Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Stang on August 27, 2004, 12:59:01 PM
-
It MUST be stopped. I watched b26's and lancs repeatedly divebomb a cv last night while trying to defend it. When the tards got shot down they just came right back and did it repeatedly until they finally sank the CV. A typical run for them was climb to 3k, head straight for the flattop, dive in, drop eggs at 800 feet and BOOM! Total lameness, IMO the biggest problem with gameplay in the MA. CV steams for hours somewhere and the tards come out of the woodwork in 2 secs and do this. HTC please fix the buff model so level bombers must drop their bombs while level. There is a bombsite for a reason... actually pretty easy to use, takes about 2oz of brains to figgure out. LEARN IT DWEEBS! :mad:
-
Now you've done it Stang.
The "well why don't you do a better job of protecting it" doodz are gonna be all over ya like white on rice.
-
Not just at CV's ... I saw flight after flight of Lancs coming in at like 3K to some vehicle base on furball island. And it still took a couple tries for them to get the VH's.
Maybe just make the minimum fuse altitude 5000ft AGL for level bombers. Maybe THEN people would use torpedo bombers against ships.
-
maybe...
....you should only be allowed X amount of ordinance within X minutes from the same base.
-
People are going to do everything the easiest way possible. The entire idea is to resist having to learn how to do anything.
I don't see this getting changed any time soon.. the 5 inch guns can do a reasonable job of protecting a CV from suicide buffs.
-
Rgr that Stang - See the two carrier thread in General Discussion.
I agree.:aok
-
The "well why don't you do a better job of protecting it" doodz are gonna be all over ya like white on rice.
Wrong.
This is quite different matter than just about the CV. It's a separate issue which must be addressed. I advocate proper protection of CV, and generally dismiss the claims that the CV is too weak. However, that doesn't mean that I do not notice certain circumstances which has become truly problematic due to repeated abuse from the players.
I'd understand these deck-run buffs if it was just an occasional newbie who was desperate to shut down a CV or something. Or, if it was indeed a long, lonely NOE trip to hit a HQ or something.
However, recent events have come to show that people are routinely attempting such deck-runs on a regular basis - it's not used as just a certain type of attack, but rather, it's replaced proper bombing runs in its entirety.
Proper bombing runs take skill and practice. Just as much as people have to learn ACM and BFM to survive in a fighter plane, a would-be bomber pilot needs experience and technique - at least, that's how it should be.
However, the sad truth is the suicdal mentality coupled with unrealistic bomb-release mechanisms, have created hordes of people abusing bomber formations as oversized jabo machine.
In order to properly destroy FHs, the bomber pilot must take the time to grab alt, plan a careful course, face enemy interceptors if he has to, and try to land bombs right at the target.
It is not an easy take, and it should not be. But in the MA, people nowadays make "missions" featuring 4~5 B-17/Lancaster formations running at NOE. Since its running at NOE it is usually undetected until too late. And the dorks arrive at the field, briefly pull up, and just spray the bombs everywhere and knock all FHs down. Sure, they'd be shot down. But who cares, the job's done, right?
This kind of fault rewards dorks with higher success rates, rather than the people who really took time to learn buffs. Stupidity is promoted over and over again.
-
My take on the fix:
1) internal bombload for level buffs will not be released if the plane's climb/decent rate is more than +/- 250ft per minute.
2) live bombs may be released only from the bombardier's position
3) bombs will be automatically "armed" only when the sight is calibrated
4) moving away from the bombardier's position, will "disarm" the bombs. Bombs released from other positions/views angles, will result in unarmed bombs - this way, if for any reason a buff has to dump ordnance, he will be able to do so. The bomb will not detonate.
...
This way, people can still do deck-runs if they want to. However, they will have to spend as much time in the bombardier's postion, as other buff pilots must. They will be required to calibrate the sight, and then will have to drop at the bombardier's position, looking at the bombsight.
-
Urchin you'll love this one... after I castigated the two guilty guys for doing it on ch 200, one of them ( who I had shot down doing the same thing at a different base 30min prior) replied, "Well how the hell else am I supposed to do it??" LMAO!! I replied, "Um, well, try climbing to at least 7k, calibrate the site, lead this ships and sink it?" Didn't get a response back I was saddened to see the other offender was a vet who I guess has just gotten tired of the gaminess of AH now and just said the hell with it and gave in and did it. Sad, but I have a feeling a lot of vets feel this way when they see droves of tards doing this kind of dweebery.
-
Make minimum fuse alt for level bombers be 5000 AGL, but at the same time add in a tactical bomb sight for the real Jabo planes (190F, A20, Mosi, Sturmi, Stuka, Val, Avenger, etc.). Oh ... and AP ammo for Sturmi and Hurri IID (had to get that in ...hehe).
Another thing occured to me ... does anyone know just how fast a WW2 fighter can go with bombs slung? I mean before the shackles give way. Likewise how many G's can it pull before the 1000 pounder dangling from the wing decides it's going to go it's own way?
I know this is a little off topic, but it is related - basically the planes now engaged in low-level field suppression aren't the planes that were built for the job.
--- edit ...
I like Kweassa's idea too.
I think what's becoming clear from this and the CV topic is that the whole surface attack part of the game needs to be tweaked. Torpedo bombers are unecessary as are dive bombers (since a P51 is just as accurate and a crap load faster), tactical bombers are no better than a Lanc because the extra payload more than makes up for the lack of skill. And so on ...
-
I don't have a big problem with low level bomb runs. IRL, that's what the AAF did in the SW Pacific against Jap air bases. They even designed special bombs with fins and chutes to slow their descent so the B-25s wouldn't be downed by their own bomb explosions. Of course these were night raids, otherwise the buffs would have been wiped out by the Zeros, so it's not a direct correlation, but close enough for me.
I DO have a problem with dive bombing B-17s and Lancs. That DWEEBERY has got to go.
I totally support a limitation that will not allow bombs to release if the decent rate of any level type bomber is greater than 250 FPM.
-
Level flight is already forced in F6 bombadiers position..........
when "formation" is selected
Arm bombs only after calibration (per Kweassa above)
Only enable release whilst in F6 (per Kweassa above)
Lose recalibration every time F6 is left (per Kweassa above)
Disable POV and external views when in F6.
The above would still allow some formation capable bombers with bomb sites to be used in their attack roles when formation has not been selected (Boston, Ju88, B26 etc)
The 4 engined stuff is still anomalous as a non formation dive bomber (although far less effectively "gamed") unless they are forced (by HTC) to always fly formation.
The above avoids coding it unto each ac it is coded (latched)instead into the choice of formation flight..........
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
2) live bombs may be released only from the bombardier's position
Agreed.
Originally posted by Kweassa
3) bombs will be automatically "armed" only when the sight is calibrated
Agreed
Originally posted by Kweassa
4) moving away from the bombardier's position, will "disarm" the bombs. Bombs released from other positions/views angles, will result in unarmed bombs - this way, if for any reason a buff has to dump ordnance, he will be able to do so. The bomb will not detonate.
No..unless you don't have to re-calibrate to arm them. If we are ever allowed to have more than one other gunner join us, I may rescind that.. but, for now, I need to be able to defend my butt while on final approach without having to worry about re-calibration. .
Perhaps we can have a different base flash icon to indicate low bombers attacking. This will let us know that we can up our 110/190 cannon platforms and tear into them willy-nilly. I'm thinking a big bowl of ice-cream icon?
We all scream for...
-
Stang, CV has the point and click manned 88s, you simply cant aproach in jabos with manned ack there and survive to execute the attack, it is like turkey shot (you know, player xxx landed 23 kills in gun ship).
Why these cant just pick up fighters and set up CAP for the CV? It is much more easy to sit behind a gun, risking nothing, and ruining the fun of dozens of players flying nearby, just the same with low level Lanc formations, seasier then getting alt and using bomb sight, but at least, these were flying for several minutes to reach the target exposing themselves to enemy fighters, the tards behind the guns dont.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Lose recalibration every time F6 is left (per Kweassa above)
Disable POV and external views when in F6.
No offense Tilt but these two are unreasonalble and anyone who spends much time in bombers would know it.
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
No offense Tilt but these two are unreasonalble and anyone who spends much time in bombers would know it.
Re losing calibration when leaving F6
Well the purpose of the need to re calibrate is to force a delay such that players cannot shallow dive their formation and then simply jump to F6 and release.
I do use bombers and find I am usually constantly re calibrating right upto the point of release.........
but the real required out come is the need to create a delay between arriving at F6 and having the bombs armed.
Re disabling POV and external........
Again POV allows limited use of the forward/up view to steer and even more external permits total visualisation of the environs. Removing these severely limits the the ability to fly the formation low across a target and carpet it from say 2000 ft without having to re calibrate.
It could be that disabling external from F6 would be sufficient.
I have no exclusivity on the best ideas
I think just forcing bomb release to be only enabled from F6 when formations are chosen would be an easy first step.
The alternative to the POV and recalibration would be a simple time fuse on all bombs dropped from formations. Say 5 secounds
-
Personally I like the idea of the bombs not being armed if not dropped from bombadier pos.
