Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Gowan on December 08, 2007, 03:35:32 AM

Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 08, 2007, 03:35:32 AM
I HAVE THE SOLUTION!!!!

when im lancstuka'ing, i sometimes break my wings off...

why dont we put dive flaps on them ^_^




im sorry, but i had to put the other view of the problem on this forum

<(^^<) ^( ^^ )^ (>^^)>
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Spikes on December 08, 2007, 06:25:46 AM
And how would this Fix the problem?

The Lancaster is a LEVEL bomber.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: croduh on December 08, 2007, 06:48:35 AM
I used to see many lancstukas loose wings or crash, this would fix the problem.Man has a point.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 08, 2007, 01:55:37 PM
lol, thx for your support croduh
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: stodd on December 08, 2007, 05:00:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SpikesX
And how would this Fix the problem?

The Lancaster is a LEVEL bomber.


Tell that to tripleD he's a deadly dive bomber in those
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: AAolds on December 08, 2007, 05:02:43 PM
More AAA vehicle choices might be useful to the lancstuka issue.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Latrobe on December 08, 2007, 06:02:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SpikesX
And how would this Fix the problem?

The Lancaster is a LEVEL bomber.


Exactly, a LANCASTER is a level bomber

A LANCSTUKSA is a completly different bomber, a dive bomber. A really really big dive bomber.

:D
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Xasthur on December 08, 2007, 08:02:00 PM
While we're on the topic of the addition of stupid chit....

Let's put rocket boosters on all the fighters too, yeah?

How about parachutes you can deploy mid-fight so as to force an overshoot more easily? That would be neat.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 08, 2007, 08:08:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Xasthur
While we're on the topic of the addition of stupid chit....

Let's put rocket boosters on all the fighters too, yeah?

How about parachutes you can deploy mid-fight so as to force an overshoot more easily? That would be neat.


ZOMG!!! awexome ideas, thanks for suggesting them
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Spikes on December 08, 2007, 08:43:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Xasthur
While we're on the topic of the addition of stupid chit....

Let's put rocket boosters on all the fighters too, yeah?

How about parachutes you can deploy mid-fight so as to force an overshoot more easily? That would be neat.


But...but...you forgot the n00k :confused: .
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: bobtom on December 08, 2007, 09:15:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Xasthur
While we're on the topic of the addition of stupid chit....

Let's put rocket boosters on all the fighters too, yeah?

How about parachutes you can deploy mid-fight so as to force an overshoot more easily? That would be neat.


and then we could add some heat seeking BULLETS to all the planes!!!
now that would be awsome!
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Krusty on December 08, 2007, 09:35:57 PM
It seems everybody missed the humor in how Gowan turned the phrase around.


He's making a joke, folks. He took the phrase "lancstuka problem" and turned it around as if from the other perspective. Had me chuckling... until I read all the replies :rolleyes:
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 08, 2007, 10:13:04 PM
ding ding ding!!! we have a winner!!!

1st place Croduh
2nd Latrobe
3rd Krusty

i did it by time of realization that this is a joke, and if i could tell it was NOT sarcastic
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: stodd on December 10, 2007, 01:57:26 PM
4th place stodd?:rolleyes:
Title: Re: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: MajIssue on December 10, 2007, 02:13:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gowan
I HAVE THE SOLUTION!!!!

when im lancstuka'ing, i sometimes break my wings off...

why dont we put dive flaps on them ^_^




im sorry, but i had to put the other view of the problem on this forum

<(^^<) ^( ^^ )^ (>^^)>


A tank main gun into the cockpit usually kills CAS buffs... Use a B-25H with bombs to kill GVs or an A-20... Much more effective
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: MajIssue on December 10, 2007, 02:16:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gowan
ZOMG!!! awexome ideas, thanks for suggesting them


I disagree Gowan... But the correct spelling would make you "appear" more credible (I assume you will have to look that word up!)

BTW... you need a B-52 in the middle of your avatar!
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 14, 2007, 09:27:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MajIssue
I disagree Gowan... But the correct spelling would make you "appear" more credible (I assume you will have to look that word up!)

BTW... you need a B-52 in the middle of your avatar!
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh


Awexsome is a word!

