Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Strip on March 06, 2008, 03:55:14 PM

Title: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 06, 2008, 03:55:14 PM
Title says it all.....

Time delay fuzes for noe attacks. This option I like the least for a few reasons. I think the stukalancs would have a field day using these. If you require a minimum alt to arm you dont need time delay. So while effective in real life it would have some drawbacks in AH. Perk loadout?

Parabombs for noe attacks on towns, airfields and factorys. This has the same draw backs as above. However most para bombs were 250lb HE bombs or less I believe. This would mean a direct hit would be needed to take a tank out. I think the dweebs would stick to other more effective and easier methods. Again perk loadout?

Incendiary for use against towns, and ord/ammo bunkers. No real downsides to this one. Rewards tactile thinking and brings back some of the challenge to buffing requiring planning and commitment to target.

Landmines.......will be gamed but extremly useful. Would have to figure out a way to stop the dweebs. Definte perk loadout but would it keep the dweebs from camping spawns?

Ive been hoping for stuff like this for years.......maybe someday!


Strip(er)



All stuff asked before (I searched).....but people gripe if you punt a thread.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: OOZ662 on March 06, 2008, 04:48:34 PM
Definte perk loadout but would it keep the dweebs from camping spawns?

Probably wouldn't be too hard to make mines inside the spawn radius ineffective. Probably based off the same code they use for field supplies. The spawn is an object, and supplies are based off a distance to an object.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: moot on March 06, 2008, 05:41:32 PM
Fuses on bombs would re-enable the old carbomb exploit.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: snowey on March 06, 2008, 06:48:17 PM
whats the old carpet bombing exploat and insted lets have 500ib bombs for the b-25 that have parachutes
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 06, 2008, 07:19:19 PM
When I say time delay I mean less than 10 seconds......

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: OOZ662 on March 06, 2008, 08:26:12 PM
whats the old carpet bombing exploat and insted lets have 500ib bombs for the b-25 that have parachutes

First, school will do you good. Keep trying.

Second, I don't think there were 500lb parafrags. Maybe, I dunno.

Third, he said CAR BOMB exploit. Set fuse for ten minutes, drop bombs. GV fight starts. Suddenly the entire area explodes as you drive by.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: hubsonfire on March 06, 2008, 08:48:22 PM
Carbomb- Dropping ord while on the ground. Bombs go off, planes/GVs/whatever 'splode, you get kills.

I thought this went back to AW, but it has its own thread on this forum, so it must have been an early AH trick.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: snowey on March 06, 2008, 08:55:34 PM
First, school will do you good. Keep trying.

Second, I don't think there were 500lb parafrags. Maybe, I dunno.

Third, he said CAR BOMB exploit. Set fuse for ten minutes, drop bombs. GV fight starts. Suddenly the entire area explodes as you drive by.
i am not sure what size they were they were ether 250ib or 50ib they have film of it i have seen it multiple times it is a b 25 it think because it was the pacific
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: DPQ5 on March 10, 2008, 10:27:28 PM
carbomb thing sounds like somethin funny 2 c
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Ghosth on March 11, 2008, 07:52:35 AM
No dpq5, it really wasn't.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: wrongwayric on March 11, 2008, 08:07:07 AM
To stir the pot so to speak, how about actual gun load outs? If i'm not mistaken currently all gun rounds are modeled on a standard ball round. Now in real life there were planes that could select and mix and match ammo to there missions. 50cals really jump out as they had standard round, incendiery, and the AP. Not sure how effective the incendiery round was as i never really saw it's useage or effectiveness mentioned that much, but i do know the AP round was heavily used when attacking ground targets. If someone want's to do the research would be kind of interesting to know. Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong because it's been awhile since i researched all this.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Blammo on March 11, 2008, 09:44:01 AM
I like the parafrags and the incendiaries.  Would be a hoot to see the whole town light up and burn down.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Denholm on March 11, 2008, 09:50:29 AM
Napalm. :t
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 11, 2008, 12:56:36 PM
I know Korea had napalm but did WW2?

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: SIG220 on March 11, 2008, 05:14:31 PM
I know Korea had napalm but did WW2?

Strip(er)

Napalm was invented by two scientists at Harvard University in 1943.  It's first use in WWII was in July 1944.

It was mainly used in the Pacific against the Japanese.

How do you think the B-29's managed to burn down all of those Japanese cities???   They used the M-69 firebomb cluster.

Here is some detailed info on this weapon:


* The most devastating conventional bomb used by the Americans in WWII was the M-69 incendiary cluster. The first Boeing B-29 raids against the Japanese mainland were performed in the fall of 1944, using high altitude daylight precision bombing with high explosive bombs. For various reasons, this strategy proved ineffective, and in the spring of 1945 the Army Air Force moved to low level incendiary bombing at night.