If you want a to put in a "bomb will not drop right, but will hang up" if dropped in a dive, thats fine. But it better be more than than a real shallow dive.
It better not be applied to any plane that was designed to also be a dive bomber, ie ju-88. Although I did like the single vs formation idea above.
You can't disable the views for F6 without putting a gunner in each gun first. Thats the ONLY way bombers have to see a problem coming. Personally I'd really rather not see "Otto" raise his ugly head here.
Leave the views.
Leaving F6 view should disarm the bombs. But moving back in should HOLD your last calibration. And instantly rearm. So you can calibrate, jump to a gun to defend your plane, jump back to bombsight & drop on target. With no penalty.
Last, bombers need a 4th autopilot. One they can engage in the bombsight only. That locks the bomber straight & level with no speed changes. So you can jump from bombsight to gun, & not have the plane veer off course because you inadvertantly added a bit of rudder trying to track that con.
In this mode the plane should ignore any stick inputs, throttle changes, etc, until bombs are dropped. When it could be released either automaticly or manually if you abort your run.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
I don't have a big problem with low level bomb runs. IRL, that's what the AAF did in the SW Pacific against Jap air bases. They even designed special bombs with fins and chutes to slow their descent so the B-25s wouldn't be downed by their own bomb explosions. Of course these were night raids, otherwise the buffs would have been wiped out by the Zeros, so it's not a direct correlation, but close enough for me.
I DO have a problem with dive bombing B-17s and Lancs. That DWEEBERY has got to go.
I totally support a limitation that will not allow bombs to release if the decent rate of any level type bomber is greater than 250 FPM.
TotaL AGREEMENT.
No problem with treetop level runs. No problem with 26's diving either,
But the 17's and Lancs divbombing are absurd.
Bombs should only be able to be dropped from bombadiers position and with auto level fully enabled in these birds. Exterior views should also be disabled from the bombadiers position.
And yes, people should also defend their Cv's And Bases
better:)
-
using the bombsight for all bombing runs ruins the fun and it would be way to hard for anybody to do.. treetop runs you NEVER use the bomb sight you just drop in f3 view usually. using the sight would be pretty hard at 500 ft and it would just destroy the fun.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
...
I totally support a limitation that will not allow bombs to release if the decent rate of any level type bomber is greater than 250 FPM.
Better make that descent or ascent rate ... for pitch-bombing (though it's a much tougher skill to master).
Also out of curiosity, what would be the effect on the bomb bay of this kind of manouevering? I mean ... you have 7 tons of bombs sitting in a vertical rack in a Lanc. You do a -1G push-over to dive bomb ... what do they do?
-
Well, if you restrict bombs to only being dropped from the bombadier's position, that will stop a great deal of the problem. I think all of the other restrictions about calibrated sight and FPM restrictions are a bit much. After all, the bombs are "hot" once the fuze is wound up (when dropped). If you only allowed the bombs to drop from the bombadier's position, all that wild diving a climbing will be eliminated.
By the way: I don't mind the low alt dive bombing heavy bomber crud. It is someone using a lanc and 1 or 2 1K bombs the take out single tanks like it is some sort of JABO. Now that is über dweebery at its worst. If you want to kill single GVs, go get a P-47 or Typhie or something like that and learn to use it. Leave the heavies to massed formations or big targets.
-
Originally posted by Stang
It MUST be stopped. I watched b26's and lancs repeatedly divebomb a cv last night while trying to defend it. When the tards got shot down they just came right back and did it repeatedly until they finally sank the CV. A typical run for them was climb to 3k, head straight for the flattop, dive in, drop eggs at 800 feet and BOOM! Total lameness, IMO the biggest problem with gameplay in the MA. CV steams for hours somewhere and the tards come out of the woodwork in 2 secs and do this. HTC please fix the buff model so level bombers must drop their bombs while level. There is a bombsite for a reason... actually pretty easy to use, takes about 2oz of brains to figgure out. LEARN IT DWEEBS! :mad:
Never seen the A26K during Vietnam have you?
-
Originally posted by Stang
It MUST be stopped. I watched b26's and lancs repeatedly divebomb a cv last night while trying to defend it. When the tards got shot down they just came right back and did it repeatedly until they finally sank the CV. A typical run for them was climb to 3k, head straight for the flattop, dive in, drop eggs at 800 feet and BOOM! Total lameness, IMO the biggest problem with gameplay in the MA. CV steams for hours somewhere and the tards come out of the woodwork in 2 secs and do this. HTC please fix the buff model so level bombers must drop their bombs while level. There is a bombsite for a reason... actually pretty easy to use, takes about 2oz of brains to figgure out. LEARN IT DWEEBS! :mad:
Never seen the A26K during Vietnam have you? The 26 is a great interdictor, whether level bombing or otherwise.
Wolfala
-
using the bombsight for all bombing runs ruins the fun and it would be way to hard for anybody to do. treetop runs you NEVER use the bomb sight you just drop in f3 view usually. using the sight would be pretty hard at 500 ft and it would just destroy the fun.
So don't use the sight at 500ft and grab alt and bomb properly, instead being lazy.
-
i guess you dont understand the purpose of noe bomb runs, YOU CANT BE detected on radar, which means you got total surprise on the nme, whereas if your overt 500 ft you can be detected and nme fighters have time to scramle to intercept you.
-
By linking the F6 only release to formation choices only you still allow dive bombing in a non formation role..........
Really the shallow dive or dive bombing B26 / Ju88 is then being used in a ground attack role........ so to me this would be a non formation in application anyway just like an A20.
-
There is another way to approach this and thats via the attack/bomber choice buttons.
Choose attack and there is no F6 view and no formations
Choose bomber and F6 is mandatory for bomb release and formations are optional if available.
Choose bomber and bombs are time fused.
Of course Lancs and B17's would not have attack options as they do not now............
-
I've had 1k pounders jerk off of a p51 at 6 g's. I've also had them come off at 4.5 g's sustained.
-
I forgot to mention the first Ploesti raid by B-24s. It was an attempt at a low level bomb run at tree top level to get under DAR. Didn't work out too well because the intel was all wrong and some formations missed a way point turn, but it did happen.
However they did not use those B-24s as Dive Bombers !
(http://www.ww2guide.com/ploesti2.jpg)
-
using the bombsight for all bombing runs ruins the fun and it would be way to hard for anybody to do.. treetop runs you NEVER use the bomb sight you just drop in f3 view usually. using the sight would be pretty hard at 500 ft and it would just destroy the fun.
The entire problem with bombing in the MA personified right here. Can't believe it. Wow.
-
cant tell whether that is sarcasm or not heh
-
Originally posted by Stang
The entire problem with bombing in the MA personified right here. Can't believe it. Wow.
Yup.
I like the idea of different bomber limits when in formation mode.
But lets remember that taking stuff away isn't the only answer. I feel that one reason these tactics, plus the lawn-dart jabos and Me110 CV-killers, are so rampant is that there's no better alternative. So if things are done to clamp down on these tactics (which do suck), something needs to be done to make true attack bombers and attack fighters seriously viable alternatives.
Once SBD's, A20's, and Sturmis become the serious threat to ships, fields, and GV's that they should be, they'll be used - and defended against.
-
i guess you dont understand the purpose of noe bomb runs, YOU CANT BE detected on radar, which means you got total surprise on the nme, whereas if your overt 500 ft you can be detected and nme fighters have time to scramle to intercept you.
You don't understand the purpose of heavy buffs in the first place. We use jabo plane for that role, not the buffs.
Besides, what to keep you from doing the same thing in the F6 position? Just do a messy calibration, and drop the bombs when the field is nearby.
Ofcourse, you wouldn't be able to do the twsity turning drops, or speeding dive-bomb drops.. but likewise, that's it how it should be.
-
jabo planes for noe bomb runs? no i dont think so.
what do you think the lancasters did when they took out the dam? they flew noe cause they didnt want to be detected. bombers are built for both purposes, i.e b-1b lancer does noe bomb runs.
-
jabo planes for noe bomb runs? no i dont think so.
what do you think the lancasters did when they took out the dam? they flew noe cause they didnt want to be detected. bombers are built for both purposes, i.e b-1b lancer does noe bomb runs.
So, how many dam-busting sorties did Lancasters see, comapred to all of the other sorties with a normal bomb run?
It's kinda pathetic. The only one or two reference one could find among all the rest of the data which clearly presents the bombers, should be used as they were designed to.
And you still haven't answered the second question. You can do the same thing in the bombardier's seat if one really wants to. Basically the 'role', is still there if one wishes it. But it won't be so easy to do it by abusing the F3 views. One will have to calibrate it.
-
ok how about the b25s on the raid of japan. noe
HT probably wouldnt do that anyways because he would want to keep some fun in the bombing. i dunno just my opinion
-
Admit it dude.
You don't want calibration, or restriction - because you don't want to learn it. You don't want to grab alt, you don't want to plan flightpaths, you don't want to practice at all.