*starts crying*


SALTED NUTS!
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: SD67 on December 14, 2007, 09:46:18 PM
Chef's flying lancstukas now?:huh
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: John Hynds on December 15, 2007, 03:21:19 AM
Gonna post this here instead of starting a new thread because I think it's the same deal.
Something needs to be done about the low level lanc,B24,B17 missions carpet bombing gv's when they are defending a base. What usually happens is a flight or several flights fly in at low level don't sight anything just dump the bomb load then either willingly crash, bail, or get shot down and get perk points for 2,3, or 4 kills. Maybe the bombers need to be at least flown to a friendly base before quitting the flight before any perks are given. I know this would upset some people but it upsets me when I have 5 or more kills and getted bombed by a bomber flying at tree top level and the pilot knowing they aren't going to fly back to a friendly base but gets the perk points anyways.:mad:
Just thought of this. I know the American bomber bombsight in real life didn't wok correctly under something like 6000 feet. Maybe change the calibration procedure to where it can't be calibrated until the bomber is higher than 5 or 6 thousand.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: SlapShot on December 15, 2007, 09:58:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by John Hynds
Just thought of this. I know the American bomber bombsight in real life didn't wok correctly under something like 6000 feet. Maybe change the calibration procedure to where it can't be calibrated until the bomber is higher than 5 or 6 thousand.


Your wrong ... the Norden bombsight used airspeed and altitude to calculate bomb trajectory. It's a pure mathimatical equation so it could calc the trajectory no matter what alt.

On the other hand ... the Norden basically sucked. It's calculations did not have enough correct input to properly put eggs on the target.

"Using this device, bombardiers could, in theory, drop their bombs within a 100-foot (ca 30m) circle from an altitude of well over 20,000 feet (ca. 7km). In combat, this accuracy was never achieved — because the Norden had been tested under "artificial conditions" at the US proving grounds, for example in the absence of anti-aircraft fire or adverse weather. An additional factor was that the shape and even the paint of the bomb mantle greatly changed the aerodynamic properties of the weapon; and, at that time, nobody knew how to calculate the trajectory of bombs that reached supersonic speeds during their fall.

Under perfect conditions only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target, and American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs could miss their targets."
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: ForrestS on December 15, 2007, 12:02:18 PM
Hippie!!!!!!
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Coshy on December 15, 2007, 01:47:33 PM
Wasn't carpet bombing the norm in WW2? Mainly because they couldn't accurately hit a pinpoint target.

Isn't the laser accurate bombers we have historically incorrect?

I suppose the response for the carpet bombing of bases is "they did it in WW2".
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: John Hynds on December 15, 2007, 01:48:22 PM
Why did the planes in the Doolitle raid not use the Norden? It didn't work at low level.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: John Hynds on December 15, 2007, 01:51:25 PM
Yes WWII bombing was inaccurate mostly. My problem as stated is I am sick of being bombed by Lanc,B24,B17s flying in at low level and the people doing it knowing they are going to get the perks without having to worry about trying to fly back to a friendly base and land.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: SlapShot on December 15, 2007, 02:21:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by John Hynds
Why did the planes in the Doolitle raid not use the Norden? It didn't work at low level.


And that is documented where ?

I would be more inclined to believe that the bombsight and all its other equiptment was not even on the B-25 due to weight savings and if a B-25 did go down ... the bombsight would fall into Japanese hands ... which is not something we wanted to have happen.

Here ya go ...

After the raid was approved, 24 operational B-25B medium bombers were detached from the 17th Bomb Group (Medium), based at Lexington County Army Air Base, Columbia, South Carolina, and sent to the Mid-Continent Airlines modification center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for installation of additional fuel tanks. The aircraft were modified by:

Removal of the lower gun turret
Installation of de-icers and anti-icers
Steel blast plates mounted on the fuselage around the upper turret
Removal of the liaison radio set
Installation of three additional fuel tanks and support mounts in the bomb bay, crawl way and lower turret area to increase fuel capacity from 646 to 1,141 U.S. gallons (2445 to 4319 litres)
Mock gun barrels installed in the tail cone, and
Replacement of their Norden bombsight with a makeshift aiming sight.



Quote
Originally posted by John Hynds
Yes WWII bombing was inaccurate mostly. My problem as stated is I am sick of being bombed by Lanc,B24,B17s flying in at low level and the people doing it knowing they are going to get the perks without having to worry about trying to fly back to a friendly base and land.


The same holds true for fighters and GVs. I could score 6 kills in a fighter and bail if I desire. I could score 12 kills in a Tiger and bail if I desire.

So what's your point ? ... your upset that they are getting perks ?

So what ? ... they did kill whatever they killed so they should get credit for it. What they don't get is the full perk value had they "landed" safely ... so in essence ... they are getting penalized for bailing.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: MajIssue on December 17, 2007, 02:47:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by John Hynds
Yes WWII bombing was inaccurate mostly. My problem as stated is I am sick of being bombed by Lanc,B24,B17s flying in at low level and the people doing it knowing they are going to get the perks without having to worry about trying to fly back to a friendly base and land.


TWO ways to get 'em to think twice about doing the AC 17/AC 24 and GA lanc deal on top of you John.

1: up an Ostwind and hang close to the tanks... When they get within 1.5K open up on 'em.

