Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tilt on August 27, 2001, 04:45:00 PM
-
The MkVI fighter bomber (without bomb sights) was reknowned as one of the premier Allied low level strike bombers in the European theatre.
When precision raids were required against prison walls, boats in Fjords etc it was the Mossie which could deliver bombs on targets.
Apart from its abilty to get in and out quickly its accuracy was of prime importance.
I cannot see how AH can comparably show this advantage whilst conventional (AH) bombers can pick off gun emplacements with unerring accuracy from 14000 ft by use of its super bomb sight.
If the ground attack role is to be given to the planes which actually carried it out then IMHO the level bombing accuracy should be subject to some form of wind drift factor or bomb wobble to balance its role out.
Opinions?
Tilt
-
I think you're right. The role of precise bombing was that of the dive bomber. Strange that heavy bomber seems to have this role in AH. Yes, I know, gameplay concession. Still wierd.
-
I don't think this will be a problem. My roommate, in the 1 Tour he played, got to the point where he could make pin point attacks with the P-38 in the same manner. No slope, just straight in at low altitude and drop and the right moment.
We just need to practice.
-
Well...
I have posted thoughts on this in the thread in my sig. Check my last post in there.
SKurj
|
|
|
|
+
-
I think y'all are missing his point a little.
It seems to me he is saying that the Mossie was valuable for certain functions that other aircraft weren't capable of. In AH, that capability is given to planes that historically did not have them.
In other words (and generally speaking), why take a Mossy to make a pinpoint strike on a target when you could take, for example, a B-26 and do it with 3 times the bomb load?
It's not that big a deal, really... but the Mossie isn't going to stand-out in quite the same way as it did in the war, just because there are other aircraft here in AH that can roughly do much the same thing as the Mossie did, even if they weren't capable of it themselves in the actual war.
At least that's what I *think* he's saying.
-
I fully agree we must petion HTC to eliminate the full 100% retard-mode bombing accuracy over a certaion altitude, lets say after 15,000feet the accuracy slowly diminishes so that by 25,000 to 30,000 feet the accuracy is down to between 50%-60%.
Plus we must see the elimination of rediculous ARCADE 3D outside flying mode for bombers.
Another thing would be to implement some sort of bombsight calibration period where the bomber must satay on a course and at an alt before the drop as was always the case with the norden sights in WW2.
And some reworking of buff guns with regards to the perefect sonvergence idea and their abilty to fire throug fuselages.
I belive these adjustments would easily be compensated for by increaing the blast efecct fof th large bombs.
Anyway Im afraid the very unimaginative and fearful bomber clique here will oppose these ideas, but thats ok, its not my problem....
-
Well the mossie did have the highest hit ratio i think when it came to bombing. I am not sure if that was based on high alt level bombing or all types.
If the majority of mossie drops were any method other than hi alt level, then the only way to replicate this would be to change the way level bombing works in AH.
But to change the way hi alt buffing works in AH changes need to be made to the ordnance, ordnance accuracy and the scoring system for bombing.
The kill/death ratio of the buffs in AH leads me to believe that the current F3 and lazer guns +) are fine! Any suggestion to change these things never drums up enough support to change them so i can assume, most of the players agree.
The tough part will be making changes to level bombing while still making it attractive to players. Larger blast radius, and a different scoring system might maintain this.
In AW many buffs would fly for the points alone. (AW did have a more difficult bombing model than AH)
If strat targets yield greater scores, then they will become more attractive targets as well. A modifier has to be put in place though to counter a couple of jabos closing a target that in RL would have required level bombing.
ahh more ramble..
SKurj
-
Yes, I would love to see the SWOTL B-17 norden aiming system in AH. You had to "target" the place, and set the timer out. If you deviated from your course or changed speed you could miss by hundreds of meters.
Increase blast damage (ermm. I mean, PUT IN blast damage) on bombs and put some dispersion on them. That way a buff wont be able to perform like a modern laser-guided bomber, carpet bombing would be able to seriously damage an airfield... if 2 or more buffs come along with it to hit and carpet bomb the field.
And fix the damn guns already.
This would give way to the heavy buffs as the heavy hitters dropping a lot of bombs and doing most of their damage through blast effect (collateral damage), and the dive bombers/jabo planes like mossie,TBM &others would have their niche in the precision bussiness.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
15,000feet the accuracy slowly diminishes so that by 25,000 to 30,000
Way too high!!!