What you want is quick results with no effort. Dying in the process doesn't bother you. Getting the job done is all you care about - and why do it in a historic, proper, correct fashion, when you can just go semi-kamikaze to the target?
The restriction I suggested does not stop the person from doing a NOE run. It just stops them from doing the dweebey shi* of dive-bombing, twisty-turning, and pitch-up spraying.
One shouldn't have any problems if you like low-level bombing itself, in a tactical sense.
However, if someone loves the dweebey shi* about low-level bombing. then he's gonna have a lot of problems. And rightfully so.
-
Originally posted by ace31st
ok how about the b25s on the raid of japan. noe
...
That was done once in the whole war (flying medium bomber from a CV with little or no chance of landing on the soil of a third country), and you want to install it as a permanent feature in the MA????
Now the B25G/H was a ground attack version ... which was properly equiped for low-altitude operations ... including para-frags and everything. That is a completely different animal. Likewise Mosi's did a lot of anti-shipping duty ... NOE. But Lancs and B17's were mostly up above 10K ... and usually hated being below 15K.
-
hmm ok guess you dont remember me but when i did my noe bomb runs i would usually live to rtb with a couple kills. and also i was quite good at high alt bombing to but i just preferred noe on a base. now if the base was swarming with fighters i would go high alot but otherwise at an undefended base i go low.
i cant win here because so many people love high alt.
-
and newsflash kweassa, this is a game, it doesnt have to be done to the exact detail of how ww2 bombers would do it. HT is not going to penalize people for there style of play. if you want historic , why dont you go do a 3 hour bomb run, drop ord, get swarmed by fighters and maybe live to return home.
-
Originally posted by ace31st
and newsflash kweassa, this is a game, it doesnt have to be done to the exact detail of how ww2 bombers would do it. ...
Bzzzt .... you just finished siting two cases of actual WW2 operations as justification for your low-level tactics. You can't have it both ways.
-
that made no sense. im saying historical bomb runs are like that....
-
I'm not going to get dragged into this, but point of order:
The Doolittle raid was PLANNED to have then land in Mongolia somewhere, but the CV group was spotted by a spy/fishing vessel. Rather than risk the ENTIRE CV group, all the pilots volunteered to take off 800 miles out of range (and in fact did make it to bomb Japan, and had they taken off where they planned to, they would have had enough fuel to land).
Sorry, and now back to your pre-programed fight.
-
.
What you want is quick results with no effort. Dying in the process doesn't bother you. Getting the job done is all you care about - and why do it in a historic, proper, correct fashion, when you can just go semi-kamikaze to the target?
Historic Truth in the Proper, Correct fashion........
One of the more successful field modifications performed on the B-25Cs and Ds were conversions to heavily-armed strafers.
The basic concept for the strafer seems to have originated with B-25 units based in Australia. Medium-altitude bombing attacks against Japanese shipping had not been all that successful, since most of the bombs tended to miss their targets. This was due partly to the fact that medium and high-altitude bombing was subject to inherent errors in accuracy due to uncertain winds and to difficulties in sighting, but also due to the fact that ships could often see the bombs coming their way and had enough time to get out of their path. General Kenney felt that the development of skip-bombing techniques would give a much better chance of success. In skip bombing, the pilot approaches the target ship at a speed of 200 mph and at an altitude no higher than 250 feet off the water. Releasing the bomb at that height or lower caused it to skip off the water and slam into the ship just above the waterline, giving a much better chance of a hit than conventional bombing from medium altitudes. However, this technique required a low-level straight-on approach against intense antiarcraft fire from heavily-armed ships. It was felt that heavy forward-aimed firepower aboard the attacking aircraft was needed to counter this defensive fire.
This technique had already been tried out to a limited extent with the A-20 Havoc, but the A-20 had a relatively low bombload and a limited range. In addition, there was a severe shortage of A-20s in Australia and in the entire South Pacific due to the priority of Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union. The idea of modifying the B-25 as a "strafer" seems to have originated with NAA field service representative Jack Fox and Major Paul I. "Pappy" Gunn of the 3rd Bombardment Group. Fox and Gunn satisfied General Kenney that this was an idea worth trying, and the General gave them authorization to proceed.
B-25C serial number 41-12437 was chosen for the initial tests. Since in a low-level, high-speed attack the bombs would be released by the pilot, there was no need for a bombardier. Consequently, the bombardier position was removed and replaced with a package of four fixed 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and aimed directly forward. The guns protruded from a metal plate that replaced the flat bomb-aiming panel. In addition, four more fixed 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in individual external blisters, two on each side of the fuselage. Blast protection from the fuselage blister guns was achieved by using blast tubes on the gun barrels and by mounting large sheet metal plates on the fuselage sides that covered the entire blast area. The plane was appropriately named "Pappy's Folly". In the first tests, the fuselage guns were found to be too far forward for the center of gravity, and were later moved further aft.
Trials were sufficiently impressive for General Kenney to order more strafer conversions. By the end of February 1943, twelve strafers were completed by the Eagle Farms operation in Australia and assigned to the 90th Squadron.
The strafer concept proved particularly effective during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea of early March 1943. USAAF A-20s, B-17s, B-25s along with Australian Beauforts and Beaufighters took part in coordinated and repeated attacks on a Japanese convoy headed from Rabaul to reinforce their forces based at Lae, with P-38s and P-40s flying top cover. The strafer B-25s proved especially effective during this episode, attacking the convoy from nearly masthead altitude using skip-bombing techniques to attack the ships broadside, the withering fire from the eight forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns preventing any effective return fire. Out of the original convoy of eight destroyers and eight cargo vessels that had departed Rabaul, all the transports and four of the destroyers were sunk or beached. The B-25C/D strafers achieved a 43 percent hit ratio.
Against land targets, these B-25s were rigged with bomb bay cages that contained up to 100 23-pound parachute fragmentation bombs. These bombs were released in great numbers to attack airfield dispersals and flak batteries.
The strafer concept was so successful that by September 1943, 175 B-25Cs and Ds had been converted for low-level strafing by the depot at Townsville, Australia. By that time, five squadrons had been so equipped.
Other commands soon picked up the concept. The 241st Bombardment Group based in the CBI Theatre modified a number of B-25C/D aircraft as strafers with various different nose gun arrangements. They were used with success against railways, marshaling years, highway transport and storage depots. the 41st Bombardment Group of the 7th Air Force in the central Pacific used strafers that were quite similar to those from Townsville.
The concept even reached the Mediterranean theatre of operations, where 16 B-25s were modified by the 26th Air Depot Group in Egypt with a six-gun nose. However, these planes were later returned to standard transparent-nose configuration, which indicates that the "strafer" concept was not all that widely used in the Mediterranean and European theatres.
Following the development of the B-25C/D strafers mounting eight forward-firing guns, Major Paul Gunn developed an experimental installation of three additional guns to the underside of the fuselage between the bomb bay and the forward access hatch. This idea proved to be impractical due to feed belt problems and blast effects to the adjacent structure.
The North American factory came up with the idea of installing a fuselage-mounted module containing two 0.50-inch machine with 225 rpg. The unit fit into the forward access hatch. This installation had the advantage in that servicing of guns and replenishment of ammunition could be done from inside the aircraft, but it had the disadvantage in forcing the crew to enter the aircraft from the aft hatch, then crawl over the bomb bay to get to the forward cockpit. The unit was never ordered into production.
The success of the "strafer" modifications to the B-25C/D led to the B-25G, which was a dedicated factory-built strafer that was succeeded by the more efficient B-25H. However, it was not until the advent of the solid-nosed B-25J that the power of the famous "Townsville" strafers was equalled.
-
Originally posted by ace31st
jabo planes for noe bomb runs? no i dont think so.
what do you think the lancasters did when they took out the dam? they flew noe cause they didnt want to be detected. bombers are built for both purposes, i.e b-1b lancer does noe bomb runs.
yea but they didnt have an exterior view.
they used their bombsight.
they didnt dive bomb them
And a different type of bomb altogether
What your looking for is arcade type play in something thats supposed to be a simulation.
Bombing low alt using bombsight wouldnt ruin fun.
Force you to learn a new skill ,yes
Make things more difficult the first few times you did it perhaps
But with some practice it would become routine
Just like real life
-
Originally posted by ace31st
ok how about the b25s on the raid of japan. noe
HT probably wouldnt do that anyways because he would want to keep some fun in the bombing. i dunno just my opinion
Yess and those were B-25's NOT B17s and lancasters.
B25's did do shallow dive bombing and strafing runs. 17's and Lancs did not
And NONE had an exterior view
-
Originally posted by ace31st
jabo planes for noe bomb runs? no i dont think so.
what do you think the lancasters did when they took out the dam? they flew noe cause they didnt want to be detected. bombers are built for both purposes, i.e b-1b lancer does noe bomb runs.
Bouncing bombs were released by the bombadier from his position which required a presice run upto the damn marking the release point from the damn towers................
Totally impossible to do as a formation..........