2: If you're already in a tank track them with your main gun and when thet get within 1K (Head on is the best) Give them a HE round! If it does nothing else it will effect their drop in your favor.

Failing those 2 your pintle gun can be quite effective... aim at the engine/cockpit areas. Pilot wounds will drive off even the most determined ground attack minded buff driver.

CAS Bombers... I once saw a guy using the tail gun of an AR-234 to attack GVs!!! After I stopped laughing I put enough 12.7 MM maching gun rounds into him that his wing disintegrated... Got a few perkies on that sortie!

:lol
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Rich46yo on December 19, 2007, 06:01:14 AM
This Lanc-stuka problem is irritating. Carpetbombing in a dive has shut down many a fine GV battle. I have no problem with heavies doing that as long as they do it in a manner they were designed to. Ive been hanging out a lot of TTs and seeing wave after wave of Lancs in dive bomb mode is just crazy.

                             Maybe Lancs should be perked.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on December 21, 2007, 12:26:08 PM
ooh! yet another person who doesnt get the humor to this thread
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Denholm on December 21, 2007, 07:37:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SpikesX
But...but...you forgot the n00k :confused: .

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on January 04, 2008, 08:07:19 PM
:rofl :rofl

i can see it now, a lancstuka with a nook....

who cares about the b29!!! its a bird, no its a really big bird, no, its teh LANCSTUKA!!!!!!!
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: trigger2 on January 05, 2008, 02:05:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Xasthur
While we're on the topic of the addition of stupid chit....

Let's put rocket boosters on all the fighters too, yeah?

How about parachutes you can deploy mid-fight so as to force an overshoot more easily? That would be neat.


While were at it why not politically correct paratroopers and Hot Air balloons :lol



Sorry
Couldn't resist :]
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: trigger2 on January 05, 2008, 02:09:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Maybe Lancs should be perked.


With how slow and badly gunned they were?? No  way...

I've got a picture of their belly gun...

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/200629185439_sten-mk3-opt.jpg)

Sten MK3 I do believe...


"OPEN THE BOMB BAY DOORS!! SGT! GRAB THAT STEN AND GET THAT 109 OFF US!!"
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: BaldEagl on January 05, 2008, 10:16:22 AM
Almost any fighter solves the LancStuka problem pretty easily.

Just saying...
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: waystin2 on January 06, 2008, 09:58:49 AM
Or This!  

Quote
Originally posted by Larry
Yes I know its been asked for many times, but I think its that time again. From everything Iv read I think the wirblewind would be alot better AA tank then the Ostwind. The rof of the WW is around 800rpm compared to the OS's 160rpm. The WWs HE round weighed 0.3 lbs and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,953'/sec. One thing that really stands out is that only 43 OWs were produced to the WWs (from what I read) 140. I wouldnt even mind getting rid of the OW and have it replaced with the WW.


(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/flak-panzers/wirbelwind/wirbelwind-02.jpg)-







Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Denholm on January 07, 2008, 10:43:33 AM
Me like.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 07, 2008, 04:12:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Rich46yo
This Lanc-stuka problem is irritating. Carpetbombing in a dive has shut down many a fine GV battle. I have no problem with heavies doing that as long as they do it in a manner they were designed to. Ive been hanging out a lot of TTs and seeing wave after wave of Lancs in dive bomb mode is just crazy.

                             Maybe Lancs should be perked.



The best way to stop the dive bombing buffs is to put an angle limiter that regulates the angle they can drop their bombs at.  Limit the angle to something like 5 degrees.   There aren't any credible reports of any heavy Allied bomber being used as a dive bomber though some did use shallow dives while bombing but never exceeded beyond 5 degrees.


And yes Gowan, I did get your joke and it was funny ^__^


ack-ack
Title: Re: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Wes14 on January 07, 2008, 06:24:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gowan
when im lancstuka'ing, i sometimes break my wings off...

why dont we put dive flaps on them ^_^


Look for pieces of P-38's in the arenas, I think the L has dive flaps. and oddly enough. I see parts of those twin tailed devils all over the place. :D
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on January 08, 2008, 04:46:40 PM
or they could make it so if the lanc is at a negative level the bombs wont release, and just in case one would try to level out just before release, if the plane is "ungodly" over normal max level speed "ie from a dive" the bombs still wont release.

Its that or you code the bombs to not fall out if the bomber is pulling negative g's "so bombs stay up in bomb bay"
Realy, the only thing stoping any plane from being a dive bomber, is the fact its simply not how squads and air forces used them back in the day.

Could a b17 dive bomb at 150-250 mph, drop and pull out? sure..did they?
no.

why?

because the large formations wouldnt allow it, watermelon happens and you wouldnt risk a formation and 8+ peoples lives per plane to make a carpet bombing run more accuret.
Not to mention the real problem is the pin point laser bombs aces high has, real bombs spread out with alt and distance and wind, ours do not....ever.