I do not understand how one could steer a B17/Lanc/B25/Ju88 etc from the bombadiers position with unerring accuracy to drop a 100llb bomb into the centre of a gun pit from 5000 ft yet alone 10k or 15k!!
My understanding of so called WW2 precision bombing (above 10K) was to place all of ones eggs in a rectangle about 40 to 50 yards wide by 100 to 200 yards long. The object being that the large buildings you were targeting were in that rectangle.
Frankly IMHO a start would be to get rid of the Zoom view in F6 mode..................
(even get rid of it all together??? hmmmmm leave that one)
Next dampen the directional control more whilst in the bombadiers position.
Finally add some (a little) bomb wobble or wind drift factor to the fall (ie a randomiser).
Should we achieve a better (less accurate) level bombing accuracy model I agree that a look at the damage model would be advised. A 1000llb bomb landing plum in the middle of a bomber hanger should disable it for some considerable period of time!
Then the role of ground attack and low to medium level bombing would emerge as a one comparable to history (never the same as).
Then the Il2 and the Mossie will find a niche within a more balanced arena and the ordnance carrying capability of the P47, P38, Typhoon etc come more into play.
I fear that the Mossie is doomed to become be come a buff hunter only if this is not addressed.
Tilt
-
I like this guy. :D
Seriously though, I think upping the realism on the buffs would be something that not only the fighters would appreciate but the dedicated buff flyers as well. What buff driver *wouldn't* want to be able to operate a more accurately modelled Norden? What buff driver wouldn't like the trade off of accuracy for a larger blast radius? If people are serious about their rides, I reckon these things would be welcomed.
The *only* gameplay concession I think you still need is to keep a level of accuracy at altitudes that are a bit higher than historical levels. Lone buffs are a reality in the MA and are much more vulnerable due to not having escorts etc. Also keep the potent guns. Other than that, I'd love to see the complete ease and pinpoint accuracy of hitting targets toned *down*.
Why not make dropping bombs a bit of a skill? Some guys would be incredible at it, other guys less so. Sorta like everything else in Aces High. Right now the greenest of newbies can hike a buff up to 30k and place a 250lb bomb right down the barrel of an ack. I know the fighter types aren't so happy about this, but I gotta sense that the people who love drivin' buffs aren't too comfortable with this idea either.
Right now you launch a buff with the knowledge that each and every single bomb you release is going to result in a direct hit. That has got to be a bit boring I'm sure.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
They arent serious, well most dont seem to be. They just wanna blow stuff up as easily as possible. The most pathetic "buff" drivers are ackstarr specialists who only take bombers up to kill enemy fighters. These folks are grotesque caricature of all that is wrong with AH buff modeling. That and the car bombing like I do so often during a vulch.
I really really hope HTC takes some time to rethink the role and implementaion of AH buffs, this isnt a demand for instant action and satisfaction, just reaching and hoping for a sign that they dont intend the current state of AH bombers to be the final effect.
Please HTC tell us something, tell us that you might add some more interest, logic, character and challenge to the bombers, tell us that you have new ideas and concepts to advance this aspect of your sim.
-
I lean towards leaving the current gameplay in relation to the norden "as is"
Mostly because in a buff you're required to do the job of a full crew.
Bombing could be made harder, but then sometimes you don't have to time over a hot target to historically use a norden, whilst moving in and out of the gunner, or even pilot pos..unless of course they add otto.
Tronsky
486 Sqn (NZ), "Hiwa hau Maka"
-
My guess is that sometime in the near future "Dispersion" will be added to the bombs that is much like the "Bullet dispersion" that we see now. For instance like in gunnery the closer you are to the target the more likely you are to have direct hits, it is my opinion that the higher alt the buff is at when dropping bombs the more the dispersion will effect the bombs. I feel it is only a matter of time until HTC implements something to counter the LGB's we have now. However, one WWII pilot was notted saying about the B-17 "With that norden you can drop a pickle in a barrel" I'm sure he was exaggerating at least a little :)
-
Cept that barrel was the size of a small town or city........
-
Well, it took a mighty big barrel to hold all the "pickles" that dropped from a 1000 plane raid. :D
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
My $.02. You could start by making the heavies drop full salvos only, and perhaps the mediums a half salvo (yeah, still gamey, but it does differentiate the platforms somewhat). As already noted, you could remove the bombsight zoom as well. The result: the ability to drop heavy loads accurately on large strat targets but be limited to severe, but rather random damage on smaller targets. Ack modifiers could make low level (up to 10,000 feet or more) bomb runs by large slow bombers as dangerous as they would have been in real life.
