Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: KD303 on October 22, 2005, 07:02:25 AM
-
Yup, I know the Hornet wasn't used in WWII. Just thought it might attract your attention!
Speaking as a relative newcomer, I'd be interested to read peoples' views on the suitability of different aircraft for different purposes. It'd be interesting to hear what different people would use for the following situations. This has probably been asked many times but I'm sure a lot of the people using this forum are fairly new too so it might be of use.
OK here we go...
Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think?
Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with?
Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why?
What's your least favourite fighter? Why?
What's your favourite fighter? Why?
If you can be arsed answering any or some of these questions, I'd appreciate your thoughts. If certain people just want to make spazzy pompous comments about how superior they are and that they wouldn't lower themselves to answer my stupid questions, they can go write them on their own thread, I'm sure they'll be really interesting, only not to anyone other than themselves. ;)
To the rest of you - Thanks - it's useful for us newbers to get info of this sort on aircraft. I've put it here rather than the newbie forum because it's more specifically about aircraft.
Thanks again,
KD
-
Originally posted by KD303
Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think? Lancstukas!
Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with? Lancstukas!
Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why? P/B-26B Deathstar!
What's your least favourite fighter? Why? dont really have one, i dont know
What's your favourite fighter? Why?Hurricane IIC!
-
- High alt bomber
- A20
Define General use
Bombing strategic targets: B26
Tactical Targets: A20
Ki84, it's a fricken helicopter with fricken lazers attached to it's fricken head
P38L, challenge to fly and can hang in there with the best
-
Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think?
In 1 1/2 years I've never seen anything sunk with air dropped torpedos. High alt bomber is the way to go. Low alt bombers are just fodder for 5" gunners.
Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with? Lancstukas!
P-38L Dumptruck... but people will hate you and call you a lemming. A-20s work pretty good too.
Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why?
B-24. Good bombload, lots of guns, big & beefy.
What's your least favourite fighter? Why?
Spit1. Because you can merge on anything.. but never catch up to fill them full of .303 shells. It's frustrating.
What's your favourite fighter? Why?
P-47, any model. Wicked gun package, lots of ammo, lots of gas, hefty bombload, lots of rockets, 3 droptank options... and nothing dives like a Jug.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
Define General use
A bomber that you feel gives you the best payload/defence (I'm a Brit so I use a "c") package and can be used on a wide variety of targets. Really what I mean, is which bomber do you prefer to use? Payload-wise, the Ju88 is very useful but it is armed with gat guns whereas the Boston's seems a bit more hefty but only carries a few bombs. The Lanc carries loads of stuff (including strangely accurate 4000lb cookies which historically tended to land at least within five miles of the aiming point) but is more vulnerable than a B24 or a B17... I know it's all a bit academic, but getting the views of others is useful.
Thanks for the info so far.
-
Do you mean historically or in the sim?
Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons. Dive-bombing was more effective (and kamikaze attacks even more so), but the real ship-killer was the torpedo. Casualties were high among the torpedo planes, but they got the job done better than anything else.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by KD303
Yup, I know the Hornet wasn't used in WWII.
The Hornet(s) were used extensively in WWII (CVs 8, 12)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h81000/h81313.jpg)
-
Hey Tony:
"Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons."
Well also remember the Tirpitz being bombed from high alt. ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hey Tony:
"Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons."
Well also remember the Tirpitz being bombed from high alt. ;)
Yep, but that was a stationary target. A ship moving (and manouvring) at sea makes a much harder target.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Now, THAT is true.
Best to bomb'em at the docks. Didn't some capital German ships get bombed at Brest as well?
-
Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were at Brest for about a year, before they made the their famous "Channel Rush".
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/scharnhorst_menu.html
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Do you mean historically or in the sim?
Historically, high-altitude level bombing of warships was a waste of effort, unless you were using the German guided weapons. Dive-bombing was more effective (and kamikaze attacks even more so), but the real ship-killer was the torpedo. Casualties were high among the torpedo planes, but they got the job done better than anything else.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Agreed. There is an old navy saying, "You don't sink ships by making holes in them that let air in--you sink them by making holes that let water in." Aerial bombing could and did start fires, damage equipment, and render the ship useless, but very seldom actually sank one. Torpedos did damage all out of proportion to the warhead strength, due to the underwater damage they cause.