Make bombs inaccuret over alt and speed, and the dive bombing lanc becomes a moot point. but every other bomb carrying plane in aces high would also suffer from such "realism".

:aok
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Ack-Ack on January 08, 2008, 06:02:12 PM
The only instance that I was able to find about a B-17 being used as a dive bomber was a story about a B-17 that was damaged and decided to dive bomb a Japanese naval ship rather than trying to come around and setup for another level bombing pass.


Quote

Major Bernard Schriever, a newly-minted Major fresh from Graduate school at Stanford University, joined the 19th bomb group in Australia and directed Burleson’s effort to perfect the flare racks. In less than 90-days Schriever recommended Louis Burleson for an officer’s commission. Schriever was the pilot of Louis Burleson’s crew on a famous bombing raid there Schriever used the B-17 as a dive bomber, destroying Japanese battleship in an act of extreme heroism. This recollection is from an article about
“They flew in a formation of about a dozen B-17s in a night raid on Rabaul. Their airplane carried the flares and half the regular bomb load. The flare system worked well, but Schriever wanted to check on the bombing results, so they made another circuit over the target area. Flak was heavy but ineffective at the 10,000-foot altitude from which they were bombing.

As they turned, the No. 3 engine burst into a ball of flames. Dougherty, in the left seat, feathered the prop and shut the engine down. They still had bombs on board but did not want to set up another bombing approach. A quick conference on the intercom led to a decision: They would dive-bomb the ships in the harbor.”



Hardly something that was routine as has been claimed by others as a defense to using heavy bombers as a dive bombing platform.

ack-ack
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on January 12, 2008, 12:41:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
or they could make it so if the lanc is at a negative level the bombs wont release, and just in case one would try to level out just before release, if the plane is "ungodly" over normal max level speed "ie from a dive" the bombs still wont release.

Its that or you code the bombs to not fall out if the bomber is pulling negative g's "so bombs stay up in bomb bay"
Realy, the only thing stoping any plane from being a dive bomber, is the fact its simply not how squads and air forces used them back in the day.

Could a b17 dive bomb at 150-250 mph, drop and pull out? sure..did they?
no.

why?

because the large formations wouldnt allow it, watermelon happens and you wouldnt risk a formation and 8+ peoples lives per plane to make a carpet bombing run more accuret.
Not to mention the real problem is the pin point laser bombs aces high has, real bombs spread out with alt and distance and wind, ours do not....ever.


Make bombs inaccuret over alt and speed, and the dive bombing lanc becomes a moot point. but every other bomb carrying plane in aces high would also suffer from such "realism".

:aok



*slaps the one who makes sense*

READ THE WHOLE THREAD FIRST BEFORE POSTING
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Mr No Name on January 12, 2008, 03:02:44 PM
Fix = F6 bombing mode only for heavies
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Yeager on January 12, 2008, 05:03:54 PM
this is where I pop in and remind you guys that AH is a base capture "game".

Unless your in a controlled scenario where everything tends to flow along more believable lines of action.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Tilt on January 13, 2008, 05:50:51 AM
Perk formations

F6 only for bomb release from formations.

F6 only for single "bombers" (as opposed to attackers)

Longer fuse delays for "bombers"


Whilst the above is enforcing a norm (rather than allowing an exception)adding wing weaknesses is just erronious.
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on January 17, 2008, 11:58:37 PM
wow.... i really hate retards that dont realize this is a joke, because 1, im not neubob, 2, they cant read the first post
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Gowan on February 06, 2008, 09:49:57 PM
im sorry if i offended the retards who read my last post, oh wait... if their retarded they probably wouldnt be smart enough to be offended



im being a bad Gowgow to night
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: Rich46yo on February 07, 2008, 05:55:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Gowan
im sorry if i offended the retards who read my last post, oh wait... if their retarded they probably wouldnt be smart enough to be offended



im being a bad Gowgow to night


                          I got your joke I just didn't think it was "funny". I think your kind of "funny", in a "funny" sort of way.

                        Yaknow....just....."funny".

                       But thanks for sharing. BTW you should spell "im" with a capitol I, as in "I'm".
Title: The fix to the lancstuka problem
Post by: AAolds on February 07, 2008, 06:59:03 AM
My view on lancstukas:  Such pilots cant hold a flame to my GV bombing ability and I don't need a formation to do it.  As others have suggested, a fighter does make quick work of such dweebs.   Another suggestion, if you're on your base defending and sitting on concrete, when the lancstuka drops bombs at you, click "end sortie" and deny them their oh so precious kill and re-up and continue defense.  Ill end sortie off of concrete too just to avoid giving a kill to a lancstuka.