In the future, when more dive bombers arrive, you could tone down the accuracy (through dispersion) of the bombs and rockets carried by fighter platforms. They weren't really that accurate in RL and shouldn't be here, even with an obvious AH experience factor taken into account. Unfortunately, since the current playstyle is so well established, these changes would likely not be appreciated in the MA.
As for the Norden pickle barrel, pre-war PR copy, look at the inaccuracies with the atomic bombings. What was it at Hiroshima, 800 feet or so (fine, though, when you're talking 15 kilotons of blast) by an elite crew that practiced a single bomb release for months?
Charon
-
Guys, I wasnt trying to say that the B-17 had LGB accuracy. You know what, I wasn't there so I can't say, and I'm gambling you weren't a WW2 bombardier either, :p whoever the pilot was that made that statement was clearly exagerating but for that time and with current technology it was an improvement, and his statement was probably meant to reflect the improvement over previous bombing methods. :D
-
Here you go; might as well go to one of the better sources and argue from a position of some knowledge. :)
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tfdo (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tfdo)
"THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
Summary Report
(European War)
September 30, 1945
...The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.
It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged from poor to excellent. When visual conditions were favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried than hit German installations."
All in all and interesting and informative read. I highly recommend it.
-
Just a thought, but one thing the Mossie has which the heavy bombers lack is speed. Would it not be better to compare it to the Arado?
-
Maybe.... but then... what's the use of speed if you can bomb with altitude? Arados can make pinpoint drops from 25k. Dive bombing means having to come in low and be at the mercy of ack, enemy fighters, and all sorts of nastiness in order to make drops that are often less accurate than what the Arado or any other buff will be making from his perch.
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
I have to agree that in some ways it would be nice to click the button once and have all of my Lanc's eggs release at once. None of the .05 second delay He111 crap. Just click, they all drop, and I get the hell out of Dodge. Right now the heavies are forced to make repeated passes or even loiter which greatly increases the danger associated with them.
Add in some light dispersion and real blast effects and voila, the level bombers still work, but work differently.
-
It's like this... (imho :D )
At one point in Aces High, there was only one bomber. Bombers were needed to play a certain role in the MA wrt field capture. So they were given the ability to make accurate drops from way high selecting and dropping on individual targets with the full knowledge that those targets would be blasted into scrap.
They could drop a single bomb on an ack emplacement from 30k, make another single drop on another target, extend, come back and make a single drop on maybe a bunker, another one on ack, extend, come back, make a single drop on... well... you get the idea.
And because they were given the ability to do this from orbit, they could be more or less safe to hover around up there for as many passes as needed until all the bombs were away. Then they'd just go home. Or, if you *didn't* want to climb to those altitudes, you could do more or less the same thing from say 20k. Of course, you're at a bit more risk here - et voila - the gun effectiveness is increased, problem blunted.
As for the risks involved, and the role only they were able to perform, I can see why these concessions were made. But with the selection of AC becoming more well rounded, buffs aren't needed *solely* to fill that void in quite the same way any longer. I think it's time for them to take a bit of a step back into what the rest of the plane set is contending with; namely realistic characteristics, performances and roles.
Guys like the DHBG take their buffs as seriously as say, the 56th takes it's 47's. I'm sure they'd welcome the added complexity of realistic buff performance. As far as the weekend buff driving warrior types... we *needed* those guys at one time. We don't any longer. There are other planes that can get the job done... and gameplay concessions *to the extent* we have now on buffs aren't neccessary. Take away the 100% accuracy, and have it so buff drivers should be expected to learn to master their AC just as anyone else. The buff drivers will be happy, the fighters will be happy, and the "blow stuff up" crowd nailing zig zagging CV from a Lancaster... well... why are they getting such a free ride anyway?
-
S!
Most daylight level bombers were part of a larger formation. And a lot of the bombers didn`t use the Norden. Instead only the Lead bomber in a Group would use the Norden. The rest of the group would drop upon seeing his bombs go.
Individual guns or small tactical targets were never targeted successfully by level bombers. The best they could hope for in a level bombing attack on an airfield for example, was to crater the runways and damage larger structures like Hangers.
