Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: B@tfinkV on March 16, 2006, 02:50:27 PM
-
a 3 second burst follow by a 3 second interval from all unmanned drone's guns when the trigger is held from the manned possition.
how about it?
-
I guess I should ask why? I realize IRL gunners were supposed to fire in short bursts to prevent buring out the barrels too quick (i think) but I dont think they had any sort of mechanizim that prevented them from just laying on the trigger until the guns were empty.
any more than that and we'll soon be talking about adding realizm like burnet out barrels and jams, and then if we apply that to bombers then we need to apply it fighters also.
-
Nop. Why should I have to wait 3 seconds after my first kill before I can deffend myself against the next guy that comes in. He does not have that limitation so why punish us buff drivers with it? Sounds like another lame furballer atempt to get rid of the hystoricaly acurate bombers.
-
you can fire a fully automatic unlimited stream from the one you are manning.
if you have a gunner also then you get two full streams available.
what i mean is, when you are in the tail holding the fire on constantly the baall turret and waistgunners will only be firing in bursts. This will make them less accurate, as you might only get fire at times when you're missing with the manned gun.
Then manned gun should be the only one that has your skill level and the ability to track a target perfectly for minutes on end, whilst holding down the trigger on automatic fire the whole time.
-
Why would you want the guns to be less accurate?
-
awhh well, ok, forget it :D
-
People would optimize their attacks on the bombers around the 3 second timer too. Which would produce a weird artificial effect.
Better to model barrel burnout ... and maybe reduce the ammo load so that bombers need to hold fire for good shots instead of spraying lead like some spastic garden sprinkler.
-
If this is because of 'the bombers being too hard to kill'.....
They're quite easy with a well thought-trough attack (headons, swift attacks)
-
it was more about bombers being too easy to kill in.
the main reason i though it ocured whilst in a b26 after my 7th kill.
if you're in the ball turret, then you've still got two 50cals to spray constantly with. just the unmanned gun will shoot in bursts, still directly on crosshaired target of the manned gun, as they are now.
-
Haha, those aren't bursts Batfink :)
What you see are the tracer-bullets. The normal bullets you can't see.
It looks just like it's shooting in bursts though
-
im not suggesting thats what it is in game now, suggesting changing it to that....my god is my typing so bimpossible to understand? :D
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
People would optimize their attacks on the bombers around the 3 second timer too. Which would produce a weird artificial effect.
There would not need to be a three second timer. Each gun could be on a slightly staggered fire pattern. The end result is that instead of 18 guns firing a constant stream of bullets at an attacking fighter, only the 2 guns fired by the manned gun would be firing the constant stream. The other 16 would be firing in 3 second bursts, staggered so that the lead from 8 of these guns would be out at any given time.
Bat -- I had thought about this too, but never suggested it, making it an automatic good idea as far as I am concerned. But part of my reasoning was that overall the ammo would last longer, giving the bombers more time to defend themselves. I see this as an advantage to the bombers, not the furballers.
The only additional thing is that disabled / out of ammo gun positions should not be manable -- i.e. once the tail position in the lead bomber is out of ammo, you should not be able to continue to use it as the aiming point of the remaining guns (this has been suggested in the past, I know).
-
In general I agree that there are a lot of mechanical and human dynamics which are missing; and which could make a big impact on the MA.
Barrel burn-out on AAA and turrets, cannons jamming (boy that'd be a popular feature, huh?), the phsyical difficulty in pulling consecutive near-black-out manouevers without respite, mechanical fatigue from high-G or high-speed manouevers (more jammed guns maybe), the infinitesimal likelihood that a pilot would remain in a burning fighter (let alone keep dogfighting), etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
a 3 second burst follow by a 3 second interval from all unmanned drone's guns when the trigger is held from the manned possition.
how about it?
No freaking way.
-
On the one hand I can see your point. On the other I want the SOB to run out of ammo faster, so I'd say in general I'm against it. It's still got 36 guns all aiming for 1 players's pipper (not all at once, but still, 36-frikkin-guns), even if some of them staggered, it would still be way more lethal than it ever was in real life.
I think the problem with bombers isn't their guns, at the moment. I think the problem with bombers is their constant 300mph speeds and the fact that they outrun most fighters in this game. If we impose stronger fuel burn on bombers (only bombers, like fighters still have 2x but bombers have 4x or 6x) then they HAVE to conserve gas, which means cruising, which returns bombers to a more historical footing.
If bombers cruise fighters actually become a threat, because they are now travelling much faster. In this situation bombers would NEED 36-frikking-guns.
So I say the problem is not the guns, but the "ludicrous speed!" setting they all fly at 100% of the time. Hell the only time any bomber EVER throttles back is to stay in formation or to land (if they even bother to do either).
-
A little off topic but back in the day, I remember hearing in real life, it was crazy as heck to go headon with a bomber formation. I heard this in a documentary about the Battle of Britain. They said it was nearly suicidal. Now with all the people saying that fighters should attack bombers from the front and sides(I agree with the sides) is this really true, or an unproven guess?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
...
If bombers cruise fighters actually become a threat, because they are now travelling much faster. In this situation bombers would NEED 36-frikking-guns.
...
Yeah ... what he said.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
On the one hand I can see your point. On the other I want the SOB to run out of ammo faster, so I'd say in general I'm against it. It's still got 36 guns all aiming for 1 players's pipper (not all at once, but still, 36-frikkin-guns), even if some of them staggered, it would still be way more lethal than it ever was in real life.
I think the problem with bombers isn't their guns, at the moment. I think the problem with bombers is their constant 300mph speeds and the fact that they outrun most fighters in this game. If we impose stronger fuel burn on bombers (only bombers, like fighters still have 2x but bombers have 4x or 6x) then they HAVE to conserve gas, which means cruising, which returns bombers to a more historical footing.
If bombers cruise fighters actually become a threat, because they are now travelling much faster. In this situation bombers would NEED 36-frikking-guns.
