Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: smokey23 on November 19, 2008, 02:00:09 PM
-
I know this has been brought up a few times in the past but in my opinion it needs to be revisited. The powers that be should look into handicapping the heavies such as B-24's - Lancs, being used as gv killers i set there the other night watching lancasters and B-24's divebombing ground vehicles and watching lancasters dive in at 10K divebombing a CV those particular bombers were never used as divebombers they were level bombers nothing more and for those that use them for a divebombing aircraft should be ashamed. It can be cured by HTC if they make the bombay doors "auto close" when the aircraft reaches more than a 5 degree nosedown angle. I love playing this game and its my opinion that small corrections like these could make the game we love even better. More challenging, This doesnt mean the B-25 should be done this way ive seen vid of low level B-25's bombing colums of german vehicles so i dont have a problem with them being used for this but the large bombers should be handicapped.
Let the scalping begin :rolleyes:
-
To each their own. After all, they're paying the $15. ;)
-
I know this has been brought up a few times in the past but in my opinion it needs to be revisited. The powers that be should look into handicapping the heavies such as B-24's - Lancs, being used as gv killers i set there the other night watching lancasters and B-24's divebombing ground vehicles and watching lancasters dive in at 10K divebombing a CV those particular bombers were never used as divebombers they were level bombers nothing more and for those that use them for a divebombing aircraft should be ashamed. It can be cured by HTC if they make the bombay doors "auto close" when the aircraft reaches more than a 5 degree nosedown angle. I love playing this game and its my opinion that small corrections like these could make the game we love even better. More challenging, This doesnt mean the B-25 should be done this way ive seen vid of low level B-25's bombing colums of german vehicles so i dont have a problem with them being used for this but the large bombers should be handicapped.
Let the scalping begin :rolleyes:
What do you want stopped? Heavy bombers being used to kill GVs or to stop the dive bombing or both? I disagree with any sort of limitations imposed to prevent them from being used to kill GVs. However, I do agree with the dive bombing part, it's just a case of players taking advantage of some design flaw to game the game. I've always felt a dive angle limiter would cure that problem.
ack-ack
-
The normal country ch talk nowadays:
"CV off A###"
...
"cc, upping lancs now will kill it"
It's a given these days, if you see a CV, it'll be carpet bombed. Would love to see light bombers killing CVs more, heck even SBD's, B5N's, etc...I know this game isn't historical, but isn't it nice to see some obsolete planes once in a while.
-
might be just me but when i ever i get within range of a CV 5" with a SBD, TBM, B5N or something similar i get turned into millions of pixels. I can only remember once actually dropping on one, mostly use F6F for bombing ships.
-
Not everyone bombs in this manner, and I feel that putting any restrictions on the bombers are going to piss off a lot of people. Just because of the actions of a few. It makes me mad to see a set of Lancs. come in, drop their ords, and then bail out. Rinse and repeat. That is a dweeb at his/her finest.
All I mainly do is bomb and if you ever see my B-17 coming into an enemy base at 10k, well then there is something wrong with my aircraft. I know for a fact that a lot of other people feel this way too.
It takes me a good 30 minutes to get to my bombing alt. So say I'm over a base and getting my arse jumped by cons. I know I will be shot down and don't have time to get in the bomb-scope to calibrate. If i'm over the base I'm going to open my doors and drop, then hope I hit something. It would be shame that I couldn't drop my bombs, because my nose was pitched down too much by a few degrees. This is saying I may be at 20k and trying to fly a little defense on these cons that are trying to blow me out of the sky. I'm almost certain that in this scenerio my bomber could be at any AOA when I drop.
Just my $.02
:salute
Coogan
-
I agree coogan im not talking about a defensive move and usually when youre defensive youre not in youre bombsight lineing up a target. Im refering to those that fly at 1 or 2K and pitch a lanc over at 45 degrees just to bomb a few GV's at a spawnpoint. The shear load stress on those wings would tear them off. I just think an angle limiter on the bombay doors in the few heavy bombers we fly wouldnt be a bad thing.It would greatly improve the realism of the game. I know its a game but why not make it as realistic as possible in my book that would be a much more pleasureable way to spend my $15.00 this isnt a whine so dont take it wrong its just something i noticed and thought it was really gamey. Product improvement is the key to a long life in the business world.