-
i give up i cant even talk with you historys wizzes around countering every thing i say.
drediock we dont have b25s so the 26, 17, lancs, are the next best thing.
now if your doing the bomb sight noe what happens if you come up on a hill eh? booom your right into it and you wouldnt even know what had hit you.
-
You guys also are not remember we do have 1 level/dive bomber in the game and that is the Ju88A4. would you just leave that out of the option for these possible new implaments?
-
Originally posted by ace31st
i give up i cant even talk with you historys wizzes around countering every thing i say.
You're the one flip-flopping. Go back and re-read your messages.
It's not as much as your use of historic facts as the way you switch your position from "model it if it happened in WW2" to "model what works in the MA", depending on what best suits your position.
-
how the hell am i flip flopping?
if you guys want "historic" bombing, every single mission we should should be 3 hours long, at 20k , MAYBE hit our target.. be bombarded by flak then be swarmed by fighterrs afterward and then rtb another 3 hours.. doesnt sound like much fun to me... we do whatever it takes in the MA to get the job done and i dont think we should change that
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And NONE had an exterior view
Depending on the year, a B-17 had a crew of 9-10 men to look out for bandits and an intercom to instantly alert the rest of the crew. For this reason the bombers should continue to have exterior views from all positions.
It can't be helped if dweebs abuse exterior views to dive bomb with the heavies but IMO removing exterior views isn't the answer. Hitech has said he hasn’t seen enough of this to consider it a problem so until it’s happening much more often I wouldn’t expect anything to change.
If it becomes something they decide to fix I hope it will be to disable the bomb release or arming based on angle to the horizon if in B-17s or Lancasters or any bombers that launch as a formation.
-
Originally posted by ace31st
i give up i cant even talk with you historys wizzes around countering every thing i say.
drediock we dont have b25s so the 26, 17, lancs, are the next best thing.
now if your doing the bomb sight noe what happens if you come up on a hill eh? booom your right into it and you wouldnt even know what had hit you.
We counter because we have a strong arguement to counter with
There isnt a whole lotta difference between the B25 and the b26 mission wise in what each did.
B26's could do and did the same type runs as the 25.
The 17's and lancs did not.
Nor should they here.
If your doing the bomb thing and come up on a hill you go BOOM yes. Exactly how it should be.
Plan your route bothin and out. Time your run then get back in the cockpit and it wont be a problem.
Orrr just before dropping grab a little alt. so you miss the hills and trees then make your run and ge back in the cockpit.
you dont need to be scraping leaves off yourplane to go NOE.
Just be low enough to be under dar. And by the time your dropping the bases has been flashing for a while already anyway so they know your there. just get a little more alt just before your ready to drop. Usually only takes 3-4 seconds of grabbing tops to get high enough to miss most trees and hills .
Just try it for a while, you will see you can do the same things you have been doing only it will be more realistic and challanging.
and in the end you will become more skilled
-
Originally posted by ace31st
how the hell am i flip flopping?
if you guys want "historic" bombing, every single mission we should should be 3 hours long, at 20k , MAYBE hit our target.. be bombarded by flak then be swarmed by fighterrs afterward and then rtb another 3 hours.. doesnt sound like much fun to me... we do whatever it takes in the MA to get the job done and i dont think we should change that
You just did it again. Last message you said we're arguing history with you, now you say you're arguing on the side of "fun."
What you describe as "no fun" is what should be happening. Except you have fighter escort, everyone plays their does their job, and you hit the target. Why the hell do you think there's formation mode - and the formation breaks when you manouver hard?
Ahhh ... forget it ... keep driving your Lancs at 50 feet ... just be sure the ground crew picks the sheep parts out of the intakes.
-
Originally posted by ace31st
how the hell am i flip flopping?
if you guys want "historic" bombing, every single mission we should should be 3 hours long, at 20k , MAYBE hit our target.. be bombarded by flak then be swarmed by fighterrs afterward and then rtb another 3 hours.. doesnt sound like much fun to me...
Shame, I didn't check the roster but it sounds like you missed the Ruhr Valley scenario and I don't think the guys who flew the B-17s would agree with your assessment.
Just because it's the MA doesn't mean you should "do whatever it takes in the MA to get the job done and i dont think we should change that." IMO that attitude is one of the problems with game play in the MA.
-
Just checked and from F6 with the POV set to give a forward view when down/forward-up is chosen you can see exactly where you are goiing.
So restricting bomb release to F6 would not inhibit forward vision even if external views (F3) were off in F6 mode.
Skull my view is that if the ac can be either "attack" or "bomber" then in "attack" f6 and formation options should be disabled and the bomb release put back with the pilot.
In "Bomber" mode the formation is optional but F6 has to be used to release bombs.
The effect would be...........
Dive/shallow dive bombing would be single ac only and only those ac with alternative attack role status. (eg Ju88)
B17's, Lancs, Ar234's would then be forced to use F6 (they are only available as bombers) forcing their use as level bombers as either formations or single ac.
In addition if "bombers" had their bombs time fused the additional effect would be..........
Only single ac could carry out effective NOE raids..............
This would reveal some inconguities which IMHO should be resolved anyway.........
Ju87, Il2 m3, C47, A20, Val, SBD etc are all "attack" planes and should not really have a bomber role as prescribed to level bombers.
-
Now it sounds like we're in agreement Tilt.:aok :)
-
FORGET IT
ahhhhh you all are driving me crazy. i dont care anymore really whatever i just prefer NOE over high alt.
i agree with you all about the suicide dweebs attacking CV's. i am not one of them. i usually go high alt for cv's.
the RUHR valley scenario is still NOT real life so it wont simulate EVERYTHING that WW2 pilots went through. seems you cant see over that.
-
ace31st
I just reread the thread. It isn’t that we disagree with noe raids like Ploesti. It’s that this thread started with a condemnation of divebombing heavies and B26s (with formations I assumed).
I for one don’t usually reread all the post and your position became unclear in the later parts of the thread. It appeared to me you were advocating divebombing heavies or that any game play no mater how lame is ok which many of us consider a “bad thing” and different from noe missions.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
You guys also are not remember we do have 1 level/dive bomber in the game and that is the Ju88A4. would you just leave that out of the option for these possible new implaments?
I think the bombes of primary concern are the heavies, the Lancs and 17's
I personally have no problem with any bomber that was used as a dive bomber being used here
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
Depending on the year, a B-17 had a crew of 9-10 men to look out for bandits and an intercom to instantly alert the rest of the crew. For this reason the bombers should continue to have exterior views from all positions.
It can't be helped if dweebs abuse exterior views to dive bomb with the heavies but IMO removing exterior views isn't the answer. Hitech has said he hasn’t seen enough of this to consider it a problem so until it’s happening much more often I wouldn’t expect anything to change.
If it becomes something they decide to fix I hope it will be to disable the bomb release or arming based on angle to the horizon if in B-17s or Lancasters or any bombers that launch as a formation.
I dont think anyone wants to see exterioir views change on the bombers for the exact reasons you mentioned. Though I personally would like you to be able to have more then one person gunning your plane at a time.
the Disableing of exterior views should only be from the bombadiers position.
And the bombadier should be the only position you can drop bombs from. Not the pilot.
With autolevel in place this would prevent the dive bombing lancs and 17's
and disabling exterior views from the bombadiers position would make it less like an arcade game and more a step towards the realism they seem to be trying to accomplish here
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
[B.
Just because it's the MA doesn't mean you should "do whatever it takes in the MA to get the job done and i dont think we should change that." IMO that attitude is one of the problems with game play in the MA. [/B]
Agreed wholeheartedly
Only you should have said MAJOR problems LOL
-
look guys,
im all for NOE raids but im against the dweebiness of the cv killing divebombing bombers.
when i attack a base NOE, i DONT dive bomb with my lancs, i fly straight and level.
i misunderstood the position of the topic. sorrry
ACE
-
Here's an easy suggestion -- before dropping from an internal bay, there is already code that checks to see if bay doors are open. Just add a couple lines that check the vertical climb indicator -- if its over 2 or under -2, send message that "bomb racks have jammed" and disable internal payload.
The Ju88 dive bombed, but with the external load, i think. The B25 commonly glide bombed, but I dont think it did high angle drops -- to be honest, I'm not sure anybody's gravity driven drop rack engineering was up to the task in the 40s.
To be honest, I think there are a lot more important play balance issues than this around right now. Dive bombing dweebs are dweebs, like vox cussing dweebs are dweebs. Just ignore 'em, or kill 'em. ;) Since this code fix seems so easy, its probably worth doing.........
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Not just at CV's ... I saw flight after flight of Lancs coming in at like 3K to some vehicle base on furball island. And it still took a couple tries for them to get the VH's.
Maybe just make the minimum fuse altitude 5000ft AGL for level bombers. Maybe THEN people would use torpedo bombers against ships.