(edit for punctuation)
-
Well, The Tirpitz certainly got holed well, and many others. The thing with the really big ships was that they'd need big bombs, and even BIG torps.
Did torps or bombs sink the POW and Repulse? What about the Mushasi & Yamato? So many basically. Bombs or torps? Who's the winner?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Did torps or bombs sink the POW and Repulse? What about the Mushasi & Yamato? So many basically. Bombs or torps? Who's the winner?
Torps in all four cases. Musashi was hit with 20+ bombs as I recall and about 20 torps, but we hit her in both sides counterflooding her and making it harder to sink her. I think it took about 10 torps to sink Yamato. Lots of bomb hits too.
Prince of Wales was hit by seven torps and Repulse by fourteen in one massive overkill salvo after she'd dodged two prior salvos.
This is all off of memory so I may have the numbers off a bit.
-
Well, in the case of the Bismark, I think, there was a double hull and oil and gas and water tanks were between the two hulls. When they went down to check it out every single torp had penetrated the first hull but not done any damage to the inner hull (thus not helping to sink the ship at all).
This from memory from that James Cameron show/documentary.
-
There were no torpedos used in the sinking of the Ostfriedland.
-
moin
i always use the ju 88 with his full bomb load for killing a cv
im going 6-8k over target and start a 45degree dive from behind.
the cv is 80% dead and you have very god survive chance.
ju88 with only 20kgs bombs at 17k for strat targets (she is fast nearly 300mph)
ki87 with 8*100kgs at 20k for strattargets (nearly untachable and god armed 330mph).
ju88 at 13-14k with full bombload for killing a fild (had enought bombs for 6 FHs)
What's your least favourite fighter? Why?
i use the 109g10 with singel 30mm. she is fast and built up realy fast speed
thats the main reason for that plan.
109f4 with 3*20mm is realy funny not so fast but she turns realy good with the spits and has good fire power.
190a5 i like it, it is a plan for mans :-) but it is hard to fight against all the late war models but it is posible if you gat some practice in it. She has no radiator thats a good reason for this 190 because were you have nothing you cant get a hit ;-). As i was new here in game it was mi first plan were i started to be with for a long periode.
ta152. the most people didnt like it but i think it is one of the best plans here in game but you need alot of training with it and experience in the main arena.
cu chris3
-
Wasn't the Tirpitz sunk by Lancs from 617 sqn dropping those freackin big bombs?
If I remember correctly from Guy Gibsons (617 sqn leader) book, they landed close and tore the bottom off it.
Although the Navy claimed it was never really sunk by the RAF as it settled on the bottom with the decks still above water.
-
Kev,
Yes, but she wasn't at sea, moving and dodging. She was motionless, moored in a known location. In addition 617 Squadron was an elite squadron.
The B-17s at Midway did not land a single bomb on a Japanese ship of any kind.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Wasn't the Tirpitz sunk by Lancs from 617 sqn dropping those freackin big bombs?
If I remember correctly from Guy Gibsons (617 sqn leader) book, they landed close and tore the bottom off it.
Although the Navy claimed it was never really sunk by the RAF as it settled on the bottom with the decks still above water.
The Tirpitz capsized after taking a blockbuster bomb hit near its forward turrets.
On November 12th, 1944, the Tirpitz was attacked by 29 Lancaster's - including some from 617 Dambuster Squadron. Flying at 14,000 feet, their new Mark XIV bombsight gave them an excellent target to aim at. 'Blockbuster' bombs ripped into the ship and a 100 feet hole was ripped open. Her magazines exploded and the Tirpitz rolled over trapping over 1000 men in her as she turned turtle. A few - 80 men - managed to get to the bottom of the hull where a hole was cut through it and the men escaped. Many others were not so lucky.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kev,
Yes, but she wasn't at sea, moving and dodging. She was motionless, moored in a known location. In addition 617 Squadron was an elite squadron.
The B-17s at Midway did not land a single bomb on a Japanese ship of any kind.
Guess you could say 617 sqn were 'da bomb' (groan)
Fencer - Thanks been a lot of years (too many than I care to remember) since I read his book.