ACK-ACK I am talking about stopping the divebombing being done by those in lancasters and other large bombers that were never designed or used for that purpose :salute
-
I have no issues with heavy bombers killing GV's or taking out hangers, etc... however, they shouldnt be doing it at 1000ft or less.
I cant stand the "gaming the game" tactics. It is an abuse of the sim and it does nothing but take away from the game in itself. Few things annoy me in this sim-game as much as "Lanca-stukas" and then having player bail at first chance.
This is a problem that could be EASILY solved with a bit of coding. ALL heavy and hvy-medium bombers must be at 5000ft in order for the "bomb trigger" to work and drop bombs. Any bomber that has a max bomb loadout of 3999 lbs or less (or kg equiv) **internally** would be exempt. The B25, Boston, A20, Ju88, and Ki67 would all be free to perform the low level dive bomb just as they did in WWII (not sure about the Ki67 though). But the Lancs, B17, B24, and B26 would all be regualted to 5k or higher. If the hvy bombers pilots want to bomb gv's then let them set up thier carpet bomb runs just like the real thing.
I can already hear the "its my $15 and I'll play as I want to...". Sure thing, go for it. But if HTC ever corrects the issue then you'll have to do you dive bombing in aircraft meant for such endevors. :)
-
Don't they have high cap fighters over carrier task groups to discourage bombers? Also, the harrassment bombers get while setting the bombsight on a moving target will usually work effectively to foil level bombing cv's. as for dive bombing lancs, theyre the easiest kill i get when im setting high cap(10-15k) over friendly cvs.
so my advise, set fighter cover over your cvs. bombers are easy kills.
-
Don't they have high cap fighters over carrier task groups to discourage bombers? Also, the harrassment bombers get while setting the bombsight on a moving target will usually work effectively to foil level bombing cv's. as for dive bombing lancs, theyre the easiest kill i get when im setting high cap(10-15k) over friendly cvs.
so my advise, set fighter cover over your cvs. bombers are easy kills.
You just answered a question that no one asked.
This thread is about stopping the abuse of the low level dive bombing heavy bombers. ;)
-
Level bombers with bomb sights should be forced to release from F6 view after recalibration.............
Dive bombers should be classified as attack and then have formations and the F3 view dissabled.
The classic aplication would be the ju88 which was both a dive bomber and a level bomber.
Choose bomber you get formation options but can only release from F6 view after re calibration but have an optional F3 view in game.
Choose attack you do not get formations or an F3 view option but the pilot can release bombs.
mix and match for other ac.
Then these ac will be flown as they were intended to do because gaming it further becomes much more difficult and much less rewarding than it is now.
-
Would love to see light bombers killing CVs more, heck even SBD's, B5N's, etc...I know this game isn't historical, but isn't it nice to see some obsolete planes once in a while.
You won't see torpedo planes much with all CVs moving at flank speed all the time. I understand why it is done (to help a/c take off without any wind enabled in the arena), but it makes the torpedo planes have even less of a chance they did historically.
-
As it is now, bombs must travel 1000' through the air before they become armed. Why not just increase that distance to 5000' for the heavy bombers. It could be more or less than 5000', I just picked that number at random.
Coogan
-
I wouldn't consider a B26 a "heavy" bomber" per se, though it can be , but it also can be used as an attack plane or strafer...
-
changing the ack on the task group would help. how many times have u seen bombers flying over a cv at 2-3k straight through the ack with little damage? yet a fighter will get blown outs the sky at 20k alt and over 10k distance.
-
As it is now, bombs must travel 1000' through the air before they become armed. Why not just increase that distance to 5000' for the heavy bombers. It could be more or less than 5000', I just picked that number at random.
Coogan
I believe it would be easier to code the actual aircraft that it would be to code the ord. I'm not familar with the coding that AH2 uses, but if the ord was changed I believe it would have to be across the board. Meaning, if a 1000lb bomb dropped from a lanc had to travel X number of feet before becoming armed it would mean that a 1000lb bomb from a B25 must travel the same X distance. We certainly do not want to handicap those aircraft that actually performed those dive bomb tactics, such as the B25, Ju88, etc.
It would be easier to code those 4, 5, or 6 aircraft and what alt they can drop their ords from their bay than it would be to tinker with the ords themselves.