I prefer using torps against the fleets. It's fun to take in Ju88s with fish and sink a carrier. It's even possible to get through fighter cover and sink the flattop... but the ai ack is rediculous.. it starts shooting before you're close enough to drop the torps, and half the time you lose 2 of your 3 birds before you can drop the fish. (note: this is experience from AH1)
Haven't tried it in AH2 yet, maybe the icons being under the planes will help against the 5" manned guns.. torp runs against manned guns were suicide runs with the icons popping up at 3.3k Since you're at low alt for the torp run, the gunner just has to match the range indicator in the upper left corner with the range shown on the icon and lob AA shells.
If I wanted to have fun, I'd take the torpedo birds.. if I wanted the carrier dead ASAP I took a level bomber.
Oh, the level bombers can survive the ack (ai and manned) better than the torp birds can. That might have something to do with it.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Now you've done it Stang.
The "well why don't you do a better job of protecting it" doodz are gonna be all over ya like white on rice.
:rolleyes:
you cant defend from this sort of dweebness.
well you can, but once those 5inch guns are down (or in the hands of someone who cant aim likeme ;)) the CV is going to the bottom.
CV doesnt need hardening, its defence does. low level attacks arnt dangerous anymore, ack is just useless, hence most of my p38 runs start from under 9k now, and dropping eggs at 4k, instead of starting from 14, and dropping at 9.......
but anyway, this isnt about cv's being "easy" to kill, its about dive bombing level bombers.......
-
Originally posted by ace31st
look guys,
im all for NOE raids but im against the dweebiness of the cv killing divebombing bombers.
when i attack a base NOE, i DONT dive bomb with my lancs, i fly straight and level.
i misunderstood the position of the topic. sorrry
ACE
Does that mean we're not driving you crazy anymore?
Darn. and we were working so hard at it too:p
-
Originally posted by Stang
It MUST be stopped. I watched b26's and lancs repeatedly divebomb a cv last night while trying to defend it. When the tards got shot down they just came right back and did it repeatedly until they finally sank the CV. A typical run for them was climb to 3k, head straight for the flattop, dive in, drop eggs at 800 feet and BOOM! Total lameness, IMO the biggest problem with gameplay in the MA. CV steams for hours somewhere and the tards come out of the woodwork in 2 secs and do this. HTC please fix the buff model so level bombers must drop their bombs while level. There is a bombsite for a reason... actually pretty easy to use, takes about 2oz of brains to figgure out. LEARN IT DWEEBS! :mad:
dont think i was there at that time but if there were suicide bombers upping like mad it would make a great killing spree. Remember being a nit and watching the JBs do this same thing. before they finally sunk it i had upwards of 30 kills on a flak gun.
Hellalotta fun.
-
This problem was addressed and solved in "another" now defunct online flight sim.
If you pulled too many g's or got the plane at too great of angle of pitch or roll the wings popped off and you and your plane became instant confetti scattered in the wind.
Someone else might remember... I think it was something like anything more than 30 degrees from level in a 4 engine buff and it was instant death.
This is one problem where the death penalty proved to be the best solution.
-Buzzz
-
dont think i was there at that time but if there were suicide bombers upping like mad it would make a great killing spree. Remember being a nit and watching the JBs do this same thing. before they finally sunk it i had upwards of 30 kills on a flak gun.
Yeah, it was a great killing spree for the first 4-5 formations they sent at me. But after that they're gonna get a couple buffs through... hence the CV goes blub blub. Then an la7 that just took off from the field catches my f6 ( i was at 7k when he started to chase me, he being at 500 feet). With only one elevator due to buff guns i didn't have much of a chance vs the lala dweeb and his 3 friends. Fun fight. Yeah, right. Maybe for the lala dweeb who thought he was the bomb flying that pos.
Overlag- your post has no relevance to this topic, except to toot your own horn. Score potatos tend to do that tho :D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
My take on the fix:
1) internal bombload for level buffs will not be released if the plane's climb/decent rate is more than +/- 250ft per minute.
oo that is really good.
-
The solution to the probem is to limit drops to accurate angles of dive.
If you drop a bomb in an F4U, for example, at a 90degree angle down, the bomb will hit the prop, killing you. The Stuka and the SBD are specifically equipped with mechanisms to swing the bomb beyond the prop.
If you dive-bomb in a B-26 or B-17, or any other level bomber, the bombs hang in the bay, because you've got to be near level to get them out.
It is also possible in the game to jettison ordinance or drop tanks while inverted, which should also cause BAD THINGS to happen.
The general reason bombing was done from high level is the Flak was less effective. B-29 losses went way up when they moved to lower altitudes to gain accuracy. Flak effectiveness increase at low level? Not by my vote, the stuff is bad enough already.
Another issue is fusing. If you drop 6 1000lb bombs from 500 ft in a B-17, the blast will kill you when the bombs explode under your butt. The B-25s mentioned earlier used parachutes and timed fuses to delay the explosions.
Just a little tweaking of the flight models shoud do the trick...he said :)
Thoughts?
-
Originally posted by glenmorangie
...
Just a little tweaking of the flight models shoud do the trick...he said :)
Thoughts?
Well, I agree.
Folks often dogfight in fighters while heavy, and Jabo while travelling at Ludicrous Speed. I just have to believe that a 500 pound bomb on the wing of a P51 will get it's own ideas when 5 or 6 G's are applied. I have yet to see anything like this happen.
Likewise hard manouvers in a medium or heavy bomber with 1000's of pounds in the racks should have some kind of effect. On the bay racks if nothing else.
But, again, remember that you can't just take things away. If such changes are implemented then proper tactical bombers (A20, Ju87, Sturmi, Fw190F, Mosi, etc. ...) need a decent tactical bomb sight. It doesn't need to be the instant-on laser-guided deal like AW had, but you should be able to get reasonable accuracy in most flight profiles with proper use.
-
The AW "fixes" that were done during the waning days of it's existance were as bogus as the problems they sought to resolve. For example an UNLADEN B17 could "dogfight:" http://www.neam.org/58dogfight.htm
And Spitfire wings did not rip during dives. AFAIK the Sptifire handled dive's better than any other WWII airplane.
Anyway. This topic has been hashed out many times over the past few years. Hopefully someday soon there willbe some changes. IMO what DoK said above is a prime solution. Model airfame stress, if HiTech's software is able, and there's no need for silly "bandaids"
-
Having suggested the above fixes I suppose the ultimate is to model the combined effects of AoA and G forces on internally held ordinance..........
This would require considerable work IMO but to eventually end up with a model that said
"internal ordinance will jam if attempted to be released beyond +/- # AoA"
"internal ordinance will jam if subjected to more than # positive or # negative G prior to release"
The problems will be those of adjusting these values for various ac in a manner that reproduces the actuality.
In the absence of this i would return to the need to restrict formations to "bombers" which must release internal ordinance via F6 allowing single only "attack bombers" to use pilot release of external ordinance.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Having suggested the above fixes I suppose the ultimate is to model the combined effects of AoA and G forces on internally held ordinance..........
This would require considerable work IMO but to eventually end up with a model that said
"internal ordinance will jam if attempted to be released beyond +/- # AoA"
"internal ordinance will jam if subjected to more than # positive or # negative G prior to release"
The problems will be those of adjusting these values for various ac in a manner that reproduces the actuality.
In the absence of this i would return to the need to restrict formations to "bombers" which must release internal ordinance via F6 allowing single only "attack bombers" to use pilot release of external ordinance.
I hear what you're saying, but it would be much more effective to accept the pretty good solution of jammming the racks at all high AoA, rather than holding out for an historically correct aircraft specific value. Since our goal is to end B17 dive bombing, lets take what we can easily get.
And to make that dive bombing as hard as possible, I would argue against using G forces -- holding level at 70 degree AoA will give 1 G after a second or so. It'd be easier to use an instantaneous Vertical climb reading than to try to program a check of the highest G force in the last 5 seconds.
-
Actually, if you limited Tac Fighters and Bombers to Default View to release the same way you limit the bombers to Bombardier view to release and just disabled the pickle at high angles for dive bombing for aircraft other than SBD and Ju-87, that would be close.
I agree you need a tac stripe on the side canopy, like the Stukas often used to estimate dive angle. I don't remember the sight I use, I downloaded it too long ago, but it has a mark for bombs and a mark for rockets that are pretty accurate.
The loading model should be by weight. The aircraft shoulg *really* maneuver like a pig at heavy weights and break up at the proper fail strength, not just speed.
-
Originally posted by glenmorangie
I agree you need a tac stripe on the side canopy, like the Stukas often used to estimate dive angle. I don't remember the sight I use, I downloaded it too long ago, but it has a mark for bombs and a mark for rockets that are pretty accurate.
I'd be interested in seeing the sight you use. If you could post a picture of it and explain how you use, I would appreciate it. But, doesn't it depend on your dive angle? Do you use the same angle each dive? I've wished many times for some type of reference sight for dive bombing.
-
Well one thing would be to switch into "attack bombing mode" and have the sight only appear when you're at the "correct" angle for programmed release. Kind of like how the sight now moves when you pull G's and stuff, only it'd only show up at the right attack angle. The longer you hold at the right angle maybe the smaller the reticle gets - meaning more precise ... so a long slow dive produces a more accurate drop.
