Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: macleod01 on January 20, 2007, 11:21:21 AM
-
I was just wondering if there was ever a recorded incident of say a Lancaster dropping just a single 1000lb bomb, hitting the target, and repeating with his whole bomb load. I was wondering because it is possible to do this with a lancaster in AH, I have done it countless times. Been able to drop a single egg and take out a gun. I can deack the V bases inthis manner. However reading a book the other night, I read that only a tenth of the early bombs came within 5 MILES of the target! So i was just wondering if anybody has heard (Or if there are any veterans playing, if they had personally accomplished this) of dropping a single bomb and succesfully hitting the target. Not dropping all the bombload and hoping one hits, but just one single bomb. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks
-
I wouldn't know the answer, but keep in mind that unless we add full weather including full wind with air density changes over altitude (which we somewhat already have in terms of engine and lift quality) and force bombers to fly at at least 25,000 feet, you won't get a realistic bombing approach.
If a real-life B-17 were able to come in at 15k with absolutely no wind and hardly any clouds to speak of, he'd laser bomb too.
-
617 squadron as I recall dropped a few Tallboys on the tirpitz. But given the nature of the war the Lancs were never used tactically like that. They would be highly vulnerable to flak and fighters. Even the jabos took heavy losses even though they had speed and manoeuvreability.
Some guys in AH are very good with Lancs. I remember been killed every time I spawned a GV by a guy in a Lanc who would drop a single bomb on me each time. Not bad on a moving target. He got his comeuppance eventually when a fighter happened by. Which no doubt would happen in real life too.
-
I remember reading that the lancasters carried more bombs than american bombers. They also had less people onboard and less defensive weapons because they favored a bigger bomb load.
They would miss their targets because the RAF Bomber Command would bomb at night. You couldn't bomb accurately at night back then. That's why they went after big targets like whole cities. Remember, the Germans bombed many cities over England so this was like payback for the RAF to get revenge on the Germans.
If anything above in inaccurate, please let me know.
I've dropped a single building in a town from 8k. It was the last building up and someone let troops out from a C47 that landed just outside of the town. I lined up quickly and dropped 1 bomb. Direct hit! Then just 1 second later, the first troop ran into the map room.
-
ok ok ok, Lancaster was just an example. How about B 17's, B 24's that bombed during the day? Any word on them being able to, using Kermits example, hit a single building such as the Townhall with a single bomb, then move onto the next target?
-
We have no wind, or any atmospheric conditions at all, to scatter the bombs, which is why we have laser accuracy.
-
Also all bombs ideal and equal, no air drag or it use very basic formulas, you know your exact alt and speed w/o any inaccuracy and so on.
btw, real ww2 level bombers always (or almost always at least) drop all their bombs at once.
-
Thats why I was wondering if it was ever heard of?
-
RAF night bombing was prone to inaccuracy because of "creepback"...basically, one crew would "lose their nerve", drop their payload short and RTB, and other crews, seeing the fires set by that missed payload dump, would that as their point of reference...but then they would "creepback" as well, etc. The bombers didn't fly in a massed formation but a spread out "bomber stream".
USAAF day bombing was prone to inaccuracy because not all the crews were adequately trained to use the Nordon bomb sight. The Nordon bomb sight was also very accurate assuming certain conditions. These conditions were rarely met in combat because the bombers had to fly contrary to "spec" in order to optimize crew longevity, i.e. had they flown to "spec", they would have bombed more accurately but they also would've been shot down in greater numbers.
The only way to reproduce the same sort of behavior and results found historically would be to provide each side with a sophisticated ground control radar that could detect massing bombers and vector fighters towards the bombers and intensify flak and reproduce atmospheric conditions (turbulence, cloud cover, etc.) that would all contribute towards increasing bomb dispersion and also introduce some sort of game rules to force people to attempt to survive their missions, something so onerous that people would rather dump their bomb payload and RTB rather than pressing on in the face of heavy opposition and/or incurred damage. This would probably make the game less fun.
-
"people would rather dump their bomb payload and RTB"
It would be silly for the crews to fly all the way into Germany only to lose their nerve a few minutes from the target; I suspect the "creepback" was more a function of general, compounding inaccuracy than a loss of nerve.
I vaguely remembering reading - possibly in Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far" - that, during the assault on Arnhem, Halifax turret gunners would strafe ground targets after the bomber had released its glider. That's not quite the same as dropping 1,000lb bombs on individual ground targets, though.