So I say the problem is not the guns, but the "ludicrous speed!" setting they all fly at 100% of the time. Hell the only time any bomber EVER throttles back is to stay in formation or to land (if they even bother to do either).
Where do you pull this stuff from? Outruns most fighters in the game?! Even a Hurricane can catch us.
The idea of increasing the burn multiplier over that of fighters two to three times as much is ludicrous. Next you'll be saying there should be an altitude cap for bombers. I can only guess you're trolling.
The only reason fighters aren't a threat is because most of them are incompetent when attacking bombers. Most of them come up one at a time and crawl up on our six. I've even slowed down for them to do so. Even if by some large stretch, HTC did slow the bombers down, fighters would still bite it and for the same reasons they do now.
I predominately fly bombers. I do occasionally up a fighter for bombers and I'm talking about bombers with some altitude. I'm not very good with fighters, but I kill them and land every time. Learn to do it right, Krusty and stop trying to blame your problems on bombers.
-
Originally posted by dizman
A little off topic but back in the day, I remember hearing in real life, it was crazy as heck to go headon with a bomber formation. I heard this in a documentary about the Battle of Britain. They said it was nearly suicidal. Now with all the people saying that fighters should attack bombers from the front and sides(I agree with the sides) is this really true, or an unproven guess?
I'm not a big expert on this stuff, but I've read some of the stuff some of our own experts have to say on the subject. Apparently, one of the more successful tactics of some squads in the LW was to HO. Not many in here do it so I don't get much practice at defending with the bombers guns. Those that have done this to me have survived and gotten hits on my planes. Whatever you have to say about it, it's a far better attack than sitting on a bombers six.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Where do you pull this stuff from? Outruns most fighters in the game?! Even a Hurricane can catch us.
The idea of increasing the burn multiplier over that of fighters two to three times as much is ludicrous. Next you'll be saying there should be an altitude cap for bombers. I can only guess you're trolling.
The only reason fighters aren't a threat is because most of them are incompetent when attacking bombers. Most of them come up one at a time and crawl up on our six. I've even slowed down for them to do so. Even if by some large stretch, HTC did slow the bombers down, fighters would still bite it and for the same reasons they do now.
I predominately fly bombers. I do occasionally up a fighter for bombers and I'm talking about bombers with some altitude. I'm not very good with fighters, but I kill them and land every time. Learn to do it right, Krusty and stop trying to blame your problems on bombers.
You are aware that when the Ki67 gets up to speed it is EXTREMELY tough to catch up to, right? Forget it if you have to both grab and climb. For someone who "seems to know all about buffs", you should have know this.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by dizman
A little off topic but back in the day, I remember hearing in real life, it was crazy as heck to go headon with a bomber formation. I heard this in a documentary about the Battle of Britain. They said it was nearly suicidal. Now with all the people saying that fighters should attack bombers from the front and sides(I agree with the sides) is this really true, or an unproven guess?
JG26 (Abbeville Kids) HO'd in 109's and later in 190's. They were distinguished by the "yellow prop nose". They brought more fear into the Bombers flying into Europe, by using this tactic to GREATT SUCCESS.
Still in AH2, the HO is the best method to counter Buffs, then the next vulnerable is from right underneath them. Next, would be to play the angle game from above.
Be warned ChopSaw is an expert in the Bomber, even though I cannot recall a kill by him of me. It appears he used to fly under another name perhaps.
Karaya
PS - I'm just a Furballing, fighter, gv jockey who knows nothing.
-
why give the fighter a 3 second window to fight back the bomber is already at a disadvantage
-
Originally posted by E25280
...........
Bat -- I had thought about this too, but never suggested it, making it an automatic good idea as far as I am concerned. But part of my reasoning was that overall the ammo would last longer, giving the bombers more time to defend themselves. I see this as an advantage to the bombers, not the furballers.
The only additional thing is that disabled / out of ammo gun positions should not be manable -- i.e. once the tail position in the lead bomber is out of ammo, you should not be able to continue to use it as the aiming point of the remaining guns (this has been suggested in the past, I know).
good point about the killed gunner. looks like you and I are the sole candidates for the burst idea though :)
Also good opinions against the idea in general Dok/Krusty.
I suppose the question come round again to the Realism VS Enjoyment catch 22.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You are aware that when the Ki67 gets up to speed it is EXTREMELY tough to catch up to, right? Forget it if you have to both grab and climb. For someone who "seems to know all about buffs", you should have know this.
Yes. I am aware of this. I am also aware of the Arado which is the third fastest aircraft in the game behind the Me262 and Me163. Are you aware this thread is about heavy bombers?
Bye the way, it was you who bragged in a post that you shot down buffs "all the time" in a Hurricane.. One of the slowest fighters in the game. If you can do it in that I would have thought a faster fighter would be no problem for you.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Be warned ChopSaw is an expert in the Bomber, even though I cannot recall a kill by him of me. It appears he used to fly under another name perhaps.
:lol Interesting to know that out of the hundreds who play, someone has to shoot you down to be an expert. Also of interest; I've never said I was an expert in buffs. I do seem to know more than you on the subject, though.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
I suppose the question come round again to the Realism VS Enjoyment catch 22.
:) You guys want realism? Why didn't you say so? My suggestion is; as aircraft are destroyed at the front, they have to be replaced by aircraft ferried in from the rear of the country or from factories. Set it up so real players, not AI, have to do the ferrying. That'd be real. How about all guns in the game seize up if you fire them for too long a burst without sufficient cool down. That'd be real too. How about pilots who die have to travel from the rear of the map to the front before they can fly there. How about when a fighter plane catches on fire it explodes soon thereafter instead of flying around for 5 minutes. This is fun. Just let me know if you need anymore. I've got plenty.
Orrrrrrr........you could always try learning how to kill buffs instead of trying to figure out ways to nerf them so they'll be easy mode targets. Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
why give the fighter a 3 second window to fight back the bomber is already at a disadvantage
There isn't anything I don't like about that sentence.
-
Normal, you are a bomber pilot.