Taking out tanks, guns or other small targets was only achieved successfully by Fighter Bombers or Dive Bombers. And even their accuracy was in doubt. Which was why you saw 500kg or 1000lb bombs being use in these types of attacks. That way, `Close counted`.
-
Buzzbait,
I wouldn't say "never".
Lancasters destroyed the Tirpitz using 12,000lb bombs. Lancs also destroyed an underground V1 launch base in France just before it could become opperational, one 12,000lb bomb actually going down the launch tunnel and blowing up inside of the installation. The bomb that blew up Arizona was dropped by a level bomber from IIRC, 7,000ft.
But in general you are correct, level bombers were very poor at destroying small or tactical targets. I know of no cases in which level bombers destroyed ships that were under way.
-
Threads like this always get me out cruising the net looking for stuff. Always end up enjoying it and learning something.
Neat story here, probably a "Best Ever" for the 8th or very close to that:
http://www.merriam-press.com/m_024_author.htm (http://www.merriam-press.com/m_024_author.htm)
While leading the 486th Bomb Group over Germany on Eighth Air Force Mission No. 928, on 5 April 1945, he was fated to be involved with one of the most accurate high altitude (above 18,000 feet) strikes carried out by a unit of the Eighth Air Force, when his lead bombardier, Captain J. J. Kane, placed 78 per cent of the group’s bombs within 1,000 feet of his briefed AP from 24,500 feet altitude—while in intense flak and using an intervalometer setting in the Norden bombsight. This “pickle-barrel” drop produced a CEP of 677 feet, a SE of 574 feet and a MRE of 719 feet.
Here's another interesting bit from a bio of Carl Norden (these are probably the "pre-war test range numbers"):
http://www.nationalaviation.org/enshrinee/norden.html (http://www.nationalaviation.org/enshrinee/norden.html)
The Air Corps, in 1935, installed Norden bombsights in Martin B-10s of the 7th and 19th Bomb Groups to develop the tactics of high-altitude, precision, daylight bombing. The first day of testing saw the B-10s coming within 520 feet of the targets from altitudes of 12,000 to 15,000 feet. By the end of the tests, the bombs were hitting within 164 feet of the targets.
...In the succeeding years, the bombsight was improved. The ultimate model, designated the Mark XV, was a complex assemblage of more than 2,000 cams, gears, mirrors, lenses, and other components. With it, a fixed speed and altitude had to be maintained for only 15 to 20 seconds. Technically, the sight could place a bomb inside a 100-foot circle from four miles up. But, the bombardiers said it could "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet."
Here's a kicker:
"Norden was a quiet and unassuming man who was proud that the bombsight could be used for strategically striking military targets while minimizing collateral damage to surrounding civilian populations and structures such as churches, schools, and homes. It's interesting to note that he didn't make money on the bombsight during the war, selling his rights to the sight to the government for one dollar. Carl Norden returned to Switzerland shortly after World War II and died there in 1965."
-
Yeah... but Toad, a bit of selective bolding and quoting going on here... no? On the first part you put in bold the results, but didn't really lend equal emphasis to the fact that this was one of the most accurate strikes ever carried out by this group. So much so that someone was "fated" to be involved with it. Even still, it's 78% within' 1000 ft - a very good result for them on that "fated" day, but nowehere near 100% within' 50 feet like probably 5 minutes ago over A3.
Your next quote very conveniently jumps from the 6th paragraph into the 8th, leaving out the paragraph in between that says:
"To get bombs on target with acceptable accuracy requires an aircraft to correct for drift while maintaining a constant altitude and airspeed. Even minor fluctuations can cause a miss, and the greater the altitude, the greater the error."
Why would you omit that if you wanted to present a rounded case? Unless you didn't want to for some reason... so the question is why? Are you just tossing out quotes or are you using them to back your position? Is your position then, seriously, that bombs can be placed in a pickle barrel from 20k? And thus *AH's modelling* of of the bomb drops (you know, the subject we're discussing) is accurate?
At least *this* time you didn't drag up these quotes from Fox news. :D
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Nash, you misunderstand.
I'm NOT presenting a case. Note there are no "suggestions" or "proposals" by me with respect to HTC.
I don't care how they do it in the game. I'm not the one that worries about that stuff.
I just PLAY The Game.
However, I do enjoy researching the historical aspect of it. I like trying to find out stuff like how good the Norden actually was or could possibly be.
As far as bolding and clipping.. think about this.