The M-69 firebomb had been developed earlier in the war and proved ideal for the task. The M-69 was a simple, clever weapon. It looked like a length of pipe, and weighed only 2.3 kilograms (6.2 pounds). As handling such a small weapon was inconvenient, and dropping quantities of small bombs from high altitude was wildly inaccurate, it was designed to be incorporated into an "aimable cluster", a type of finned cluster bomb that contained 38 of the M-69 firebombs.

The aimable cluster was a bundle of M-69s fitted with a nose shroud and tail assembly. It was dropped from high altitude and then broke apart at about 900 meters (2,000 feet), scattering its M-69s. Each M-69 then ejected a long strip of cloth to stabilize itself, and crashed nose-first into buildings below. On impact, it ignited its payload of napalm, which shot out of the tail of the bomb in a burning jet. Under optimum conditions, this jet could travel 45 meters (150 feet).

The M-69 was small and could not penetrate the roofs of solidly constructed buildings. However, most Japanese buildings were lightly built and extremely vulnerable to fire. A copy of a Japanese residential area was built in the US to test the M-69, and was incinerated in a test bombing.


(http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_01_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: EskimoJoe on March 11, 2008, 05:37:32 PM
Napalm. :t
:t :rock :salute
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: OOZ662 on March 11, 2008, 05:44:39 PM
If i'm not mistaken currently all gun rounds are modeled on a standard ball round.

Aircraft that had mixed belts have a hybrid round in Aces High. Every round has a little of each quality of the belt as a whole.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 11, 2008, 07:00:52 PM
If there was a vote.......parafrags.  :devil Hopefully small enough that carpet bombing gvs would be ineffective tho.

I think in general the ordnance in AH2 could use some eye candy and general tweaking after reading all this. All these planes and targets with only 1 bomb type, 3-4 rocket types, 2 torpedoes, and 4 tank rounds. Thats slim pickings if ya ask me.

Rockets....

German A2G
German A2A
Late US Rockets (dont know designation)
Early US Rockets

Torps...

1 Japanese/German
1 American

Bombs...

HE

Tank Rounds.....

HVAP
AP
HE
Smoke

Not very much...


Sig....I assumed they used white phosphorus.

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: ShrkBite on March 11, 2008, 10:30:55 PM
they should add the......um i forget what it was called... (vans would know) the british used this bomb to destroy a dam, bombs made more of an effect underwater than in the air. the Barrel Bomb. it would skip on the water like a stone. now that would be the death of CV's for good!!!
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 11, 2008, 11:11:53 PM
You are refering to a "skip bomb". The were also used against dams and sub-pens. Usually there are nets placed around vital object subject to attack from torpedeos. The bombed skipped over all of the nets and sank to the bottom after coming to rest against the object. They were actually spun up several hundred rpm prior to launch to insure skippage.

Neat idea...

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: SgtPappy on March 12, 2008, 11:00:26 AM
Anyone know if the perk ordnance system (that is supposed to be arriving sometime in the future) is going to allow planes to carry ord that the plane was only capable of carrying via field mod?

I know HTC doesn't allow field mods, but I was thinking with the perk ord system, what will they perk? the regular ord fits we have already? Not sure how it works exactly.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Denholm on March 12, 2008, 11:06:17 AM
they should add the......um i forget what it was called... (vans would know) the british used this bomb to destroy a dam, bombs made more of an effect underwater than in the air. the Barrel Bomb. it would skip on the water like a stone. now that would be the death of CV's for good!!!
Too large, over the 4,000 pound limit that Hitech set.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Krusty on March 12, 2008, 11:16:05 AM
Anyone know if the perk ordnance system (that is supposed to be arriving sometime in the future) is going to allow planes to carry ord that the plane was only capable of carrying via field mod?

I know HTC doesn't allow field mods, but I was thinking with the perk ord system, what will they perk? the regular ord fits we have already? Not sure how it works exactly.

99.99999% no. HTC won't model field-mod bomb racks, field-mod engine over-boosting, field-mod over-load bombloads, field-mod weapons (2x20mm on soviet huricanes, for example, 6x50cal on p-38 for example). They don't do field mod. Don't even bother asking, IMO.

I'm actually quite certain we're better off (for the most part) with this rule in-place.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: SgtPappy on March 12, 2008, 11:56:16 AM
Well yes, that rule does make sense...
I was just wondering about planes' extra weapons and whatnot.