And
so you have nothing against bomber flying way faster than during WWII
so you have nothing against bomber able to put several guns on one target
so you have nothing against bomber being a stable gun plateform
...
in short you are biased.
Go back to your 25% fuel thread Mister "I fly fighter 1% of my time" so you can explain us again and again how 25% fuel is more than enought for a fighter.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Orrrrrrr........you could always try learning how to kill buffs instead of trying to figure out ways to nerf them so they'll be easy mode targets. Just a thought.
dont be a mug. I kill buffs just fine.
my view point came from flying in buffs, and it being too easy to kill fighters.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
JG26 (Abbeville Kids) HO'd in 109's and later in 190's. They were distinguished by the "yellow prop nose". They brought more fear into the Bombers flying into Europe, by using this tactic to GREATT SUCCESS.
I love misinformation, thanks for clearing that up. Straffo, as far as I know bombers never flew alone(unless maybe the Mosquito bomber did, dunno) and when only one plane entered their area of fire they all opened fire to rip that sob to shreds. The game tries to reproduce that the best it can. A bomber is also not a stable gun platform, it can move, also it can be affected by cannon fire shooting off alierons and the such. I also believe that yes the bombers are probably faster than in real life but they need it, who really wants to go on a 3 hour mission to bomb a town, not me. I barely fly bombers anymore so i would actually be more fighter biased than anything.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I think the problem with bombers isn't their guns, at the moment. I think the problem with bombers is their constant 300mph speeds and the fact that they outrun most fighters in this game. If we impose stronger fuel burn on bombers (only bombers, like fighters still have 2x but bombers have 4x or 6x) then they HAVE to conserve gas, which means cruising, which returns bombers to a more historical footing.
Which bombers go 300 mph? None on my computer do. My typical cruise speed during a bomb run is 225 mph.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
...
I suppose the question come round again to the Realism VS Enjoyment catch 22.
Heavy bomber flights are being pretty harshly abused in the MA, and something needs to happen to correct this. Their use as flak platforms. Their use on the deck in pure suicide missions. Their recent tendency to deliberately ram fighters (hey, they got 3 lives, right?). And, of course, everyone's favorite - the dive bombing bomber formations.
Modelling barrel burn-out would be the more practical application of your idea. If the gunners maintain fire discipline, they stay effective. If they do like they do now, they burn out their guns after the first couple attacks (based on current "technique" anyway) and are defenseless. This shouldn't be too tough to code up, just keep a counter of number of seconds the trigger is held down and then decrement it by the number of seconds of cool down times some constant. The cool-down constant could be cranked down for the MA, and kept realistic for event-based arenas. This would mean bomber groups in the MA would need to use teamwork in who fires when at which incoming target. And the gunners or pilot-gunners would need to refine some technique.
As for the other forms of bomber-related idiocy, these all stem from the fact that a flight of BUFF's is a lot of firepower that can be suicided into a target or target area with no perk cost at all. Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used.
Care does need to be taken not to penalize the people who are using bombers as intended. These folks usually land their planes, so perks for formations won't affect them. And they usually don't operate completely alone, so fire discipline won't be too big an issue.
-
Ok, you've sold me.
now....how do we get HT to pay attention to this?
-
HT reads everything. If he agrees he'll do it. If he don't he won't.
I think the barrel burn-out would add some depth for the bomber guys in ToD. It's one thing to say you need to stay in formation, its another to have a very practical reason to do so.
The way formations are abused in the MA is absurd and has been documented often enough.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Normal, you are a bomber pilot.
And
so you have nothing against bomber flying way faster than during WWII
so you have nothing against bomber able to put several guns on one target
so you have nothing against bomber being a stable gun plateform
...
in short you are biased.
Go back to your 25% fuel thread Mister "I fly fighter 1% of my time" so you can explain us again and again how 25% fuel is more than enought for a fighter.
Straffo,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're addressing me.
You're right, normally I am a bomber pilot. It has little to do with my view. I attempt to view the game in an overall sense and comment accordingly. I'd like to point out, again, that I myself have little difficulty in shooting down bombers without dying myself. I do it in both Mustang and Spitfire. If I, who do not fly fighters that often, can do this, why is it such a trial for those that are more accustomed to fighters?
You're right, I have nothing against the speed of bombers in AH. I also have nothing against the speed of fighters in AH. You guys trying to tell me you throttle back to cruise?
You're right, I have nothing against bombers being able to put several guns on one target. This is a WWII simulator, bombers in WWII could do this and it's not unreasonable to allow it in AH.
You're right, I have nothing against a bomber being a stable gun platform. See the paragraph above for reasoning.
You're wrong, I'm not biased. I simply don't want to see bombers nerfed to suit the needs of pilots who don't care to learn how to fight bombers effectively. I also want bombers to remain at least something of a challenge to shoot down. Both to provide interest for myself when I shoot them down and to prevent any lame newb from finding it easy to do so.
You're wrong, I've never said 25% fuel is enough for a fighter. What I have said is that it's sufficient for a base defense. I've also said it would be a hindrance to fighters wishing to pursue an offense. Take some time and read that thread again. If you don't have the patience to read it, just read the last posts between SlapShot and myself. Might clue you in.
As a side note, how about fighters throttling back to conserve fuel if their field is porked to 25%?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
dont be a mug. I kill buffs just fine.
my view point came from flying in buffs, and it being too easy to kill fighters.
If you kill buffs just fine, then you agree it is not too difficult. That means you agree the buffs don't have too easy a time of it killing fighters.
What you might be saying here is, it's too easy for buffs to kill fighters who don't know how to kill buffs. That's still not a good reason to nerf bombers.
What's a mug?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Heavy bomber flights are being pretty harshly abused in the MA, and something needs to happen to correct this. Their use as flak platforms. Their use on the deck in pure suicide missions. Their recent tendency to deliberately ram fighters (hey, they got 3 lives, right?). And, of course, everyone's favorite - the dive bombing bomber formations.
