue and most players SEEM (fingers crossed) to want relatively realistic play as opposed to arcade or what might have been possible --
why not just limit bomb release in heavy and most medium bombers to level only, within something like plus or minus 5 degrees as others have suggested?
Exceptions would be multi-engine aircraft designed to include dive bombing, e.g., Ju-88.
Even though there were issues with some planes, I assume most people would not object to allowing dive bombing from all single engine aircraft.
This fix seems relatively easy to do. Isn't it time to do it now, at least with debut of Aces High II?