From what I have read in "The Right of the Line" and elsewhere, anybody who wanted to use precious Lancasters in this way would have had to convince Arthur Harris that it was a wise use of resources, and he would have said no.
-
I'll take Ki-67's up with 15 50kg bombs and climb out to 25K or so and go drop radars at 15 different bases on one run. Not all that hard to do if you set up your flight plan properly and get good calibrations prior to the drop.
-
Originally posted by Apeking
"people would rather dump their bomb payload and RTB"
It would be silly for the crews to fly all the way into Germany only to lose their nerve a few minutes from the target; I suspect the "creepback" was more a function of general, compounding inaccuracy than a loss of nerve.
You can dump your load and RTB asap or possibly get hit by that big flak concentration or the hoard of fighters and die....forever. No re-spawn for another flight.
What would you do?
I've seen in a scenario where points are given for RTB's the strategy of just RTBing.
wrngway
-
I have a clip on my computer of a civilian reporter who went up in one of the bombers on a combat mission. Two of the four reporters who went on various bombers were killed. The surviver whose narration I have mentioned that the crew flew over the target and dropped, then discovered that one of the bombs had not released. The pilot asked, "Is it a big one or a small one?" The crewman replied, "It's a small one," so the pilot said that it wasn't worth it. He had been ready to turn around and make another perilous pass if it was a big one.
-
Fear of death does funny things to people.
Compare a typical AH air battle with what happened historically. The difference in tactics, outcomes, etc. are due to people flying until they die in AH while historically, people had a tendency to get upset when being shot at, let alone having bullets intersect the space their body was occupying.
-
MacCleod,
A really good book that discusses the bomber war is "Tail End Charlies" and it discusses both the U.S. and British campaigns, with more emphasis on the RAF/Lancaster missions.
A couple of things:
By the end of the war, most Lanc missions carried incendiaries and the cookie. The cookie was used to set off a massive explosion that presumably the incendiaries would complement by setting fires. Lancs dropped individually, and typically did not drop (at least during the night missions) from such high altitudes as did the U.S. But, they did drop their whole load simultaneously. Since the entire effort was focussed on Harris's goals of destroying entire cities, these tactics were effective, as accuracy wasn't desired, or necessary.
For the U.S., the USAAF was convinced that a systematic approach to destroying industrial/economic targets would cause the German war machine to grind to a halt. They thought that "precision" bombing was necessary to destroy individual factories, refineries, marshalling yards, etc. and the crews themselves believed they were not carpet bombing cities, but trying to hit individual targets. The Norden was basically a computer that, when fed the correct data, could put bombs on target effectively. In training in the States before they shipped out to England, crews trained on hitting point-type targets with the Norden, and were largely successful, although they were dropping from lower altitude, without flak, formation induced turbulence, etc. Early missions along the coast of France attempted to duplicate these types of bombing missions, targeting things like individual sub pens. Some crews were successful, but all in all these missions were largely ineffective. Mounting losses from fighters demanded tighter and bigger formations for protection, and as the raids moved further east into Germany, Flak concentrations became brutal. Eventually, an individual formation would all drop off the lead bomber in the formation, sometimes while not even carrying bombadiers. They would actually just carry enlisted "picklers" who would hit the switch based off the lead. Obviously if the lead bomber was off, the whole drop was off. A successful mission was deemed to have at least 30% of the total drop within a large radius of the aim point. Needless to say, many targets were struck repeatedly due to poor effects on target. There were a few examples of U.S. bombers attacking tactical targets, most notably during Operation Cobra, where U.S. bombers were sent on missions to hit German troop concentrations to facilitate an Allied breakout from Normandy. These attacks did considerable damage, but also killed a large number of Allied troops as a result of poor coordination. After Cobra, these type of attacks were frowned upon by both ground and air commanders.
It wasn't until the Vietnam War that "strategic" bombers were capable of decisively affecting point or tactical targets.
So, short answer to your question is no, there was no appreciable use of strategic bombers attacking point/tactical targets during WWII. The typical use of strat bombers in AH is largely unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by zarkov
Compare a typical AH air battle with what happened historically. The difference in tactics, outcomes, etc. are due to people flying until they die in AH while historically, people had a tendency to get upset when being shot at, let alone having bullets intersect the space their body was occupying.
I have that tendency to get a little angry...
-
I know this isn't precisely what was being asked but in addition to the single tallboys being dropped by lancs there were also the Dambusters (317 squadron I think?) that dropped single skipping bombs on dams. Oh, and there were two B-29's that each dropped one bomb....