Modelling barrel burn-out would be the more practical application of your idea. If the gunners maintain fire discipline, they stay effective. If they do like they do now, they burn out their guns after the first couple attacks (based on current "technique" anyway) and are defenseless. This shouldn't be too tough to code up, just keep a counter of number of seconds the trigger is held down and then decrement it by the number of seconds of cool down times some constant. The cool-down constant could be cranked down for the MA, and kept realistic for event-based arenas. This would mean bomber groups in the MA would need to use teamwork in who fires when at which incoming target. And the gunners or pilot-gunners would need to refine some technique.
As for the other forms of bomber-related idiocy, these all stem from the fact that a flight of BUFF's is a lot of firepower that can be suicided into a target or target area with no perk cost at all. Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used.
Care does need to be taken not to penalize the people who are using bombers as intended. These folks usually land their planes, so perks for formations won't affect them. And they usually don't operate completely alone, so fire discipline won't be too big an issue.
Flak platforms: I myself am kind of on the fence regarding the flak platform issue. I have little experience with seeing people use it to break a cap or use it to cap a field, so I'm not sure about the abuse you describe.
On deck pure suicide: Seems to me there's more fighters doing that than bombers.
Ramming fighters: I'd really like to see that. You're telling me that a big, fat, slow and slow maneuvering bomber is deliberately running down the faster and more agile fighters? How?
Dive bombing bomber formations: I assume you're talking about heavies, Lancaster and the like. I agree. On another thread, I posted in favor of trying to fix this by allowing bombing only from the F6 (bombardiers) position in combination with an inclinometer lock out. HT posted to the thread and he felt such a fix would just be accommodated by those who dive bomb using the heavies and they'd just work around the limitations. If you have a suggestion to remedy this situation, I for one would like to hear it.
Modeling for barrel burn out is an interesting idea. Would that also apply to fighter aircraft?
There is a correlation to your desire to see buffs perked. Perk all fighter planes except the least capable. I see more fighter craft suicide than I do bombers.
I do use bombers as they were intended to be used. I level bomb from a decent altitude. No lower than 8,500 and usually at ~ 14. Some of your suggestions would penalize me. Perks alone would affect me. It would be difficult to justify spending the time flying buffs if it weren't for formations. I don't always return with a full formation and sometimes I ditch the drones to get the plane down fast. I also usually gun for myself.
-
A few quotes from the article "Saga of the Short Snorters" in the April 2006 issue of WW2 Magazine that may answer a few points posed here. The article describes the missions in the early days of three B-17 bombers all named "Short Snorter".
Question 1: Were bombers "sitting ducks" for the fighters?
". . . the skies cleared completely and [Major Paul L.] Fishburne now knew for certain there were no other friendly planes ahead of him. Alarmed, he called his tail gunner, staff sgt. Thomas J. Hansbury, and asked how many planes were still in the formation. Hansbury replied "Sixteen". . . When the 91st was 30 minutes from the target, however, the Germans had recovered their senses . . . Over the next four hours, the group was attacked by 175 enemy fighters. Four bombers were lost in the melee. . ."
Hmm . . . 175 vs 16, and only 4 bombers lost. Sitting ducks.
Different mission -- "Fourteen Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters struck the formation as it headed home. The Luftwaffe pilots approached to within 800 yards of the bombers during their attack . . . Soon afterwards, shrapnel from 88mm anti-aircraft shells broke the window in front of [Lt. William D.] Bloodgood and punctured Short Snorter's No. 1 gas tank. Picking out the damaged bomber, three Focke Wulf FW-190s pressed their owne attack and hit all four of the B-17s propellers and both wings. Additional damage was inflicted by a 20mm cannon shell that penetrated the No. 4 engine cowling and a second shell that exploded in the rear of the fuselage and hit the VHF radio transmitter. Also destroyed were the elevator control and auxiliary cables as well as the oxygen line to the radio combartment. Nevertheless, Bloodgood brought his aircraft and its crew back to base with only two wounded crew members."
3v1, and made it back.
"Short Snorter II [was] . . . part of a strike force made up of 65 B-17s . . . Fifteen to 20 German fighters, including for the first time twin-engined me-110s, hit the 91st when it was about 10 minutes from the target and continued their attacks until the bombers were on their way home and well out over the North Sea. Two bombers in the 91st's 323rd Squadron went down as well as three others from the 1st bomb wing."
Bomber losses heavy, to be sure, but no turkey shoot. Also note the length of time the attack continued. The LW obviously was taking their time setting up the attacks.
Question 2, Luftwaffe tactics.
"While flak was light, enemy fighter opposition was intense. Between 50 and 75 aircraft, Me-109s and Fw-190s, began harassing the bomber stream 35 miles inland from the French coast. The attacks continued up to the target and on the return. German fighters peeled out of their formation four at a time to make a feint at the bombers and then split into two groups that attached the Americans from 11 and 2 o'clock."
Different mission -- "Heavy flak tore into the bombers, and approximately 30 Fw-190A-4s of III Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 2 (III/JG.2 "Richthofen"), attacked while over Lorient. The German pilots formed in two lines and them peeled off to charge through the American formation. Short Snorter was hit in the No. 3 engine just as it cleared the target. Dropping out of formation and heading down, about five minutes after it had been hit two chutes were seen coming from the plane, but seconds later the bomber exploded in a ball of fire, tiny bits of debris scattering across the water. None of the 10 man crew survived. The bomber's destruction was credited to III/JG.2's commander, Captian Egon Meyer, his 56th of an eventual 102 victories before he himself was killed in action on March 2, 1944."
Another mission -- "Soon after the American bombers crossed over to the Continent, approximately 75 Germans attacked the formation . . . The Germans struck head-on with the intent of breaking up the formation and distupting the bomb run. Four 306th bombers were rapidly brought down . . ."
Last Mission of Short Snorter III -- ". . . the 91st passed over the East Frisian Islands, they started to fly through dense clouds of flak that followed them until they were attacked by German fighters, which repeatedly hit the formation all the way to the target. Between passes by Me-109s and Fw-190s, Me-110s stood out beyond the range of the bombers machine guns and lobbed 20mm and 30mm cannon shells into the densely packed American formation."