Oh... and the B26 is certianly a medium bomber in the purest sense. It is a larger medium bomber none the less. I dont seem to recall any B26's doing the Lanca-Stuka gamer tactic, either. In WWII, the B26 was strictly a med-high alt level bomber unlike it's B25 cousin which performed both the level and dive bombing techniques at low and med alts. Lets not forget the normal bombing alts for the heavy bombers, either. Even in the most secure airspace... it wasnt below 10k alt so the 5k alt that I suggested is still quite low for a hvy bomber.
-
It would be easier to code those 4, 5, or 6 aircraft and what alt they can drop their ords from their bay than it would be to tinker with the ords themselves.
As much as I don't like to see Lancs killing single tanks by 500 ft carpet bombing - I'm strongly opposed against any artificial, unrealistic inhibitions. I don't see a reason why it should not be possible from a technical point of view for a Lancaster to release it's ords from a certain altitude.
Doing that is the same as the often called for "undo bomb damage if buff doesn't survive XXX seconds after drop" (to prevent bomb'n'bail) or "make HO shots less lethal" (to force better ACM upon the players". I have bad feelings about such things.
-
Lanc-Stuka pilots are just proving they can't do it in a Jug.
-
Your right SmokinLoon, I hadn't considered the fact the smaller bombers can carry some of the same type of ords as the heavy's do, and they would be effected too by increasing the distance traveled before arming. I'm all for disabling the ability to drop at very low altitude for large bombers.
Coogan
-
As it is now, bombs must travel 1000' through the air before they become armed. Why not just increase that distance to 5000' for the heavy bombers. It could be more or less than 5000', I just picked that number at random.
Coogan
You sure it's 1000ft? I dropped a BFB from a Stuka at 500ft, unfortunately though I did get caught in the blast radius and died.
ack-ack
-
I believe it would be easier to code the actual aircraft that it would be to code the ord. I'm not familar with the coding that AH2 uses, but if the ord was changed I believe it would have to be across the board. Meaning, if a 1000lb bomb dropped from a lanc had to travel X number of feet before becoming armed it would mean that a 1000lb bomb from a B25 must travel the same X distance. We certainly do not want to handicap those aircraft that actually performed those dive bomb tactics, such as the B25, Ju88, etc.
It would be easier to code those 4, 5, or 6 aircraft and what alt they can drop their ords from their bay than it would be to tinker with the ords themselves.
Oh... and the B26 is certianly a medium bomber in the purest sense. It is a larger medium bomber none the less. I dont seem to recall any B26's doing the Lanca-Stuka gamer tactic, either. In WWII, the B26 was strictly a med-high alt level bomber unlike it's B25 cousin which performed both the level and dive bombing techniques at low and med alts. Lets not forget the normal bombing alts for the heavy bombers, either. Even in the most secure airspace... it wasnt below 10k alt so the 5k alt that I suggested is still quite low for a hvy bomber.
To be clear on the B-25, when it's mentioned that some times it was used as a dive bomber, it wasn't in the strict sense a dive bomber like the Ju-87, SBD, etc., but instead used shallow dive bombing attacks.
ack-ack
-
Perk ordinance.
-
Any of the bombers which served a dual role as a bomber and attack craft would be excluded includeing B-26's and B-25's Im only talkin the big 4 engine monsters like lancs, B-24's and other large bombers. I would leave it upto HTC to decide which ones would be immune.
-
Perk ordinance.
that won't help at all, most of the time bombers are used for bombing fields.
-
Ack-Ack, I have no doubt you did drop at 500', and the bombs did explode. I always thought you had to be at or above 1000' for the bomb arm. I've recently learned that is not the case. The bomb only has to travel 1000' through the air. You were at 500' alt. when you dropped, now factor in your horizontal speed at the time. With your altitude and air speed combined, the bomb was able to travel 1000' or better through the air.
:salute
Coogan
-
that won't help at all, most of the time bombers are used for bombing fields.
Perking ordinance means that bombs would cost perks.
-
The shear load stress on those wings would tear them off.
Tis not the angle of dive that stresses the wing, it's the pull to recover. I've done wingovers in a real B-17 and lived to tell about it...same for the B-24.
B-24s were used for "dive bombing" in China. Naturally it wasn't the 70 degree dive of a Dauntless or Apache....but a dive bomb none the less.
The "code modification" needs to be done to the dweeb player. <G>
-
You are correct, perking ords would stop almost all abuse.
2 perks a bomb :D Also applyed to formations, now your cookin' with gas!