-
Sorry to be the correction nazi here, but they weren't blockbusters that sank the Tirpitz, they were 12,000lb 'Tallboy' bombs designed by Barnes Wallis.
'Blockbuster' bombs were the high capacity 4,000lb 8,000lb and 12,000lb bombs.
(http://www.constable.ca/bombs.jpg)
1) W. J. Lawrence wrote about the Tallboy bomb in his book, No 5 Bomber Group (1951)
It was an extraordinary weapon, an apparent contradiction in terms, since it had at one and the same time the explosive force of a large high-capacity blast bomb and the penetrating power of an armour-piercing bomb. On the ground it was capable of displacing a million cubic feet of earth and made a crater which it would have taken 5,000 tons of earth to fill. It was ballistically perfect and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity, variously estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 feet a second, which was, of course, a good deal faster than sound so that, as with the V-2 rocket, the noise of its fall would be heard after that of the explosion
-
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.
Against a stationary and completely unsuspecting target, with watertight doors presumably all open, no damage control crews in place, the bombers undisturbed by AA fire or defending fighters....
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Against a stationary and completely unsuspecting target, with watertight doors presumably all open, no damage control crews in place, the bombers undisturbed by AA fire or defending fighters....
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
The stationary part is relevant, true. However the rest would not have mattered. The bomb went off in the forward powder magazine, blowing the bottom out of the ship. Nothing could have saved her.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Everyone always forgets the Arizona was sunk at Pearl harbor by a level bombing B5N at high alt. One 800-kilogram bomb was all it took.
Keep in mind that was done by stupidly, intensive training of the Japanese aircrews for that one mission. Their accuracy on that mission was phenominal for WWII.
Point of interest, the 800kg "bomb" was actually a shell for the 14" guns on Kirishima (or was it a 16" shell for Nagato, can't quite recall). I presume they added stabilizing fins to it though.
-
I dont' think it was a shell. I think the bomb was designed off the idea of the shells, but it was in fact built as a bomb.
-
USS Hornet (CV-8) was sunk at the Battle of Santa Cruz Island on October 26, 1942
USS Hornet (CV-12) served in many raids and battles from June 1944 to the end of the war and served in the fleet until finally being decommissioned in June 1970
-
Well, the ships at Pearl were, - like the Tirpiz, - stationary.
And if it was a shell it would be a 14". The 15" weights about 950 kg's the 16" more than a ton. The biggest I've seen was a WWI 18".
-
Hornet is close for a WW2 aircraft
(http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/hornet/horn20.jpg)
-
Belive it was in service in WW2 but found no enemy.
Maybe used in ground strikes though?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Belive it was in service in WW2 but found no enemy.
Maybe used in ground strikes though?
I used to think so too, but it was not. It entered service in 1946.
Very impressive prop plane though.
-
Okay, here goes:
First flight 28.07.1944.
Top speed 472 mph, range 2500 miles, armament 4xHizooka, 2000 lbs ordnance.
Very impresive!
Entered cervice in 1946, saw action after WW2.
Pretty bird!
(http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/hornet/horncov.jpg)
-
I torp cv's all the time, either JU88's barely off the water, i'm talking 20' in a formation because they carry 2 torps on each plane, so 6 total with a formation, or spawn a PT boat with torps, also SBD is not a bad torp plane either..... Dive bombing with B26's gets it done as well... or just find 2 - 3 ppl and up ju87 stukas and drop some big boys on it... cv's are real easy when close to shore, just up a PT boat or get in shore battery
-
Originally posted by KD303
OK here we go...
Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think? ==== AR234===
Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with? ==AR234==
Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why? =LANCASTERS== lotsa boom power !!!
What's your least favourite fighter? Why? ==190d== cause they allways run.
What's your favourite fighter? Why? ==A20== very few rides can out turn it,great guns,good armour,decent speed,exelent ord. capacity.
If you can be arsed answering any or some of these questions, I'd appreciate your thoughts. If certain people just want to make spazzy pompous comments about how superior they are and that they wouldn't lower themselves to answer my stupid questions, they can go write them on their own thread, I'm sure they'll be really interesting, only not to anyone other than themselves. ;)
To the rest of you - Thanks - it's useful for us newbers to get info of this sort on aircraft. I've put it here rather than the newbie forum because it's more specifically about aircraft.