Question 3: Effectiveness and range of defensive Guns (bold mine).
"Just east of Heligoland at least 60 enemy aircraft began the day's attacks. More than half were Fw-190s, with Me-109s, Me-110s and Ju-88s also taking their turns to harass the bombers.
Three minutes before reaching the target, an Me-109 came in on No. 337 (Short Snorter III) from 2 o'clock high, approaching to within 250 yards before breaking away at 5 o'clock. The left waist gunner, Staff Sgt. Alvin T. Shippang, began firing short bursts at the diving enemy aircraft while it was 1000 yards out and continued to do so as it broke away. The Me-109 spun sdownward, burst into flames and explodes at about 10,000 feet. Six minutes after bombs away, an Fw-190 dove on Short Snorter III from 2 o'clock high. This time it was top turret gunner Tech. Sgt. Sebastian Scavello who shot back, firing 50 rounds at the aircraft when it was 800 yards away. The fighter dove past the right wing of the bomber and continued straight down into the ground. Three minutes after Scavello's victory, another Fw-190 passed at 1:30 o'clock level. Ball turret gunner Staff Sgt. Joseph A. Rekas sighted his twin .50 calibers and fired 50 rounds at the fighter as it closed. He then whirled the ball turret around and got off two more bursts as the Fw-190 tried to escape. Hit again by Scavello, the German fighter dove downward; parts flew off the fuselage at about 20,000 feet, and the plane continued down and burrowed into the ground. Having fought off attacks for over an hour and a half, Short Snorter III returned home safely.
The April 4 mission to the Renault works near Paris was another test of the gunnery skills of the 91st's crews. In addition to moderately heavy flak, on the way back from bombing the factory, the Americans were jumped by at least 60 enemy aircraft. During the hit-and-run attacks, which persisted all the way to the French coast, Short Snorter III was hit by an Fw-190 coming in from 6 o'clock high. The tail gunner, Staff Sgt. Anthony J. Roy, let the German come within 600 yards before opening fire. His aim was accurate, and he saw his foe's right wing cowling fly off, followed by part of the wing itself.
As the German hurtled to earth, two more Fw-190s appeared. Sgt. Roy immediately switched his focus to those two who, for reasons unknown, decided not to press their own attack. Eight minutes later yet another Fw-190 dived at Short Snorter III, from 6 o'clock high. The radio operator, Tech. Sgt. Lawrence J. Brandenburg, engaged it with the radio compartment gun and set the German on fire. The Fw-190 went into a dive and exploded a few hundred yards below the bomber."
I am not sure I have a basic point beyond the fact that bombers flying in formation were by no means easy prey. A single fighter in the MA attacking 3 bombers flying in formation should not expect 3 easy kills, which seems to be what many "fighter jocks" want. Looking at this article and many others like it, it occurs to me that the LW approached the bomber formations almost gingerly, tap-dancing around the perimeter until an advantage could be seen. Usually this was when flak or (as was the case of Short Snorter II) mechanical failure caused a single bomber to fall out of formation. They certainly did not simply wade into the formation and shoot down planes at will.
That being said, I do not agree with the statement that this particular idea "nerfs" the bombers. Quite the contrary -- as I already stated, I hate having to waste the ammo of 18 guns on a single target when there are multiple fighters trying to catch the bomber formation. This idea would stretch out the ammo supply and make defense over a longer period of time a possibility. It would also avoid the whining that would come from an overheat model (what do you mean all 18 guns overheated at the same time??!!??!?!?!).
BTW -- I related the death of Short Snorter I above. Although credit was given to one of the LW pilots, the fact that the hit came so close to the target makes me wonder if the engine had really been hit by flak. Short Snorter II had a mechanical problem and dropped out of formation. Tail gunners saw the bomber get jumped by five Ju-88s, but it was fighting them off as they left sight. Its exact fate is unknown, but can be guessed at. Short Snorter III was hit in the cockpit by AA fire, killing both pilots. The plane took several more direct hits, and ultimately only two of the crew successfully bailed out and survived. Between the three aircraft, only 17 missions were flown.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
:lol Interesting to know that out of the hundreds who play, someone has to shoot you down to be an expert. Also of interest; I've never said I was an expert in buffs. I do seem to know more than you on the subject, though.
And this is where you are wrong.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
...
There is a correlation to your desire to see buffs perked. Perk all fighter planes except the least capable. I see more fighter craft suicide than I do bombers.
...
Did I say that I wanted individual bombers perked? No, I did NOT. I said perk the formations. Big difference. These revisionist tactics may work elsewhere but not here, and certainly not with me. As long as you land one plane of your formation you get your spent perks back. The only "penalty" is that if you want to do something dumb and/or suicidal you need to decide if you want to spend the perks on a formation, or try it for free in a solo ship.
Fighters are supposed to operate at all altitudes - on the Russian front everything was down in the dirt. The use of heavy bombers, designed to run up high, at below 200 feet was not exactly routine duty in WW2. The comparison is inane.
As for ramming - since the head-on shot is the "best" for a fighter to take on our uber-gunned bombers, it does look curious when I see bombers turn into fighters - right into them - often away from their intended target. You do the math.
Just watch 999000 one evening to see the flak platform in action.
-
E25280, you show instances of great numbers of bombers and very few deaths... Don't forget that the fighters weren't reported as shot down, either.
Example: 16 bombers and 150-or-so LW pilots. Bombers lost: 4. LW planes lost: none. In AH: LW lost 150, bombers lost none.
You have an example of 3 FW190s that singled out a b17 and attacked it. It got home. It did not say that the 190s were shot down and the bomber landed. It just said that it made it home.
Keep in mind that these fighters had to shoot up most if not all of the bombers. They only had so much ammo, and by making attack runs on varying boxes/bombers they did as much damage as they could before running out of ammo. They did not suicidally press the attack, as AH bombers often force people to do.