Unless those lancstukas want to drop the smaller bomb packages. :P
-
With perked ordinance, you couldn't afford to carpet bomb gv fights, lancstuka cv's and bail out from undamaged aircraft.
-
Perking ordinance means that bombs would cost perks.
No, it means that certain ordnance packages will cost perks. For example, having HVARs on B-25s would cost perks but loading up on 3 1,000 pound bombs wouldn't.
ack-ack
-
changing the ack on the task group would help. how many times have u seen bombers flying over a cv at 2-3k straight through the ack with little damage? yet a fighter will get blown outs the sky at 20k alt and over 10k distance.
I despise when that happens. Go figure; the larger and slower targets are harder for the cv guns to hit than my 350+ tiny fighter plane manuevering at 15k. Makes sense, right? :rolleyes:
-
you can stop the bombers anytime you want! its really simple, just kill the ords!!!
then you can deal with the IL2's and there big guns :aok
-
Not necessarily Wwhiskey. Sometimes there are many enemy fields nearby and it's not practical to kill them all. What's more, bombers often up from rear bases to kill cv's. In effect, you'd have to kill the ords at upwards of 10 fields to effectively prevent Lancstukas from taking out a cv, and then the effect of porking is temporary.
-
I think it was Tilt that hit it on the head.
You can only bomb from the F6 view. In the F6 view you have limited control for your plane and no way you can dive from that view. Easy fix IMHO...but I don't know coding.
-
Great avatar stroker71. :lol
Gamey bombing to me is when bombers come in at 10-15k, drop their ordnance over target then the guy decide he's done his job and bail out from undamaged plane(s). That, if anything, is gamey.
-
I HAVE A GREAT IDEA GET RID OF THE GV ICON so that the bombers cannot see the GVs. As I have been trying to get support for. :lol
Another reason to get rid of the dang gv id.
-
Nope. GV Icons are fine. Hard enough to see them with terrain anyways.
-
Uh as it should be? :huh
Last I checked almost everyone has no problem seeing them. Just look for the moving dot bro.
-
I agree with Jetblast. A real tank could sit under some trees and not be seen by aircraft. In this game the big red icon gives your position away to aircraft even in the middle of a dense forest.
If you like icons on gv's it means two things: you like to bomb them without much fuss, and you don't drive tanks yourself.
-
I meant the icons. Hard to see if the tank is in trees or near lots of hills. Even worse if your at a wierd angle to the ground.
The icons are fine. :aok
-
I never upped Lancs in order to ruin the fun of 30 people in a GV fight. Whats it feel like?
Once I shot down the same knucklehead five times as he tried flinging bombs on our CV with his lancs at 600'. He kept upping and coming in.
Who would do that? With a fun air battle going on? What type of critter would do that?
I forget his name, just as well. Eventually he gave up.
A "real man" upps heavies and flys in formation with six others in historically correct fashion.
-
You sure it's 1000ft? I dropped a BFB from a Stuka at 500ft, unfortunately though I did get caught in the blast radius and died.
ack-ack
That's what it says on the load screen tips. :uhoh Heh, I did submit that tip though. As stated, it's "travel", not fall. Consider that a bomb released at 300mph has 440 feet per second of just forward momentum.
-
As much as I don't like to see Lancs killing single tanks by 500 ft carpet bombing - I'm strongly opposed against any artificial, unrealistic inhibitions. I don't see a reason why it should not be possible from a technical point of view for a Lancaster to release it's ords from a certain altitude.
agreed.
how about looking at it from another angle. eg. if lancs IRL could dive bomb, then let them in AH. if lancs IRL couldn't dive bomb, what prevented them from doing so? whatever it was clearly isnt implemented in the FM, so implement it. someone suggested that the wings would rip off on pull out (sounds reasonable,) so model the lanc so they do. seems to me that the FM is far too relaxed for buffs. RL usage depended on the capability of the aircraft, if the usage in AH isnt realistic, the modelling is the place to look, not artificial restrictions.
-
agreed.
how about looking at it from another angle. eg. if lancs IRL could dive bomb, then let them in AH. if lancs IRL couldn't dive bomb, what prevented them from doing so? whatever it was clearly isnt implemented in the FM, so implement it. someone suggested that the wings would rip off on pull out (sounds reasonable,) so model the lanc so they do. seems to me that the FM is far too relaxed for buffs. RL usage depended on the capability of the aircraft, if the usage in AH isnt realistic, the modelling is the place to look, not artificial restrictions.