Dunno ... lots of ways to do this.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Well one thing would be to switch into "attack bombing mode" and have the sight only appear when you're at the "correct" angle for programmed release. ...
How do you switch to "Attack Bombing mode"?
-
Originally posted by debuman
How do you switch to "Attack Bombing mode"?
Select bombs instead of cannons.
-
Originally posted by debuman
I'd be interested in seeing the sight you use. If you could post a picture of it and explain how you use, I would appreciate it. But, doesn't it depend on your dive angle? Do you use the same angle each dive? I've wished many times for some type of reference sight for dive bombing.
THe sight name is "midnight-p51D_3". Heres the sight bmp.
(http://members.cox.net/gunfighterp51/AHPics/midnight-p51d_3.bmp)
It is calibrated for a 60-degree angle. Range? Good question, but I hit better with it. Top 0-0 bombs, bottom 0-0 rockets.
-
Thanks Glen,
I'll give it a try.
-
Is there any hope of something being done soon about this? I logged on last night and in the space of about 5 minutes saw at least a dozen B17 or Lanc divebomber flights hitting a couple fields.
If this is the way it's gonna stay, I may as well do a little practice offline in the 'Dragon and give folks something to really whine about.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
My take on the fix:
1) internal bombload for level buffs will not be released if the plane's climb/decent rate is more than +/- 250ft per minute.
2) live bombs may be released only from the bombardier's position
3) bombs will be automatically "armed" only when the sight is calibrated
4) moving away from the bombardier's position, will "disarm" the bombs. Bombs released from other positions/views angles, will result in unarmed bombs - this way, if for any reason a buff has to dump ordnance, he will be able to do so. The bomb will not detonate.
NO WAY!!!! NO WAY!!!!
I don't fly buffs very often, but I am VERY good with the bomb site calibration routine. I most often calibrate the site 10+ miles from target and then switch back to a gunner position to watch my arse. I jump back to the bombardier's position just before getting to the target so I can drop bombs and then get back into the gunner's seat ASAP.
Dis-arming the bombs and having to recalibrate the site if the player goes to guns is total BS.
-
Originally posted by debuman
How do you switch to "Attack Bombing mode"?
In the hanger if you select the bombers only list you will note that some ac are listed as attack/bomber ........if you choose such an ac you will note that the buttons to the bottom right appear giving you the choice to use the ac to earn either attack points or bombing points.
-
Originally posted by glenmorangie
THe sight name is "midnight-p51D_3". Heres the sight bmp.
(http://members.cox.net/gunfighterp51/AHPics/midnight-p51d_3.bmp)
It is calibrated for a 60-degree angle. Range? Good question, but I hit better with it. Top 0-0 bombs, bottom 0-0 rockets.
Actually, the top 0-0 is meant for rockets and the bottom 0-0 is meant for bombs. At least when I first created that one anyway. I still use that one in all JaBo capable aircraft that I fly, and a modified one without the rocket / bomb aimers for fighter only aircraft.
Heh.. anyway, nice to see my design is still in use by other players.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
NO WAY!!!! NO WAY!!!!
--- edit ------
Dis-arming the bombs and having to recalibrate the site if the player goes to guns is total BS.
Make only one change at a time, avoid trouble.
Dont allow bombs to drop if VCI > +/- 250; and disarm the payload due to "rack jamming". No other changes need to be made.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Actually, the top 0-0 is meant for rockets and the bottom 0-0 is meant for bombs. At least when I first created that one anyway. I still use that one in all JaBo capable aircraft that I fly, and a modified one without the rocket / bomb aimers for fighter only aircraft.
Heh.. anyway, nice to see my design is still in use by other players.
I wondered why I could not hit anything with rockets when I tested to see which was which... LOL
Er.. No, it really was an attempt to deny intelligence to the enemy...
-
Do we really want to limit the way people can play the game in the MA?
I agree that for the sake of most player's sanity, something needs to be done about dive bombing b17's and Lancs...that is, unless it would have actually been possible to do that sort of bombing in those aircraft, however unlikely it is that someone would actually do it. The mentality behind the practices in question here seem a bit childish and arcade like, but so it is that many of the people playing this game are children and are used to arcade games.
I see nothing wrong with skip or toss bombing if it was possible from those aircraft as wel, (and if the game would allow bombs to skip across the water.) It is rather dis-heartening to watch as a flight or flights of low level heavies come out of nowhere at treetop level and flatten your base, or when a stream of kamikaze Ponies, Jug, 38's, 110's or any other type of plane come out to sink the CV your based on, but should we put a stop to innovation and creativity just because it's inconvenient and not "historic"? (we shouldn't forget that kamikaze attacks ARE a historic aspect of ww2 combat, however unfortunate that may be.)
If it is true that the bombs would not drop correctly from certain angles of pitch up/down in certain planes, then that needs to be implemented in the game. In the case of the Ju88, which has divebomb flaps, was it possible to drop bombs from the bomb-bay in a steep dive, or only externally mounted bombs? If only the external bombs can be dropped in a steep dive, then at a certain angle, the bombs in the bomb-bay should be disabled and not drop whether bomb doors are open or not. Or allow them to drop and model an accurate result of that action...like damage to the plane or bombs hanging up or mechanisms being damaged. This same limitations should be placed on any other bomber whose payload would not release correctly from a certain angle...including the A20.
But I hesitate to say we need to FORCE people to learn to do something the "corrrect" way. Main Arena is NOT a historical scenario and the free-for-all mentality exists, like it or not. Bottom line is that we just can't tell people how to have their fun. The game is based loosely on historical WW2 air combat with the added features of vehicles and ships. Just the fact that early war and late war planes can go head to head and that planes from the same or different historical military branches or countries can go at each other should be an indicator that this is not an historical ww2 simulation. It's a flight sim based on ww2 era equipment, but no one is or should be telling anybody else how or what to fly, when.
I don't agree with the idea that people need to be forced into conformity with acceptable practices dictated by what was "historical" or not. For Pete's sake, we can be killed and then re-up again. How "historical" is that?
It is frustrating that people don't appreciate the potential in the game though. HTC and many contributing players have devoted much time and effort to provide a great ww2 based flight simulation experience. I for one, like it to be as historical as possible, but I stop short coming up with ways of making other people stop acting silly just because it interrupts my little version of fun.
There is the MA for this free for all mentality. The CT is supposed to give us historical match ups of aircraft and equipment for those of us who would like things to be even more historically based. The DA is there for those who just want to get in there and fight 1 v 1 and such. There's special events for those of us who like having well planned scenarios based on historical events and the like. Basically it's all here.
But we shouldn't expect anything more from the MA than accurate representations of aircraft capabilities and other combat equipment. So if divebombing was not possible with a heavy, then lets make it so it's not possible. But we simply shouldn't dictate what is fun and what isn't for others. If somebody gets a kick out of sinking the CV, and the only way he knows how to do it is to crash into the thing with a Lancaster as he drops his bombs from low level, then that's the way it's gonna happen. Make as many rules as you want and somebody will find some way around them...you can bet on it. (look at the bad word filter on the text buffer as an example. People are so creative in finding ways to say what they want within the rules of the buffer but with all the intent and content that the buffer seeks to filter)
That's the innovative and adaptable human being for you. Yeah, its a pain in the butt to some of us to have to deal with. But how boring would life be if we were all AH2 robots that did everything exactly the same way. That would be SO predictable. And as we all know from experience in the game...being predictable usually gets you killed.
-
if i hear cries on country channel
please kill the cv at xxx when i die or land(die mostly)
i jump in a lanc b17 or b26 and up it
i get whatever alt i can depending on how far out it is
1500-5000(as much as i can) and aim the plane at the cv
put it on auto level and jump in the f6 possition and calibrate and drop,whether i get this far depends on how many people are defending the cv and whether the cv has a good gunner.
if 1 or both of these factors stop me hitting the cv i up from a base
25-50k away ,get to 10k and get it that way
i can only think of maybe 2 times ive ever dive bombed a cv and that was because i had had both my drones shot to peices and i was seconds away from death unless i took drastic measures so dived away from the x amount of cons on my 6 toward the cv
cant remember if i hit it or not i know i definatly died though
i think these dive bombing bomber pilots should learn to
calibrate and bomb targets properly
once learned its a hell of alot more accurate than dive bombing
-
Just curius. If I have JU88s at 7K and as I get close to the CV I put them in 10deg nose down so I can get some speed and get out of the ack and the reds on my six, is that considered dive bombing? If not, would it be if I had LANCs instead? How about KIs and Bxx?
I ask cause I have never seen level bombers go nose down on a CV. I have seen what I described.
-
We're talking about a flight of Lancs or B17's at about 500-1000 ft off the deck ... that then pitch forward into something akin to a kamikaze dive and just barf their bombs out at point blank range.
-
Originally posted by Stang
When the tards got shot down they just came right back and did it repeatedly until they finally sank the CV. A typical run for them was climb to 3k, head straight for the flattop, dive in, drop eggs at 800 feet and BOOM! Total lameness, IMO the biggest problem with gameplay in the MA.