They had a lot of targets and relatively small ammo counts to shoot at them. Its reasonable that only so many bombers were killed, but many more were damaged. Unescorted daylight bombing almost brought the USAF bombing campain to its knees, due to losses of bombers. That speaks a bit on the effectiveness in WW2 of fighters vs bombers.
EDIT: And in real life the bombers were at cruise settings. They only used max power for takeoff. They cruised at maybe 175 to 200 mph. In AH ...
in fact just before I came in here to read the forums I found the typical bombers in AH. 25k, full throttle, going 350TAS. In a 109G14 (one of the faster 109s! Second fastest 109 in the game!!) I could not close in on it until I had been chasing it for 7+ minutes... The rate of closure was very very very small. I came off to one side, a little high, dove down, slashed across, only had time to hit the lead drone before I lost my oil and as I was pulling away out the other side hard to avoid more hits I got instantly pilot-killed.
The BS we see in AH is speed related, not bomber power related.
The altitude is directly affected by gas. They never need more than 25% in this game so they can climb to UNGODLY altitudes, which were historically rare. They can fly at full throttle all day long and at up to 30k (I have personally seen many MANY 30k lancasters in this game).
With more realistic gas loads, these bombers would never reach these altitudes and speeds. To correct this, we need bombers to carry MORE gas, but to burn it faster. A separate bomber gas burn multiplier is what is needed.
This will both slow bombers down to more accurate (and realistic) speeds as they are forced to cruise to save gas, and will pull them down to lower altitude bands (what, 18k isn't enough for you? You have to be at 27k???) because they are much heavier with all the gas they are carrying.
-
Guys, arguing with chopsaw is a lot like arguing with a wall. It's pointless. Even if you are right(which you guys are) he will say you are wrong. What he fails to grasp is when it's either everyone else is wrong, or you... it's gonna be you:lol Just do what I did and put him on the ignore list, let him cry to himself about how badly bombers have it.
-
DoKGonZo, your idea is good one except for a couple of things. First and foremost, not everyone has a great internet connection. The reason I say this is because when flying in a formation, some internet connections will lag up and freeze the game, when this happens, your drones keep going, sometimes you freeze so long that your drones get far enough away that they explode. that is a waste of dang points. Also, newbs who finally get enough perks to fly in formation wont realize that if u turn fast enough you lose your drones and they explode. Also, cheap bastiches like me wouldnt wanna give up points for extra bombers. This means it would take more runs on an airfield to down just one dang hangar, its f'in rediculous. It's a good idea but in reality it just doesnt work.
-
Originally posted by dizman
DoKGonZo, your idea is good one except for a couple of things. First and foremost, not everyone has a great internet connection. ...
Wasn't aware some connects were still this bad.
Still, as long as you land one bomber you get your perks back - basically you still get 2 throw-away planes to get to and from target without it costing you. But if you don't get home, well, you just lost a perk plane. So the newbie who turns too hard and loses his drones, he can just land and relaunch and it doesn't cost him.
The choice to pay for a formation comes down to the expectation of survival.
-
Originally posted by E25280
The April 4 mission to the Renault works near Paris was another test of the gunnery skills of the 91st's crews. In addition to moderately heavy flak, on the way back from bombing the factory, the Americans were jumped by at least 60 enemy aircraft. During the hit-and-run attacks, which persisted all the way to the French coast, Short Snorter III was hit by an Fw-190 coming in from 6 o'clock high. The tail gunner, Staff Sgt. Anthony J. Roy, let the German come within 600 yards before opening fire. His aim was accurate, and he saw his foe's right wing cowling fly off, followed by part of the wing itself.
If it's the 1943 mission ,well ... gunnery was perhaps good but some bomber missed their target by 5 km.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
E25280, you show instances of great numbers of bombers and very few deaths... Don't forget that the fighters weren't reported as shot down, either.
Keep in mind that these fighters had to shoot up most if not all of the bombers. They only had so much ammo, and by making attack runs on varying boxes/bombers they did as much damage as they could before running out of ammo. They did not suicidally press the attack, as AH bombers often force people to do.
The point I was trying to make is that the arguing about "super-bombers" tends to get a little whiny. They were not easy to take down. They did fire at long ranges. They did kill fighters if the fighters weren't careful. All things we see in AH. I am not sure what you mean about "forcing" people in AH to suicidally press an attack. Even in AH there are ways to attack bombers that will increase your odds of survival. I just see so many people expecting to survive any encounter with bombers to the extent that it is laughable. It isn't that bombers are over-modeled -- it is that some have the unrealistic expectation that bombers are/were/should be helpless. Clearly this was not the case IRL and so shouldn't be in AH.
But, please, do not think I am trying to say bombers should be somehow invulnerable either. I am just saying I don't think AH has them overly hard to kill as long as you don't go about it "suicidally".
Originally posted by Krusty
They had a lot of targets and relatively small ammo counts to shoot at them. Its reasonable that only so many bombers were killed, but many more were damaged. Unescorted daylight bombing almost brought the USAF bombing campain to its knees, due to losses of bombers. That speaks a bit on the effectiveness in WW2 of fighters vs bombers.
True, many bombers came back heavily damaged, but that isn't exactly the point. In most AH sorties, you either come back or you don't. Damage is next to meaningless if it is short of what is necessary to "kill" the bomber.
And IIRC, more bombers were damaged and destroyed by flak than by fighters. Flak was much more accurate in daylight when they could actually see the bombers. This too contributed to the very high losses.
Originally posted by Krusty
The BS we see in AH is speed related, not bomber power related.
I agree with you here. IRL the bombers flew slower to conserve fuel and to make it easier to stay in a tight formation. In AH, their speed does give the bombers an advantage they did not have IRL. I personally do not see that as too large a deal given that most bombers are not flying in 60 plane raids either.
-
Originally posted by straffo
If it's the 1943 mission ,well ... gunnery was perhaps good but some bomber missed their target by 5 km.
It is referring to the April 4, 1943 mission. The article does not say anything about the accuracy of the bombs on that particular mission. From your comment, I assume it was quite poor indeed.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Just do what I did and put him on the ignore list, let him cry to himself about how badly bombers have it.