Lancs and other heavy bombers did not "dive bomb" as they do in AH2 and they certainly didnt hover off the ground at 500ft and let loose 14k of bombs to destroy a single or a few gv's. Why? Costs and risks. Those heavy bombers were far too exepnsive and their crews far too well trained to take risks of getting that low near the enemy and risk getting taken out of the sky by AA fire, a quick fightyer interception, or even a lucky shot from an MG34. Oh... and dropping 14 1k bombs from a Lanc, B24, B17 and a whole host of other level bombers at 500-1000 feet for a gv kill would get a pilot, co-pilot, navigator, and bombadier all in a court marshal as well.
If this is a flight sim-game... then whatever it takes should be done to keep aircraft in WWII that were not able to do certain things due to flight charateristics and mechanics and simple wisdom of "do's-n-dont's". Yeah, I know this isnt absolute since on teh other hand we cant do certain things in AH2 that could be done in the real thing... but this is about stoppping abuse, not adding to.
I'm not understanding the resistance to coding an altitude "trigger" for certain bombers, it is quite easy to determine which aircraft that trigger could be applied to. If they didnt dive bomb for factual XYZ reasons and conventional wisdom says those aircraft would never be caught at 500 ft dropping thousands of lbs of ord on a single gv... ... ... ... ... ... then explain again the reasons for not doing so?
-
One crew never simultaneously manned three separate planes with slaved gun positions either. Just get rid of the formations entirely.
-
One crew never simultaneously manned three separate planes with slaved gun positions either. Just get rid of the formations entirely.
One player, one aircraft or vehicle.
-
I agree with Jetblast. A real tank could sit under some trees and not be seen by aircraft. In this game the big red icon gives your position away to aircraft even in the middle of a dense forest.
If you like icons on gv's it means two things: you like to bomb them without much fuss, and you don't drive tanks yourself.
not true I drive gv's and I do like to bomb them. Problem for me is the gv's look the same as the bushes on the ground. The only time I can tell the difference is whe they are moving. Otherwise they could hide from me sitting in the wide open.
btw I have had gv icons only show on one side of tree when at just the right angle. So if you want to be hidden then get well under the tree. The forest in this game are not very dense so to get hidden you will need to make sure you are actually under a tree not just sitting inside the woods.
-
Loon I accept your argument about the cost invloved (I personally think both formations and heavy bombers should be perked to some degree) but really not sure about putting physical limitations in the FM. The lanc is a good point - apart from the obvious example which used ords we dont have, low level and NOE lanc raids (with up to 100 lancs IIRC) did happen, although rarely and at great cost. using time-delayed ords, lancs dropped from 500' (so they didnt even have to pop into radar like we do in AH to drop):
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/lecreusot2.jpg)
Fixing the FM to make buffs more realistically fragile, then perking formations and the heavier buffs would reduce this alot.
so yeah, you can lancstuka in a formation, but you only get one dive which ends in death to all of the crew. and you'll be flying a single boston around for the next month :D
-
It's a given these days, if you see a CV, it'll be carpet bombed. Would love to see light bombers killing CVs more, heck even SBD's, B5N's, etc...I know this game isn't historical, but isn't it nice to see some obsolete planes once in a while.
You mean no more heavy 38's and 51's and Jugs making their gravity defying, ack resistantant, stick stirring, dives of death?
One crew never simultaneously manned three separate planes with slaved gun positions either. Just get rid of the formations entirely.
One player, one aircraft or vehicle.
Would agree if you want to give up the heavy cannons on the fighters..... :eek:
Didnt think so. :lol
seems to me that the FM is far too relaxed for buffs. RL usage depended on the capability of the aircraft, if the usage in AH isnt realistic, the modelling is the place to look, not artificial restrictions.
I disagree, some aspects of using buffs are totally restrictive compared to other aircraft abilities, one that I totally dont agree with is not being able to fire guns while on the ground in a heavy bomber.
I've always felt a dive angle limiter would cure that problem.
This would be a logical solution.