So I guess the regular ord will be perked then? Kinda makes us think about which weapons to load up.. spend some perks like money rather than just pork the crap out of everything.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: ShrkBite on March 12, 2008, 12:36:38 PM
HTC isnt gonna make a whole new perk system just for ord....kinda dumb
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Krusty on March 12, 2008, 12:40:57 PM
They have shrkbate, they just haven't released it yet.

I don't believe the current ord will be perked. Rather I think certain packages will be, like the C-hog's 4x20mm cannon on the F4u1D airframe.

Your run of the mill bombs and rockets won't be.

If they include a NEW bomb or rocket, maybe that will be.

I think it's only meant for special circumstances, mostly (but this is a guess)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: moot on March 12, 2008, 12:48:49 PM
That's a shame.. No 8x20mm or rear guns removed on the Me410.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: SgtPappy on March 12, 2008, 12:49:50 PM
Do I smell Tiny Tims and 2000lb bombs... ?
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 01:59:55 PM
It think you mean the Tall Boy and the 20,000lb bomb called the GrandSlam.


BTW The dam busting skip bombs were not over 4,000 lbs.

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Krusty on March 12, 2008, 03:02:44 PM
Nor were they standard production bombs, they were special 1-offs, generally speaking. The airframe of the plane in question had to be modified, bomb bay doors removed, and a rotating engine installed.


Not to mention AH has no dams to bomb
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 03:25:51 PM
Krusty.....The skip bombs were used against anything hardened from torpedo attack. Harbors, shipyards, ports, submarine pens, and anchored ships.

So while yes we dont have dams....we do have other targets that could be attacked. I agree that there are much better options than a skip bomb tho.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Krusty on March 12, 2008, 03:49:06 PM
He wasn't talking skip bombs. He was talking dambuster bombs. These had a reverse spin, hit the dam wall, and "rolled down" the wall to the bottom of the dam before detonating.

Skip bombing was done with normal bombs. It just has yet to be modeled in AH. They might or might not have had some sort of delayed fuze, I don't recall.

Not at all like what he described.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Bronk on March 12, 2008, 04:07:34 PM
(http://airpower.callihan.cc/images/MRB/02-USNMAT-tinytim.jpg)
Yea that's the ticket.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Elfie on March 12, 2008, 04:15:14 PM
Quote
Time delay fuzes for noe attacks. This option I like the least for a few reasons. I think the stukalancs would have a field day using these. If you require a minimum alt to arm you dont need time delay. So while effective in real life it would have some drawbacks in AH. Perk loadout?

Time delay fuzes don't remove the requirement for a weapon to travel a certain distance to arm the fuze. The M904 and M905 bomb fuzes I worked with required that the weapon travel a certain distance. The vanes on the fuzes had to rotate a certain number of times to arm the fuze, adding a delay element to either/both fuzes did not change that requirement. The delay element only delayed the weapon detonation after impact. How long that delay was, depended on which delay element you used.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Elfie on March 12, 2008, 04:17:32 PM
Quote
Skip bombing was done with normal bombs. It just has yet to be modeled in AH. They might or might not have had some sort of delayed fuze, I don't recall.

Fuzes most likely had to be delayed or the bomb detonates on the first impact instead of *skipping*
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 04:46:38 PM
Krusty to my knowledge skip bombing is NOT done with with normal bombs. The very shape of most bombs would make this impossible. Id be very curious to see any data say normal bombs, like we have in AH2, were skipped across water. Also dambusting bombs were skip bombs. Either spheres or barrels were (as you said) spun backwards so that they skipped across the water over nets and other protection measures.

I think tho that we are arguing over a piece ordnance that will NEVER ever get seen in AH2.

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Bronk on March 12, 2008, 04:49:33 PM
Krusty to my knowledge skip bombing is NOT done with with normal bombs. The very shape of most bombs would make this impossible. Id be very curious to see any data say normal bombs, like we have in AH2, were skipped across water. Also dambusting bombs were skip bombs. Either spheres or barrels were (as you said) spun backwards so that they skipped across the water over nets and other protection measures.

I think tho that we are arguing over a piece ordnance that will NEVER ever get seen in AH2.

Strip(er)

Wanna bet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing

 Resume of Skip Bombing by Hq. 43rd Bomb Gp (H)

9 March 1943

1.     General

        Skip bombing is a low-altitude bombing attack that has been successfully used against naval targets. It consists of a string of from two to four bombs dropped from such an altitude and distance from the target that a complete miss is improbable. Unless the target is of such importance that heavy losses can be accepted this method of bombing should be attempted with large heavy aircraft only at night and under most favorable weather conditions. The attack should be delivered with the idea in mind of securing a maximum of surprise and should not be repeated against the same targets too often. Skip bombing attacks should be made with the target outlined against light of either flares or the moon, and in such a location that the pilot is able to accurately tie in his altitude with a visible beach or other well defined objects. The altitude of the attack should be from 200 to 300 feet and the bomb-release line from 350 to 200 feet from the target.