Mace
-
617 Squadron Dambusters
-
617 were the uber bomber pilots. If you do any reading on bombing missions these are the guys to check out.
In answer to your question Macloed. Yes you can drop just one bomb and be very accurate with it.
With the bombsight in AH and having no wind one can take the VH out from 20k plus with 1 click. In formation = 3x1000lbs= dead vh.
-
I saw a television show on the History Channel recently that talked about the Norden bombsight. As part of the show, they took up a B-25 with a Norden in it and had two bombardiers try to hit a cross painted on the ground. I forget the altitude they were flying at, but I think it was 12k or so -- it certainly was not 25k. Also, the bombardiers didn't get much practice with the Norden before using it, which you could tell was a big issue (as the bombardiers were saying that they were having some trouble getting it all set up while on the bomb run). They had one guy who flew in WWII and one who flew in Korea using the Norden. Although neither hit directly in the center of the cross, both got decently close, with one of the guys putting a bomb about 100 ft from the center.
My guess is that it would have been possible for bombers to place single bombs fairly accurately. However, there are many things that could hamper that ability. Targets generally would take many bombs to be destroyed -- especially fortified targets. So, more bombs or more bombers were needed. Also, once one bomber drops, there is dust and smoke that obscures the target, so there is more guesswork on deciding where to drop if you are a following bomber, and again more bombers are then needed. I don't think wind and air density were the main problems, though, as the Norden was there to calculate bomb trajectories taking into account such things.
If in Aces High we had (1) to contend with much poorer visibility (due to clouds over target that you couldn't see through, not just haze that you can still see through; and due to large amounts of smoke or dust, enough to obscure the target thoroughly) and (2) contend with ground landscapes that didn't make it as easy to spot and to know exactly where a particular building or AA gun is, I think you'd see people needing to put down sticks of bombs instead of one bomb for each target.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
If in Aces High we had (1) to contend with much poorer visibility (due to clouds over target that you couldn't see through, not just haze that you can still see through; and due to large amounts of smoke or dust, enough to obscure the target thoroughly) and (2) contend with ground landscapes that didn't make it as easy to spot and to know exactly where a particular building or AA gun is, I think you'd see people needing to put down sticks of bombs instead of one bomb for each target.
True enought Brooke. Its important to note that we didn't really know what the Jet Stream was until B-29's started dropping from extemely high altitude over Japan. In ETO it wasn't a factor, although normal winds aloft were.
Remember, strategic bombing is based on a doctrine developed by Douhet back in the '20's. His vision was one of massive formations of bombers dropping highly destructive incendiary and gas bombs on cities. Unfortunately (for advocats of Douhet), politics interfered with his vision, after the Allies demonized bombing cities after the Japanese raids in China, the Guernica raid, and the Blitz. They actually used the word "terror" in descibing the technique. The Germans likewise used the same term to descibe Allied bomber crews later in the war by calling them "terror fliers". After the war, there was a pretty big controversy regarding Harris and his belief in bombing cities. Churchill pretty much abandoned all support (publically anyway) of the technique before even the war was over. Some historians have even suggested that the propaganda surrounding the Norden's "accuracy" was to lend credibility to the U.S. claim of not bombing civilians when hitting industrial targets.
My point is that the bombers and tactics developed by the Allies were for supporting this type of campaign, not one of striking point targets. Before and during the war, point target bombing was the job of dive bombers like the Stuka, SBD and later, fighters armed with bombs. And despite the limited examples of the dam busters, some skip bombing in the Pacific, etc., strat bombers didn't salvo single bombs while making multiple runs over point targets.
-
Thankyou all for your reply's. It just crossed my mind while I was taking out an entire Vbase with one set of bombers. I just wondered if it was ever heard of. Thank you very much again
-
just wondering if for the forthcoming COMBAT TOUR will there be prober wind and drfit ect to affect the heavey bombers?.
617 Squadron were the best of the best .The RAF used path finders to mark the targets with flairs for the bombers to drop on,these guys were some of the best navagiators pilots bomb aimers and gunners around and there drops on target were the most acuuract they could get in 1944 1945.
Te pathfinders went in low and marked the tgt for the higher bombers then if the tgt got obscured they went in again to mark it.
IF Ah had wind and cloud and other things then the bombers wouldnt be as efective as they are now.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
617 Squadron were the best of the best .The RAF used path finders to mark the targets with flairs for the bombers to drop on,these guys were some of the best navagiators pilots bomb aimers and gunners around and there drops on target were the most acuuract they could get in 1944 1945.