-
I disagree, some aspects of using buffs are totally restrictive compared to other aircraft abilities, one that I totally dont agree with is not being able to fire guns while on the ground in a heavy bomber.
actually I think we probably agree here, what i'm saying is model it realistically and you'll get historical usage. I agree, cant see any reason why the guns shouldnt work on the ground because they would have IRL. I also know that you could (and some pilots did) do some pretty impressive aerobatics in a light lanc. Im almost certain this was never done in tight formation though...
as for restictive ... hmmm ... all guns in a 3 truck formation chained with one convergence point making the formation unrealistically deadly, buffs always flying at or near vmax so closure speeds are half what they should be ... i'd say its clear that the buff part of AH is nerfed to a pretty large degree because otherwise noone would fly them.
-
Loon I accept your argument about the cost invloved (I personally think both formations and heavy bombers should be perked to some degree) but really not sure about putting physical limitations in the FM. The lanc is a good point - apart from the obvious example which used ords we dont have, low level and NOE lanc raids (with up to 100 lancs IIRC) did happen, although rarely and at great cost. using time-delayed ords, lancs dropped from 500' (so they didnt even have to pop into radar like we do in AH to drop):
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/lecreusot2.jpg)
Fixing the FM to make buffs more realistically fragile, then perking formations and the heavier buffs would reduce this alot.
so yeah, you can lancstuka in a formation, but you only get one dive which ends in death to all of the crew. and you'll be flying a single boston around for the next month :D
Regarding those Lanc raids at 500ft, if they did in fact happen at that level I'd wager that they were done vs a sprawling complex with minimal AA and minimal chance of fighter interception. Oh, and certainly they were not done vs a gv or two.
I've advocated perking hvy bombers for a long time now. HTC has yet to even appear to even read these forums and our suggestions let alone consider perking, however token it may be, those heavy bombers. Stop and think just how much destruction those aircraft are able to let loose, especially in a flight of 3. Couple their ability to level entire airfields in a 2-3 passes and the absolute no recourse for bailing out within seconds after doing so... and we see what we have today: an gross abuse of the original intent and use of the aircraft. What really puzzles many of us is the absolute lack of anything to spend those easily earned bomber perk points on. Give the Lanc a perk of 5, the Liberator 4, the Flying Fortress 3, and the Maruader 2. Times three if you take formations. I dont see this having a huge effect up front since many of us have thousands of bomber perk point to spend... but ultimately it would level things off (pun intended).
And/or...
Install an alt limiter to drop bombs from those heavy bombers at XYZ feet.
"Fixing" theflight modal wont fix anything becuase many of those fools bail out soon after dropping their ords anyways.
-
Were all agreed that there is a limit as to how much realism can be included in a computer flight game right?
But how hard could it be to just re-write the code to prevent bomb release at a dive angle in 4 engined heavies? The sad thing is the Lancaster is a truly wonderful bird to take up to 20,000' to fly and bomb in in historically correct fashion and the stuka crowd will never know that.
-
The sad thing is the Lancaster is a truly wonderful bird to take up to 20,000' to fly and bomb in in historically correct fashion and the stuka crowd will never know that.
It isn't all entirely inaccurate about the Lancaster and some other heavy bombers being used to dive bomb. The problem is that some people in these forums take 'dive bombing' quite literally and equate it to diving like a Stuka or other dive bombers. As was noted in previous threads and in this one, Lancasters and other bombers were used to dive bomb but they used shallow dive bombing tactics, not the near vertical dive tactics used by regular dive bombers. 1st Air Commandos in the CBU frequently used their B-25s in the shallow dive bombing role. IIRC, the only known account of a bomber using standard dive bombing tactics was a B-17G that was dumping their bombs in the North Sea on returning to England and they almost didn't make it and it wasn't on any target, just open ocean.
ack-ack
-
Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?
We all know what were talking about here and if its continued to be allowed you might as well put jet engines on them and let them be ICBM lazer bombers.
-
Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?
in short yes i can , if given the opportunity to help save lives they would do all they could to kill the bad guy.s
can you imagine a dead pilot coming back to the battle in a new plane?
i posted this in the new "gamey bombing thread" but i will post it here as well
leave those bomber drivers alone!! most of the stuff done in most of the aircraft in this game was never done by a live pilot, more than once!! i said it before,kill the ords if you don't like the bombers!! why should HTC make it easy for you to role a base without doing all the preparations necessary? if they are flying from distant bases to kill you , you took to long!
as far as cv's are concerned some of you might not remember, but the ack was increased about tenfold, not that long ago! and it made killing them alot more difficult!