If you've put me on an ignore list, which would please me, how is it you're attempting to respond?
For the record, I don't cry about how bad bombers have it. I respond to people who cry about how bad the fighters have it against the bombers. People who are poorly skilled in attacking bombers and want the bombers made easier for them to attack.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
whats a mug?
you drink coffee out of one.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Did I say that I wanted individual bombers perked? No, I did NOT. I said perk the formations. Big difference. These revisionist tactics may work elsewhere but not here, and certainly not with me. As long as you land one plane of your formation you get your spent perks back. The only "penalty" is that if you want to do something dumb and/or suicidal you need to decide if you want to spend the perks on a formation, or try it for free in a solo ship.
Fighters are supposed to operate at all altitudes - on the Russian front everything was down in the dirt. The use of heavy bombers, designed to run up high, at below 200 feet was not exactly routine duty in WW2. The comparison is inane.
As for ramming - since the head-on shot is the "best" for a fighter to take on our uber-gunned bombers, it does look curious when I see bombers turn into fighters - right into them - often away from their intended target. You do the math.
Just watch 999000 one evening to see the flak platform in action.
Please go back and read what you in fact did post on 3/18/2006 8:52 AM, third paragraph, last sentence which reads: "Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used." You might be able to see how your intent could be mistaken. After all, the only perk bomber currently in the game is perked for all three planes in a formation on an individual basis. Lose one or two out of a formation and land one, you pay for the ones you've lost. I am not a revisionist and resent the allegation. You simply were not clear in what your intent was. That having been said, I still think "perking formations" is a bad idea. You said care needed to be taken not to "penalize the people who use bombers as intended". I flew three missions today. On one of them I got back with one plane. On the other two I lost all my planes. The first run was at 26,000 (an HQ run) and the last two were just above 14,000. Your system would have penalized me on two of my runs when I was using bombers as intended.
When I spoke of fighter aircraft who suicide, I was thinking of the ones that like to do kamikaze runs on cv's. They drop their loads just before disintegrating in the ships ack. I don't think that was their intended use. Before you go there, I'll say once again I do not advocate the use of heavy bombers as dive bombers and would like to see a solution to that problem.
Personally, very few fighters have tried to HO my bombers. Those that do keep themselves far enough away and fast enough to preclude any attempt to ram them. I hadn't realized it was a problem. Still, it seems easy enough for a fighter to avoid the bomber. If nothing else you could push on the stick and dive below them. For the record a head on is ONE of the best for a fighter to vector in on. Not THE best. Certainly beats the six o'clock approach, but far from the best.
That flak platform really works? Huh. I'll keep watching for it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
And this is where you are wrong.
Karaya
As yet to be illustrated.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
As yet to be illustrated.
Hmm. You had NO IDEA of JG26 using HO tactics. That is just the tip O' the iceberg. You are a "know-it-all" in a World of "well-read" people. When you sit back and really pine over that, the light will be brighter.
You had NO IDEA of the Ki67's of being the fastest Bomber (234 is common knowledge and RARELY used, but you tried to save face for your error, and it backfired). I can catch anything in a Hurricane except jets. You sir, are not in a fighter to even approach the subject, anytime you need a "lesson", PM me for a DA tutorial.
You are pretending to have this wealth of knowledge of being in a bomber but also have an "uncanny ability to be accurate in off-angles, etc." The former is said to make up for that fact that in reality, it is really the opposite. I have YET to be shot down by anyone (999000, tater, etc who are BETTER than yourself) using any angle, or HO, in this game. But you have the ability to "toot your own horn".
Bombers are given more opportunity to survive, and it is wrong. Right now, Buff's can drop bombs from less than 500 feet and not have any effects of damage. Buff's can sink a CV in this game. I'm still trying to find ONE documented case of a Level Bomber "Sinking a CV". I won't even mention the "Dive Bombing Lancs" used by some to pad their scores.
When you wake up and realize you have ME NOTHING, it will also become clear.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Personally, very few fighters have tried to HO my bombers.
That would be because the fighter and bomber just about have to be head on at the beginning. If you try to catch, then fly ahead of far enough to turn back into it for a head on attack, the bomber is back to it's field. Unless you a flying a 262.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Please go back and read what you in fact did post on 3/18/2006 8:52 AM, third paragraph, last sentence which reads: "Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used." You might be able to see how your intent could be mistaken. ...
Only by someone who wished to deliverately distort my words.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
...
Bombers are given more opportunity to survive, and it is wrong. Right now, Buff's can drop bombs from less than 500 feet and not have any effects of damage. Buff's can sink a CV in this game. I'm still trying to find ONE documented case of a Level Bomber "Sinking a CV". I won't even mention the "Dive Bombing Lancs" used by some to pad their scores.
...
Don't forget that they can be wheeled out at a base under attack and used as a flak-platform/ammo sponge.
If people want to do these kinds of things, fine, but they shouldn't get the benefit of two drones that were intended to allow the people who spend the time climbing to altitude to get some return on their time investment.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hmm. You had NO IDEA of JG26 using HO tactics. That is just the tip O' the iceberg. You are a "know-it-all" in a World of "well-read" people. When you sit back and really pine over that, the light will be brighter.
You had NO IDEA of the Ki67's of being the fastest Bomber (234 is common knowledge and RARELY used, but you tried to save face for your error, and it backfired). I can catch anything in a Hurricane except jets. You sir, are not in a fighter to even approach the subject, anytime you need a "lesson", PM me for a DA tutorial.
You are pretending to have this wealth of knowledge of being in a bomber but also have an "uncanny ability to be accurate in off-angles, etc." The former is said to make up for that fact that in reality, it is really the opposite. I have YET to be shot down by anyone (999000, tater, etc who are BETTER than yourself) using any angle, or HO, in this game. But you have the ability to "toot your own horn".
Bombers are given more opportunity to survive, and it is wrong. Right now, Buff's can drop bombs from less than 500 feet and not have any effects of damage. Buff's can sink a CV in this game. I'm still trying to find ONE documented case of a Level Bomber "Sinking a CV". I won't even mention the "Dive Bombing Lancs" used by some to pad their scores.