One way to stop suicide bomber runs is to perk the bombers. Maybe if the bombers were hardened a bit and perked, people would take the time to climb to alt, drop bombs, and attempt to make it home.
They might even request fighter escorts from their squad mates.
-
Originally posted by Westy
IMO what DoK said above is a prime solution. Model airfame stress, if HiTech's software is able,
AW tried to model airframe stress in its bombers, didn't they? The wings would rip with just a nudge sometimes in the FR Pac arena...drove me nuts. Modelling airframe stress can be buggy.
I prefer Easy's idea to lock the bombs if the heavy bomber (only Lanc & B-17, at this point) is at an angle of attack that can't be considered "level flight."
Just my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
AW tried to model airframe stress in its bombers, didn't they? The wings would rip with just a nudge sometimes in the FR Pac arena...drove me nuts. Modelling airframe stress can be buggy.
I prefer Easy's idea to lock the bombs if the heavy bomber (only Lanc & B-17, at this point) is at an angle of attack that can't be considered "level flight."
Just my 2 cents.
Well, you can get creative. How about a simple deal where if you exceed 2G's with full racks you get a simple "bomb release failure." In other words, the bombs are stuck in the racks because they bent the damn things from bouncing around. Now you're stuck with the extra weight and no choice but to auger or go home.
If the release is locked at non-level flight you'll guys diving in at bizarre speeds and then leveling to drop at tree-top. If you model it my way, when they pitch over or pull out of this dive, they mess up the release mechanism. It'd still be possible to pull this stunt, but your envelope gets a lot narrowed.
Or you could model both. I'd like to see people who've been pulling this crap find themselves over target with bomb release malfunctions looking all stoopidly and ewesless.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If the release is locked at non-level flight you'll guys diving in at bizarre speeds and then leveling to drop at tree-top. If you model it my way, when they pitch over or pull out of this dive, they mess up the release mechanism. It'd still be possible to pull this stunt, but your envelope gets a lot narrowed.
Or you could model both.
I almost feel like, as long as the bombing was done in level flight, allow it. I'll have to go offline in B-17's and see how easy it is to fly at 10k, dive to 2k, pull up successfully, calibrate the bomb sight while holding high speeds; then, drop successfully. It sounds like a lot of work.
I know...HT just needs to disable the bombs when the pilot is in F3 mode. Plain 'n simple. U know most of our gamers are bombing while diving in F3. ;)
-
2K? Ho ho ho.
Nah, if you only disable the release when non-level they'll dive in to their usual 500 ft. F3 view is a crutch only, there are "other ways" ... I'm sure the duhweebs will figure 'em out.
You need to disable bomb release from anything but the bombardier view ... and even then, I know it'll be gamed (i.e. eyeball it in F3, open bay, a few seconds before it's "just right" go to bomb view, one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, barf). Not as accurate - as just using F3 ... but have you seen how accurate these 'tards are as it is?
I don't want to make it too messy with sight calibration because that penalizes the guys who fly these planes right - they need to be able to jump to gunner positions and then return to the bomb sight and have it be as they left it.
If you allow bomb release only from the bombardier position that adds enough extra uncertainty to render such attacks much less effective. Add to that the "rack failure" due to excessive G's and suddenly you need to be very gentle in coaxing that big bird out of a dive (as well you should). Given the way these guys fly, I doubt many will be able to handle it.
-DoK
-
We’ve been through this so many times. A player should be able to break from calibration and defend himself. He should be able to drop his bombs even if he’s lost 3-4 engines and is dropping like a brick, desperate as the attempt may be. Most of the time, I can’t imagine why anyone would drop from the F3 view but there is a case where it is practically required because you have a terrible time calibrating at 500-1000ft and 200+ mph as you must in some scenarios or snapshots.. Take Ploesti, the Ploesti (http://events.hitechcreations.com/snapshots/snapshot.php?snapshot_id=63) raid was one of my favorite snapshots and it would be ruined without outside views, or if a 500-1000ft limit was imposed.
-
Rack damage is an interesting idea but opens it up to damage from guns as well. Who wants to fly for an hour if a 110 can make a single pass and knock out all three bomb racks.
-
Other than an arguement that F3 replaces the 10 pairs of eyes that a bomber has looking for enemies I cant see any reason for not forcing F6 to be the only place from which one could drop bombs........
Including Ploesti.....where infact most of the low level raid was blinded by smoke ............
I dont believe the 10 pairs of eyes arguement to have sufficient force that it should prevent the solutions that are derived from forcing release from F6. (As above I would only apply this to pure "bombers" and formations)
Even so DoK is correct it would bring about the F3 ingress with almost macro like keying to switch thru F6 to release.
I think disabling bombs from enemy fire is as valid as disabling guns from enemy fire..........
The only reservation I would have is the validity of using G based bomb jamming as a fix if it turns out we are simply inventing something. I note that AH does not jam guns that are fired under high G yet this was some times the case.
However it does seem valid that bombs would only release under favourable (stable) g conditions............and most probably not under the pitching incurred when F6 is trying to correct a shallow dive to level flight.
Hence my take for a 1st step .......
For all attack/bombers where formation is chosen they assume the status of "bomber".
For all bombers where the status is bomber only they assume the status of "bomber"
Else they are "attack"
For all "bombers"........
Bombs can only be released from bomb aimers position F6.
For all "attackers"
Bombs can only be released by the pilot
A second step (given the first was insufficient) would be to add AoA factors for "bombers".
-
How about we do away with bombers, base takes, Killing HQ, killing troops killing the ords, and what little fuel we can kill now, La 7s, 262s, 163s(won't need any more) and the cv's (there to easy to kill or the 5 inch guns kill to well. Then we can have 3 bases for each chess piece with unlimited fuel then the furballers can say they won.
-
How about we do away with bombers, base takes, Killing HQ, killing troops killing the ords, and what little fuel we can kill now, La 7s, 262s, 163s(won't need any more) and the cv's (there to easy to kill or the 5 inch guns kill to well. Then we can have 3 bases for each chess piece with unlimited fuel then the furballers can say they won.
Why?
Are you perchance confusing the argument to fix game exploits, with the argument to get rid of buffs entirely?
-
My view:
1. I do not wish to disable shallow angle dive bombing from buffs.
2. I do wish it to be with in the limits of what realy could be done.
3. I do not wish to disable it, just because it wasn't done much in real live, if it could physicly be done.
The arguments I agree with so far.
1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.
2. Find out what the limits on bomb drops are.
(btw people are mixing terms ,please do not use the term AOA, for climb angle)
Climb or descent angle by itself should not effect if a plane can release or not. If realy should be based on the direction of the total force vector from the plane, along with the length of that vector.
Anyone care to do some research on the drop paramaters of different bomb racks?
HiTech
-
This is anectodal about what happens when bombs are free of their rack restraints: http://www.stripes.com/ww2/stories/rooney05.html
There must be an operational manual somewhere which spec's out the rack system.
-DoK
-
You can't "disable" bombs with damage.. Know why? Becuase they BLOW UP INSTEAD!
This has already been modeled. Don't believe me? Come in under the belly of a heavy lancaster and shoot it in the bomb bay. BOOM.. Fireball city.
-
Thanks HiTech. Couldn't have asked for a better, fairer reply.
"Anyone care to do some research on the drop paramaters of different bomb racks?"
I'll give it a shot. Anything I can find I'll pass on.
Each B-17 was equipped with an autopilot and a Norden bombsight. The two were interconnected in such a manner so that on a bomb run the bombsight took over the flying of the airplane to assure that a constant airspeed, a constant altitude, and a proper heading were maintained. This enabled the bombardier to program the information into the bombsight, and once it was aimed at the target the sight would stay fixed on the target as the B-17 moved toward the target. At the proper time based on the altitude and the speed of the airplane, the bombsight would automatically trigger the release of the bombs. On a clear day when the enemy target was plainly visible, this amazing bombsight made it possible to bomb military targets of the enemy with uncanny accuracy from altitudes as high as 30,000 feet.
It just seems to me that for the Lanc and B17 (or any heavy future bomber) the bombs should be armed only when the player is in the bombardier position. And when in the bombardier position lock the plane in auto-pilot mode with the exception of simple lateral control via the rudder? Break autopilot by trying to bank, dive or climb and the bombs disarm. In real life there were no evasives or hard maneuvers allowed on the bomb run.
-
True .. but if I understand HT's position, since it's possible to release bombs manually, and since you don't care about the Norden at 500 ft, then that kind of attack should still be possible.
There is logic to your argument though: IF you select bomber formations, THEN you can only release bombs from the bombardier position IFF you do not disrupt the autopilot during the run. This would simulate the Norden-autopilot circuitry, though put the release in the player's hands.
If folks still want to use solo Lancs and B17's as tactical bombers, fine - they lose 2/3 of their defensive gunner and payload. So be it. I can live with that - and the guys who want to level bomb don't get penalized at all.