I saw video posted on YouTube, a show about the Mosquito. It was very good. It talked about the Mosquitos being used to do the marking. It also talked about the radio methods the RAF used in the night raids. They had two radio transmitters situated such that a Mosquito could figure out when it was over the intended target. Then the Mosquito could visually verify the target and drop its marker bombs.
The show made me wonder if, contrary to what I thought, accuracy of night bombing was perhaps similar to day bombing. Also, the show talked about large numbers of Lancasters getting shot down by German night fighters and talked about heavy losses among the Lancasters as a result of that and of course from flak. This made me wonder if loss rates in night bombing were perhaps similar to day bombing, again contrary to what I thought. It was an interesting show.
It is in 5 parts on YouTube. Here's a link to part 1. For the other parts, seach on the phrase "mosquito doc".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQ6pMb1Jsc
-
Originally posted by macleod01
snip
However reading a book the other night, I read that only a tenth of the early bombs came within 5 MILES of the target!
That's true. But what you don't mention is that this was during NIGHT raids, when an entire formation was dropping into the dark on targets they couldn't see in a bombsight, on command when dead reckoning by the leader said it was time.
-
I dont think in WWII it was the "norm" for bombers to drop a single bomb on a target at 1000' off the ground.
Like stated before the fighters or AA guns would take them outta the sky before they ever reached thier target.
I have always hated the dive bombing Lanc's or the B17's 500' off the deck carpet bombing targets. Yes, people can play as they wish, however I have always felt this to be unfair mainly because we have nothing to counter it with (at present)
I would not be as aggrevated by this if we had something to defend agaisnt it with like some 88's, 5" guns and multi-barreled 40mm Bofors guns. That way it'd be a little more balanced (IMO)
As it is right now (which is good) the fields are littered with lots of AA guns, the days of a single fighter de-acking the entire field then porking the entire base are almost non-exsistant.
I feel the same should apply when bombers are 500' off the deck on a suicide run to a field. They should be met with horrendous AA fire (just as they were in WWII)
I realize there has to be a balance to some degree because it's just a game, but town ack was increased heavily, field ack was seriously beefed up, yet the suicide carpet bombing Lanc's and 17's just fly in and lay waste to everything. I think this might play out a little differently if they were met with more realistic AA fire than what we currently have.
I think this is one of those issues that have been discussed on the boards a million times. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance it, I do know that if were going to continue to encourage HT to make things more "realistic" and or "balanced" this issue (IMO) should get a long overdue facelift.
my 2 cents
-
Airfield AA beefed up. Great.
Town AA beefed up. Great.
V-Base AA . . . . . . DOH ! ! ! Forgotten again. LOL
LTARsqrl <>
-
Originally posted by MOIL
I think this is one of those issues that have been discussed on the boards a million times. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance it, I do know that if were going to continue to encourage HT to make things more "realistic" and or "balanced" this issue (IMO) should get a long overdue facelift.
my 2 cents
Bottom line is that, unless someone cares about dying, they'll suicide pork/bomb all day long. I've seen in other posts where folks even recommend the best bomber to "bomb and bail" in. Can't do anything to anyone if they don't care about dying. We've had our experiences with that in real life serveral times...Only thing you can do is kill them, but no one only lives once in AH.
Personally, I make it a point to punish bombers that come in at low altitude as much as I can. Don't think it makes much difference, but it makes me feel better about folks that game the game...
-
Originally posted by MOIL
I feel the same should apply when bombers are 500' off the deck on a suicide run to a field. They should be met with horrendous AA fire (just as they were in WWII)
In RL the risk of flying low is small caliber guns and far less from AA. Every soldier will be pointing his rifle up and fire. Heavy AA have trouble tracking a fast, low flying target due to the fast angular velocity and won't be able to switch to the next one fast enough. To drop a mustang, a bullet to the radiator or the meat in the cockpit is enough. To drop a bomber it takes a few more hits, but it could definitly injure and kill crew members and damage engines and equipment.
Originally posted by Stoney74
Bottom line is that, unless someone cares about dying, they'll suicide pork/bomb all day long. I've seen in other posts where folks even recommend the best bomber to "bomb and bail"
Perked ordinance may help here. Bomber perks are useless so nobody cares about earning them. If 1000 lbs would cost perks then bomber guys would like to land the kills and get the perks. It also means that suiciding with a heavy 1000lbs filled lancs/B17/B24 would be a big loss of perks. Then make formations cost a small number of perks (2-3 is enough) so people will not "shed" them off and go strifing with a B17.