2.     Conditions:

       Skip bombing attacks have proved effective under the following conditions:
a.    First light of the dawn with the approach made from west to east. Then just enough light exists to silhouette the vessel.
b.    On clear nights with the moon below 40 degrees elevation, the attack being made into the moon.
c.    Directly out of a very low setting sun.
d.    From very low clouds or poor weather where an element of surprise is completely possible.

3.       Rules:

a.    Start the bombing run from the darkness into the light, keeping the attacking plane against a dark background and silhouetting the target against the light.
b.    Deliver the attack from a fairly steep dive with throttles retarded at a speed of from 200 to 250 mph.
c.    Withdrawal should be made in all cases directly over the target and straightaway at sea level. Any attempt to turn near the vessel presents an excellent target.
d.    Bombs should be spaced in train equal to the width of the [illegible]

4.      Fuzing:

       Either the American 405 second fuze or the Aussie 11 - 12 second fuze can be used. The shorter time fuze has greater effectiveness, since in deep water the 11 - 12 second fuze occasionally sinks below effective range before exploding.

5.       Action of Bombs:

       Bombs dropped from this altitude will skip, hit the target direct, or go underneath the water. If the attacking airplane drops its bombs from a slight dive, the bombs will usually go through the water and explode underneath the target. In some cases bombs have been observed to leap completely over the target. Some of the bombs of the train will probably hit directly on the target. Either of these events is effective and it is not believed important to attempt to obtain any one of the three results to the exclusion of the others. In some instances, a low order explosion has resulted from a bomb hitting the side of a vessel but in general the bomb cases holdup very well.

6.       Advantages:

       Skip bombing is effective when attempted under the above stated conditions and offers the following advantages:
a.    Very little training is required to achieve accurate results.
b.    No losses to date have been sustained by this organization from skip bombing.
c.    A surprisingly high percentage of hits is obtained by this method.

7.       Precautionary Measures:

       Skip bombing with heavy bombardment aircraft must be considered an attack of opportunity. Any attempt to skip bomb a war vessel in the light, unsupported, would probably be particularly hazardous because of lack of speed and manoeuvrability and small amount of forward fire power. Successful daylight attacks have been made on unescorted merchant vessels by heavy bombers, and light bombers heavily armed forward with .50 cal machine guns have been highly successful against war vessels. This success of light bombers was due to surprise, coordination, and heavy forward fire, none of which are likely to exist in a daylight attack on warships by heavy bombardment. Repeated skip bombing attacks in the same area would result in some form of protection designed to defeat it. It is, however, when the opportunity presents itself, an ideal surefire method of hitting the target.     
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 12, 2008, 04:52:02 PM
Carbomb- Dropping ord while on the ground. Bombs go off, planes/GVs/whatever 'splode, you get kills.

I thought this went back to AW, but it has its own thread on this forum, so it must have been an early AH trick.

Honestly, don't remember if this was possible in AW but I do recall having to arm bombs before release or they wouldn't explode and dropping them below 500ft usually had dire consequences.


ack-ack
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 04:54:51 PM
I stand corrected. :aok


However when I refer to a "Skip Bomb" I am refering to the bombs that were designed for it. IE Barrels or spheres spun backwards.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Krusty on March 12, 2008, 05:02:44 PM
Those aren't skip bombs. They are sinking bombs (basically depth charges). They may have skipped once or twice over the water but that's not what they are generally classified as.

The term skip bombing applies as Bronk posted, mostly used against shipping, using conventional bombs.
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 05:06:06 PM
Oka Oka......replace Skip with Bounce. My turn to Wiki! :D


This is what I have been talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb)

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Bronk on March 12, 2008, 05:15:07 PM
Oka Oka......replace Skip with Bounce. My turn to Wiki! :D


This is what I have been talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb)

Strip(er)

Bouncing bombs, no thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ohMEZ-d3I&feature=related
Watch to the end.

Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 12, 2008, 05:40:01 PM
Tragic....dont suppose it was a remote controlled either.

Strip(er)
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 13, 2008, 06:09:07 PM
Those aren't skip bombs. They are sinking bombs (basically depth charges). They may have skipped once or twice over the water but that's not what they are generally classified as.



I believe they were called "Bouncing bombs".


ack-ack
Title: Re: Realistic Ordance Options
Post by: Strip on March 13, 2008, 09:34:26 PM
See 3 posts up Ack-Ack...wiki all about em. :aok

Strip(er)