-DoK
-
Could the payload in a Lanc or B-17 be released from the cockpit or could it only be released from the bombadier position ?
If they could only be released from the bombadier position, then bombs should not be able to be released from the cockpit.
This would then make things real difficult for trying to dive bomb in those planes and carpet bombing at low alt would be no piece of cake either due to the limited visibilty while in the bomb sight.
-
I like the choice of bombing methods.
-
Don't get me wrong DoK. I just want to help eliminate what is IMO some gross gaminess aka "the divebombing heavies." note:I'm willing to help tackle the suicidee jabo maroons too! :)
I dont want to ask HiTech to model the Norden as IMO that would be a hefty chunk of code and time for what I imagine would be minimal return. Nor would I want to force players into formation flying at 25k or introduce a seperate bombardier requirement.
A 500' attack should be doable. Sure. As wildly innacurate as a real one would be.
However just look at a picture of the B17 racks and one can see they're vertical drop only. They aren't very hefty jobs and they run right from the top of the fuselage down to the bomb bay doors. I do not believe in RL they'd release well in a 25 or 45 degree, power off dive over an enemy CV. A level, stable-as-possible bombing platform is what was required for a successful release with any hope of hitting even near the target.
Trying to find, and supply, the facts re: the racks and allowable bomb angles is going to take time.
-
Does anybody have "The Great Book of WWII Warplanes" and a scanner? I recall that there is a bomb bay diagram that shows the bomb bay shape of several bombers, including the B-17 and Lancaster. Might it be possible to calulate what angle the bomber would have to be at for the bombs to strike the aircraft when dropped from such drawings?
-
Pictoral example:
(http://www.s2tracker.com/b-17/photos/bomb_bay.jpg)
Nose this baby over in a dive or bank and release your bombs. Then when the shackles let go and the bombs, which are supposed to drop verticaly, now fall 25-45degress forward ... uh oh..... right through that bulkhead. While they may not arm you can bet that hundreds of pounds of iron bomb are not going to bounce off that thin aluminim.
Same with the B-24 and Lancaster: each with large bomb bays designed for iron bombs to drop from a horizontal flight path.
-
(http://www.bombergroup.com/bg/B17bb.gif)
-
I'm looking for a compromise that can be quickly put in place, Westy. I think one reason the sewercide heavy bombers are so prevalent is that they have 3X defensive firepower over a single tactical bomber, and 2 spare "lives" they can lose during their knuckle-dragging attack.
So if you restrict heavy's to only bomb from the bombardier position when in formation mode, then if people really want to Jabo a B17, they only have one plane to do it in - like any other Jabo. This won't completely stop the behavior, though - as I pointed out before you can get pretty good at guessing as long as you're willing to fly straight. But it really cuts the accuracy and easiness down to where you're better off with an A20.
As for the rack systems themselves, I don't have enough data to say what is accurate. But looking at them and remembering a little about fizzicks, we can maybe make some assumptions. One is that the racks are meant to hold the bombs ready to release downward and most likely not meant to sustain heavy G loads because of the concentration of mass (3 to 7 tons of HE in a small area). So it makes me wonder about ...
- if you push -G's, are the racks set up to prevent bombs from flying up through the roof of the plane? We know that if they're released in level flight they'll rip the bay doors off if they're closed, so I'd expect similar damage in the other direction.
- If there are safeguards for -G's, what will this do to the release mechanism (which is meant to regulate downward travel)? Do the release catches get bent by bearing loads in the "wrong" direction?
- If heavy +G's are applied, how much force can the racks sustain before the bombs break free by shear weight of F=MA? A 3G pull-out for a low-level dive bombing attack from a Lanc could put as much as 21 tons of force on the center of the plane, let alone the racks themselves - that can't be good for structural integrity. If the stress can be taken, will the racks still function? Will they get bent?
Some of these same questions apply to the bomb shackles on Jabo fighters.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by Westy
Pictoral example:
(http://www.s2tracker.com/b-17/photos/bomb_bay.jpg)
Nose this baby over in a dive or bank and release your bombs. Then when the shackles let go and the bombs, which are supposed to drop verticaly, now fall 25-45degress forward ... uh oh..... right through that bulkhead. While they may not arm you can bet that hundreds of pounds of iron bomb are not going to bounce off that thin aluminim.
Same with the B-24 and Lancaster: each with large bomb bays designed for iron bombs to drop from a horizontal flight path.
Hmmm ... looks like the shackles pivot on the racks. So I guess they'd hold under -G's as well as +G's ... except for the bomb swinging up on the shackle and bashing into the rack. That can't be good.
-
I think I'm on the same side of the fence as you DoK. I'd much rather work for and see about getting a postive compromise than pushing for macro-realism which would drive players away. IMO anything that takes more than a basic "point&click" player skill while eliminating some really bad gameplay matters would be nice.
I'll dig into this. Make some phone calls to see what info is available and see if anyone has official papers on limits, allowances, etc. (for the B-17, Lanc, med bombers or anything I can find)
Sure beats reading the OT forum ;)
-
DoKGonZo,
The Lanc obtained it's payload be having a long shallow bomb bay rather than a short deep one.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/LancBay1.jpg)
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/LancBay2.jpg)
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/LancBay3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by hitech
The arguments I agree with so far.
1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.
Wow. HT actually agreed with something I said. :) Now, all the gamers will blame me. :D
-
Originally posted by hitech
The arguments I agree with so far.
1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.
2. Find out what the limits on bomb drops are.
(btw people are mixing terms ,please do not use the term AOA, for climb angle)
HiTech
Would 1. above also include limiting bomb dropping to F6 view for pure bombers(or even just formations)? Probably a little more work required to "make it so".
I think 1. above would be a significant 1st step in any event.
-
New idea..
How about if the bomb destructiveness to field objects drops down to half if the bombs are released under 8k AGL?
That will allow the people to do what they want, but the effectiveness of it all would be downed by half.
So with a deck running B-17 formation armed with 6x1000lbs bombs - each bombs will do only 500lbs of destruction if the drop alt is lower than 8k. Each salvo will drop not 3x1000lbs triangle, but a 3x500lbs triangle.
....
This will drop the overall effectivity of the messy "scatter bombing" by half, and require much more precision.
If for instance, they want to kill all 3xFHs on a small base in one pass deck run with a B-17 formation, their efforts would need to be precise. A 3xB17 formation carries 18k(6000x3lbs) worth of ord. If it is dropped from under 8k, the effectiveness penalty will be half the total worth, so it becomes 9k(3000x3lbs). It is precisely enough to kill all 3xFHs. But only when exact amount of ord is delivered to all 3xFHs - will the hangars go down in one pass.
In the case of the Lancs, a form. carries 42thousand lbs - which when halved, is still 21thousand lbs worth. However, it will still need to time its drop well. Each salvo will be worth 3x500lbs triangle, so the Lanc pilot will have to make sure he has the right delay time and flight path so the 14 salvos are dropped on each of the three FHs in a right amount.
...
So in effect, where one could kill all 3xFHs in a small field in one lame suicidal deck-run pass currently, he'll have to do it twice with the suggested "halvening". If he wants to deliver the full effect of the bombs, he'll have to do it properly.
The "halvening", would rarely take any huge effect when bombing towns or strat objects, since they go down easily enough.
However, it would significantly effect the usefulness of the bombers as a kamikaze deck run crop duster - spraying bombs over vital field objects to get rid of them easily without any real work.
-
I'll make prehaps a stupid propostion but ... you're used to read me now :p
What about restoring the old "laser" bombsight making it working only between 5K and 20K.
And add a bit of shake on the crosshair so the bomber pilot had to fight the "shake" and so stay in the bomber position ?
A sort of mix between the current bombsight and the good old laser sight.
-
Originally posted by hitech
My view:
1. I do not wish to disable shallow angle dive bombing from buffs.
2. I do wish it to be with in the limits of what realy could be done.
3. I do not wish to disable it, just because it wasn't done much in real live, if it could physicly be done.
The arguments I agree with so far.
1. Disabling bomb droping when in external mode.
2. Find out what the limits on bomb drops are.
(btw people are mixing terms ,please do not use the term AOA, for climb angle)
Climb or descent angle by itself should not effect if a plane can release or not. If realy should be based on the direction of the total force vector from the plane, along with the length of that vector.
Anyone care to do some research on the drop paramaters of different bomb racks?
HiTech
Why not on the heavies just make bombs droppable from the Bombadiers position only.
Seems to me would solve all the problems in one fell swoop
-
Finding specs on racks is turning into quite the task. Not given up but I'm not getting anywhere at the moment.
As for what to do about bombers? Perhaps I should refrain from adding my .02 till I resubscribe but if I was playing I'd not want bombing dumbed down tp pander to the loweest common denominator. It should take some skill IMO. Not as much as learing ACM, developing SA and figuring out how to shoot deflection shots but it should be a heck of a lot more complicated than moving your mouse a bit and clicking a button.
Players using fighters effect other players on an individual basis. However a solo player in a bomber/jabo effects the gameplay of many others. That's not good.