When you wake up and realize you have ME NOTHING, it will also become clear.
As I informed you, we have been speaking of heavy bombers. Look at the posts. The Ki67 and other light bombers were not under discussion. You might as well have been complaining about the speed of the Ar234, rather than the Ki67. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, Krusty was complaining about B17's, B24's and Lancasters when he was complaining about bomber speed. Why would he care about the little Ki67? The Ar234 carries exactly twice the payload of the Ki67, is the third fastest aircraft in the game and under current conditions even it is hardly ever worth flying. I made my initial comments with the full knowledge the discussion on the table regarded heavy bombers, not light bombers which owe more to fighter design than real bomber design.
If my knowledge of heavy bombers seems to you to be a "wealth", that's hardly my fault. I've never pretended to be the "big expert" on anything in this game. However when my experience in anything is at odds with someone else's I will comment on it. In point of fact, I am experienced in bombers. That means when you or anyone else says something that is at odds with that experience, I'm going to call it.
I specifically said I was not experienced in fighter aircraft. That was rather my point. There is nothing uncanny about my ability to shoot bombers down. I've never implied there was. What I have said is that if I, with my lack of fighter experience, can shoot bombers down without getting killed, then certainly those who have far more experience than I should have little difficulty. My experience in bombers aids me a bit in knowing how to get away with shooting them down, but where I really learned how to do it was in one post. The post was by Ack-Ack. I felt it was worth reading for two reasons. One, he is a good stick, a very good one. Two, and more importantly for the purpose of this discussion, he used to shoot me down regularly in my bombers while denying me anything but the barest of gun solutions. I tried to learn from that and as a result I have success in shooting bombers down without getting killed. I also learned how to defend against the tactics a little and it makes me better in a bomber than I was. Learning through ones own observations and the writings of others is an effective way to become better at the game. Try it sometime. Bye the way, I've read what you have to say on the subject of catching bombers with Hurricanes. I used your statements as a counter to Krusty's complaint about bombers being too fast. Apparently you can even catch Ki67's with it. If you can do it with one of the slowest fighters in the game, others should have no problem doing it with the faster fighters.
You might note here that I'm not "tooting my own horn". I'm quoting from posts of more experienced fighter pilots, including yours. I'm also mentioning my own experiences in fighter vs bomber, but that is hardly tooting my own horn since I always mention my inexperience.
As to bombers dropping bombs at 500 feet with no ill effect, you might have something. I assume you're saying the blast from the bombs should injure them. If that is the "real world" situation, perhaps that should be changed in emulation. Changed for all aircraft, including JABO fighters.
As for the rest of what you complain about here…..you're shouting into the wind. The complaints you make regarding the game not being like real life don't make sense. You may as well complain that aircraft, boats and gv's have an unrealistic, unlimited spawn ability. It is a game. It is never going to be like real life.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Only by someone who wished to deliverately distort my words.
Patently not true. Your writing was unclear. I continue to resent your allegation.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Patently not true. Your writing was unclear. I continue to resent your allegation.
How much freakin' clearer can "perk flights" be?
No one else seemed to be confused by my intent.
Besides, you've run this bit before.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
As I informed you, we have been speaking of heavy bombers. Look at the posts. The Ki67 and other light bombers were not under discussion. ...
ChopSaw has to be a troll.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
.... Sure it's fun to hear the funny defenses he tries to throw out for the bombers ...
It's nostalgic. His tactics were in vogue around 1986.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
How much freakin' clearer can "perk flights" be?
No one else seemed to be confused by my intent.
Besides, you've run this bit before.
I believe I've already explained that. I'll do so again. The only perked bomber right now is the Arado (Ar234). When one uses the Arado in formation, each plane is perked. When you land, any planes you've lost cost you perks. If you don't explain what you mean as being different from a current model, you can't expect people to read your mind. Moreover, once you had clarified your statement I replied to it.
No one else cared to respond to that aspect of your post.
I have no idea what you mean by alleging "I've run this bit before".
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
It's nostalgic. His tactics were in vogue around 1986.
Sad. You disagree with me and resort to this. It speaks to your integrity.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Sad. You disagree with me and resort to this. It speaks to your integrity.
Go play in traffic, sonny.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Go play in traffic, sonny.
Oh no. I get it now. Gonzo…..Doctor Gonzo. His icon and everything. You're playing at being Hunter S. Thompson! I didn't understand what you were doing at first, but now it's clear as day.
For those of you who do not understand the reference here, google the word "gonzo". You will find definition of the term gonzo as well as links to sites on Hunter S. Thompson (also known as Dr. Hunter S. Thompson) which include the icon DoKGonZo uses for his posting avatar. The icon was designed for Thompson by an unknown designer, but was probably an artist named Tom Benton in the seventies. People still argue about what this logo means.
Hunter S. Thompson was renowned for instigating situations and incidents, often in a belligerent fashion, and then writing about them including his own participation. He was a brilliant writer and created the style of writing known as Gonzo Journalism, hence the name Dr. Gonzo. He was also the basis for the character Duke in the Doonesbury comic strip. I highly recommend his book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Gonzo journalism is characterized by the use of quotes, sarcasm, humor, exaggeration and profanity. Dr. Thompson based his style on William Faulkner's idea that "fiction is often the best fact".
Well played, Dok. You really had me puzzled for awhile.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
...
Well played, Dok. You really had me puzzled for awhile.
Much like tying your shoelaces does.
-
I believe the proposed change which started this thread would put bombers at too large a disadvantage. Especially when faced with more than one fighter attacking simultaneously.
E25280 commented the change would be desirable in terms of conserving ammo on bombers. He may have a point, but I want to be able to use all my guns on demand. If one wishes to conserve ammo, they may always fire from the one gun they man instead of all guns. I know that's not exactly what he had in mind, but it's a thought.
-
This is a 'Wishlist' forum. People are free to post whatever they want, in regards to what they would like to see in this game.