Thanks again,
KD
-
Originally posted by KD303
Yup, I know the Hornet wasn't used in WWII. Just thought it might attract your attention!
Speaking as a relative newcomer, I'd be interested to read peoples' views on the suitability of different aircraft for different purposes. It'd be interesting to hear what different people would use for the following situations. This has probably been asked many times but I'm sure a lot of the people using this forum are fairly new too so it might be of use.
OK here we go...
Attacking a CV that hasn't twigged it's been spotted, far out to sea. What's best, a large bomber at high altitude? A torpedo bomber? What do you think?
Attacking a CV a few miles off shore that has already started pounding a town and base? What's a good plane to try hitting it with?
Which bomber do you prefer to use for general use and why?
What's your least favourite fighter? Why?
What's your favourite fighter? Why?
If you can be arsed answering any or some of these questions, I'd appreciate your thoughts. If certain people just want to make spazzy pompous comments about how superior they are and that they wouldn't lower themselves to answer my stupid questions, they can go write them on their own thread, I'm sure they'll be really interesting, only not to anyone other than themselves. ;)
To the rest of you - Thanks - it's useful for us newbers to get info of this sort on aircraft. I've put it here rather than the newbie forum because it's more specifically about aircraft.
Thanks again,
KD
1.--- I ussed to do it in Lancs, cuz the bombing was not precisse like now, and if i miss it in 1st pass, i have eggs for 3 more passes, loading 14 x1000lbs, salvo 3, CV need 8k.
But now i use B26s, climbs ok, fast, best tail guns/amo in the game
i use A234s-- for emergency, fast cv sunk, lvts close to shore,base vulched. I sunk CVs in A234s from 12-15k doing 400mph, Dive bombing in A234s is fun on CV, 500mph in dive, the acs can't hit me, but you have to hit with all eggs in A234s 3 x3 x 500kg x2.2=9900 lbs
2. ---B26
3.--- B26s fast, lot of tail amo, Il2 for Hoing vulchers
4.---all figters loaded with Hispanos, temp,typhy,HuryC,Chog , cuz those 20 mm damage settings are modeled unfair,"super uber", comparing with other 20mm,
Imop kiling with Hispbazookas is more "gay" than flying La7,
5. ---109g10----fast, best climber, alt =energy, energy=life
-
ghi,
I challenge you to provide material evidence that the Hispanos hit so massively harder in AH that the MG151/20, B-20, Type 99 Model II, ShVAK or Ho-5.
The Hispano hits about three times as hard as a .50 cal and by your description it hits about 10 times as hard as other 20mm cannons. We know this is BS.
As I recall, in tests the Type 99 Model II hit 90 or 95% as hard as the Hispano.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
ghi,
I challenge you to provide material evidence that the Hispanos hit so massively harder in AH that the MG151/20, B-20, Type 99 Model II, ShVAK or Ho-5.
The Hispano hits about three times as hard as a .50 cal and by your description it hits about 10 times as hard as other 20mm cannons. We know this is BS.
As I recall, in tests the Type 99 Model II hit 90 or 95% as hard as the Hispano.
This is my oppinion/ observations and maybe is not only me ,about huge diference of damage after playing 3-4years,
Hits from temp.typhy Chog,huricaneC, are much deadly than any other planes loaded with 4x20mm,
German planes loaded with 4x20mm are joke comparing with hispanos,
Where's the maingeschose mg151 shell? should make same , maybe more damage ,
I can disable 3-4 panzers, maybe more depends how i hit, in Huricane2C with 240 rounds of Hispanos,
Try to do it with the same amount of amo with any plane that has 4x 20mm, niki, fwA5/A8
Now you tell me how many panzers were destroyed in WW2, by HuricaneC"s cannon shells? Would the 20mm Hispanos penetrate panzer"s armour? Why only hispanos can do it? cuz all others 20mm cannons had armour piercing rounds?
-
ghi,
The German mine shells were not loaded on an entire belt. Yes, they did hit harder than the Hispano round did, but the other rounds in the belt did not hit as hard as the Hispano. Because AH uses a generic, averaged belt, the German rounds do less than the Hispano because on average the rounds in the German belt did less than the Hispano. Personally I would like to see each round type in the belt modeled for that given round and allow the player to select a belt from several historical belt loadouts. No cheesey 100% mine shells or other BS. This has been covered before in this very forum.