I COULD have cut and pasted each of the multi-page articles right into that post. Would be about 2 feet long probably :) but I could have done that.
Who would read it all?
Instead, I clipped what I thought was significant and germane to the discussion at hand (a judgement call on my part, I admit) and then I PUT THE BLOODY WEB ADDRESS OF THE ARTICLE RIGHT AT THE TOP.
If you are implying that these guys are too blind to read anything but the bold, too "challenged" to figure out how to click on the web link... well, if you are right, no one can help them anyway. :)
Anyone truly interested can easily (and probably would) read the whole thing. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm trying to provide a bit of fact in a thread that is primarily supposition and unsupported opinion.
If people are only interested in supposition and unsupported opinon... well, I can't help that either.
So read and enjoy. Do a little research. Form your own opinion. Implore HTC for changes.
Or not. :D
<EDIT> Oh, Nash? Did you look at my earlier clip from the US Strategic Bombing Survey? Particularly the part where I BOLDED the statement that : "in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area"?
Seems like I have bolded BOTH sides of the case, haven't I? :D
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
I COULD have cut and pasted each of the multi-page articles right into that post. Would be about 2 feet long probably but I could have done that.
Or you could just have left in a two sentence paragraph that was in the center of the two you *did* use, but just so happened to be conflicting with the other points of your post. :) And by bolding, you *are* trying to draw attention, make a point, add selective emphasis, whatever.
Anyways that's totally off topic.
I can't remember where I read it but I *think* it was Pyro who said something along the lines of: "If you get the details right, everything else just works out accordingly on a larger scale". Horribly misquoted I'm sure... but in essence what it means is that if you model each aspect the best you can to its real world counterpart, then everything else falls into place. I think this is very true. But the buffs have been the exception to this - thus its role and behaviour in the sim is accordingly out of whack.
-
Well, Nash, as I said, I have no axe to grind. I have no dog in this fight. I simply don't care what they do.
I just Play The Game.
However, the emphasis was put where it was put because those are the FIRST hard numbers I've seen anyone put up. Thus, the emphasis.
Your implication that I'm arguing for or against anything is based on the assumption that intelligent people either won't read the whole article... which the truly interested will do.... or will read only the bold which is unlikely in my opinion given this groups dedication to getting it right.
As I said, the links are there.
Try to think of it as a public service. Instead of all this speculation, there is some data that can provide the beginning of a factual argument.
Your attempt to portray it as anything else is simply bogus. Check any "argument" thread you like about gameplay or other issues like this...I've said the same thing in all of them. HTC does what HTC does... I just play.
-
Righto..... :D
Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled topic...
-
awwwww...
You're not going to tell them you missed the part where I also bolded the BAD numbers and left the good numbers plain in the first post?
If you take the trouble to read it all, you see that the Norden did pretty good in peacetime test trials and then they admit everything went to sh*t in actual combat.
So, you might say the Norden "tests" well but doesn't "play" so good.
I think that observation is pretty much backed up by fact in the Bombing Survey. Notice that the only "good" accuracy came during missions just before the surrender in '45, when opposition was probably the lightest the crews ever faced (more like the "test" conditions).
If I find any more "hard" numbers, I'll post links.
-
I'd be interested to see what kinda damage say, a 500lb bomb can do at certain distances away from certain targets. Because while I think the accuracy should go down, the blast radius should be raised... but how much damage and from how far away I have no idea.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
Originally posted by Tilt:
I do not understand how one could steer a B17/Lanc/B25/Ju88 etc from the bombadiers position with unerring accuracy to drop a 100llb bomb into the centre of a gun pit from 5000 ft yet alone 10k or 15k!!
Tilt
In real life of course you cant steer a Lancaster from the Bombardiers position. You had to pass on corrections to the pilot over the intercom (Bernie, the bolt). Those attending the Euro convention (www.evacc2001.com) can talk to our guest speaker, who piloted Lancasters over Germany during the war and get the full SP.
Vulch :> )
-
Buzzbait,
I wouldn't say "never".
Lancasters destroyed the Tirpitz using 12,000lb bombs. Lancs also destroyed an underground V1 launch base in France just before it could become operational, one 12,000lb bomb actually going down the launch tunnel and blowing up inside of the installation. The bomb that blew up Arizona was dropped by a level bomber from IIRC, 7,000ft.
But in general you are correct, level bombers were very poor at destroying small or tactical targets. I know of no cases in which level bombers destroyed ships that were under way.
Karnak
Well, it took the RAF three missions flown at around 12,000 – 14,000 feet to score three hits out of 77 bombs dropped on a stationary, 824-foot target. Smoke partially obscured the Tirpitz on the first mission where one hit was recorded. The second was a wash because of clouds, and the third was a clear run where two hits were recorded. Here is a link for the last mission:Tirpitz fini (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropercatechism.html).
As for the Arizona, again, were talking 7,000 feet and a stationary, 608-foot target. With both the Tirpitz and Arizona, the missions were flown by elite crews with extensive preparation and practice, and at altitudes under 15,000 feet..
With the V-targets, I'm sure that on many 8th AF missions a bomb from the formation actually hit the initial aiming point square on, just as many landed thousands of yards away. I fully agree that a large formation of B-17s, Lancs, or B-26s attacking a small AH airfield should be able to score direct hits on a variety of emplacements and structures and totally disrupt a field.
In AH, one Lanc or B-17 could take out most of battleship row in one pass (as has been the case with similar online games like AW, for that matter). I found it gamey in AW and still find it gamey here.
Charon
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
So, we are again in buff bashing mode ;)
Bombers in AH are unrealistic, as for precision, and for defense.
Anyway, when I take a bomber and spent the time to climb at an almost safe alt (usually 20k is the patience limit for me), risking in any moment that a single fighter with a very short burst can shot down me, and dropping bombs witch effects are useful only when scoring direct hits, I prefer to have this laser guided bombs and this almost laserguns (even if they dont work for me as they seem with others, my gunnery sucks).
My dream?
To have a realistic use of bombers, with some gameplay concessions.
Tone down accuracy, make bombs dispersion higher, much highter (if there is any)
About the salvo issue, I've seen the selection panels in some bomber, so maybe that is realistic, but if dispersion get high enough, will be unusable to drop a single bomb on a target, and we will need to drop a cross salvo, hoping for some of them to fall near enough to cause damage.
Tone way up blast effect, increasing maybe the resistance of some target, aka bunkers, but decreasing other soft targets, like hangars, fuel tanks, buildings, in this way carpet bombing become more useful and we will see more bombers heading to strategic targets, and less heading for field bombing, having effect to the use of the full salvo option.
As the defensive aspect, we dont have large formation flying, so we need to give something to the defensive capacity of single buffs in a dense environment, by maintaining the actual situation, or, if toning down turrets gun, increase the toughness of bombers, meaning more hits needed to kill them.
And this will have some effect to the use of jabos, because they will become the more precise bomb platform (but with small load) with the apex in the dive bombers.
Toning down the precision of level bombers without modification of the bomb effects will relegate the bombers to the use we hate more, ackstarring and carbombing.
If dispersion and blast effect can permit "blind" carpet bombing of strat targets with some results, and at the same time, the destruction of a big fat target (say a VH) possible with 2 bombs of 1000 lbs that miss for 2 meters dropped by a jabo (how many times this happen to you?), we may have a more realistic use of the planes in their historical role.
My opinon.
-
NASH:
Here, check this one out... and YOU do the bolding. :D
I gotta run, don't have time to do it justice.
Yes, it is for current USAF inventory I think, but it should give you at least an idea of what the various bombs are capable of doing.
Here's a taste... you take it from here. :D
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/a532/RDG7A-4.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/a532/RDG7A-4.htm)
"Weapons and Fuzes
JOINT TARGETING SCHOOL
STUDENT GUIDE
...1. Blast: caused by tremendous overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete detonation of high explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500º prior to bomb case fragmentation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to the fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). Blast is maximized by using a GP bomb with a fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated."
Here's another good one, gives crater sizes:
http://www.soft.net.uk/entrinet/arty13d.htm (http://www.soft.net.uk/entrinet/arty13d.htm)
General Air Munitions Data
<EDIT> Wow! Some kind of "Blast Effects Computer" for Excel... didn't have time to read it but saw an example using a MK 82 in there. Wonder if this "computer" could be made avail to Pyro if he doesn't have it?
Take a look:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7W0r_w0Kaoc:www-afsc.saia.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Weapons/files/BEC%2520Version%25204.pdf+mk+82+blast+effect&hl=en (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7W0r_w0Kaoc:www-afsc.saia.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Weapons/files/BEC%2520Version%25204.pdf+mk+82+blast+effect&hl=en)
Now I GOTTA go. :)
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]