As to killing tanks with Hispanos, well, you must be vastly better than I am at it because ever since the last revision to tank armor I have not been able to do jack all to a Panzer IV H with the four 20mm Hispano Mk IIs/175rpg, on the Mossie.
-
I'm sure most of you are aware of the analysis of WW2 aircraft gun effectiveness here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
In terms of average damage per hit for a typical ammo belt loadout, the scores for the principal 20mm guns are:
Hispano = 20
MG 151/20 = 16
Type 99-2 = 15
MG-FF = 14
Type 99-1 = 12
ShVAK = 11
For comparison, the .50 M2 scores 4.6.
When you factor in RoF, the .50 M2, ShVAK and MG 151 move up a bit relative to the Hispano, the Type 99s and the MG-FF move down.
These figures are of course for destructiveness against aircraft, in which HE/I content is important. Against tanks, it's kinetic energy that counts (assuming all are firing solid AP shot). So of the 20mm rounds, the powerful Hispano moves well ahead of everything except the rare Japanese Ho-3. The Hispano AP was capable of penetrating a maximum of something like 35mm in ideal circumstances. The MG 151/20 could manage only 24mm, about the same as the .50 AP. (Note that the practical penetration of all of these rounds would be less - somtimes much less - in operational circumstances).
This is from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45 concerning some tests the RAF carried out against Japanese tanks (admittedly fairly weak with a maximum armour of only 25mm) with a Hurricane IIC firing HEI and SAPI : "The SAP/I rounds were effective against both medium and light tanks, penetrating the turrets several times." The SAPI was less effective at penetration than the AP, probably just a bit better than the .50 AP.
The interesting question is how much use the RAF and USAAF made of the 20mm AP rounds which they had available. While the British extensively used the SAPI from 1942 onwards, the AP did not seem to be much used.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I thought the big damage in that case was from mines.
-Blogs
Originally posted by LLv34_Snefens
Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were at Brest for about a year, before they made the their famous "Channel Rush".
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/scharnhorst/scharnhorst_menu.html
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
I thought the big damage in that case was from mines.
-Blogs
I'm not sure I follow you here, but I think you're asking why the MG151/20 doesn't show up higher than the Hispano Mk II on a per hit average.
The reason is that the very destructive mine shells were only one ever four or so places in the belt and the non-mine shells were less destructive than the Hispano. That causes the average damage to favor the Hispano, but if you landed that one mine shell and compared it to a single Hispano hit the mine shell would do more. In AH it just averages the performance of the shells in the belt. That means you don't get those big damage mine hits, but you also don't get weaker hits from the other shells.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The reason is that the very destructive mine shells were only one ever four or so places in the belt
Not really
(http://img109.potato.com/loc131/th_b33_Clip_2.jpg) (http://img109.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc131&image=b33_Clip_2.jpg)
-
All up to the armourer, and/or pilot yes?
-
depends on the mission, against 4 engine bombers was 1 MG+1AP+1HEIT. against other aircraft 3MG+1AP+1HEIT.... and according to Butch2K, in the east front when was expected to fight IL2, 50% of AP ammo was recommended.
-
Thanks to those who actually answered my Qs. Appreciated. I was of course talking in relation to AH and not historically as I doubt any of you flew combat missions in WWII (Tony's question). I was indeed referring to the DH Hornet in the title to this thread - it didn't see action or even Ops in the war - it was a post war aircraft, first delivered to 64 squadron at Horsham in March 1946, replacing, interestingly enough, Mustangs. Although, for the pedants, the RAF did have them from 1945 - an original batch of 60 having been ordered.(credit - David Monday, British Aircraft of WWII, Pilot Press 1982) I didn't mean the American F18 Hornet of modern times.
It was interesting to hear some views, though the thread was hijacked with the usual warblings. Nope, I'm purely interested in hearing pesonal views in the form of answers to my questions, if you want to talk about 617 and the Tirpitz, please do, only why not start your own thread?
Thanks again to those who answered. Please continue!:aok