if you don't want to see bombers bail, don't re-up after they kill you,
in no war ever in history, did a dead pilot get up in another plane to shoot down some bombers!
the only thing that could help would be a more isolated tank town group of bases!
some of the old maps have those. maybe the old tank town could be brought back, maybe in a well isolated area.
being in a tank should be no less difficult than in a plane in that you should always have S.A. check to see if your part of the map has dar, look at the radar, look up! just be cause you cant fly does not mean the air should not be a threat! :aok
-
I really dont see low level buffs as a threat for GVs because there is an almost 100% effective remedy. a formation of lancs at 500'agl wont get to drop distance with an Osty there (remember those?) :)
-
in short yes i can , if given the opportunity to help save lives they would do all they could to kill the bad guy.s
can you imagine a dead pilot coming back to the battle in a new plane?
i posted this in the new "gamey bombing thread" but i will post it here as well
In short "no" the Lancaster was never used that way and was incapable of being used that way. Maybe if you put a suicidal kamikaze in it but the Brit Generals were far to smart to allow the destruction of such valuable aircraft, and crews, with such stupidity. While there were some low alt attacks by heavy 4 engined bombers in the European air war even then they bombed level. The closest was probably Operation Chastise but even when skip bombing they flew level, losing almost 1/2 their aircraft.
I only know of one incidence of low level dive bombing a Lancaster and even that was only to mark a target for higher bombing Lancs. And even then High command realized the stupidity of using Lancasters this way and future target lighting was done by Mossies. Fact is the Brits were smarter and better bombers then we were. They started achieving comparable accuracy, or better, then USAAF while flying at night.
To even consider a C/O in WW-ll would allow his Lancaster squadron to dive bomb tanks in a battle is laughable even if you aren't a student of the war.
-
If a certain plane was able to take the stress load and handle the mechanics of divebombing then do not limit them in any way. However, if they were not able to handle such maneuvers then limit them by changing the code. Otherwise leave the appropriate code(s) as is.
-
Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?
We all know what were talking about here and if its continued to be allowed you might as well put jet engines on them and let them be ICBM lazer bombers.
The only real solution to solve the problem is what I stated in a previous post, put a dive angle limiter. This will still allow heavy bombers to shallow dive bomb while eliminating 'pure' dive bombing tactics. Unless your real aim is to prevent bombers from bombing GVs.
ack-ack
-
personally i sux at bombing and i have only GVed a few times.
i understand and empathize with the plight of those who do GV. the absurdity of being spotted by bombers when you are hiding in woods is completely unrealistic. i will draw your attention to operation market garden. 2 full panzer divisions where sitting in the woods just outside of Arnhem and they were invisible to the low flying recon aircraft sent in to photograph the area.
i hate the fact that bombers can hit targets (vehicles hangers ect) with an unreal accuracy (please don't dispute that fact. we all know that even with the Norton bomb sight strategic bombing required hundreds and thousands of bombs dropped at a target in the hope of scoring even a few effective hits on it. strategic was just a prettier word than carpet) but i doubt this is likely to be modified to be more realistic, so that is not the discussion here.
if we are going to give bombers skills and abilities that their RL counter parts did not have, then the least we could do is not hang a glowing red neon sign around the necks of the GVers.
get rid of the icons, let them hide if they can find cover.
i have flown as a spotter against enemy GV's hiding in trees many times. on more than one occasion I have managed to radio in fire from friendly GV's onto targets that they couldn't see. to do this effectively i had to stay low and slow over the tops of the enemy, so low that without the icon i could still see the vehicle clearly. if a pilot is willing to fly low and look then spotting the GV's even without a blazing red neon sign is something that could be done without much issue.as it is you only need to view your map to know where the spawn points are located, so you already know where they will come from. tracking them from there wouldn't be too difficult.
if the pilot is willing to put in the effort then GV's are easy to spot from the air when flying at a reasonable alt. especially when they are in the open. so dump the icons and make the pilots work a little for it.
well those are just my thoughts on the issue
FLOTSOM
-
i understand and empathize with the plight of those who do GV. the absurdity of being spotted by bombers when you are hiding in woods is completely unrealistic. i will draw your attention to operation market garden. 2 full panzer divisions where sitting in the woods just outside of Arnhem and they were invisible to the low flying recon aircraft sent in to photograph the area.
FLOTSOM
Recon flights clearly photographed German tanks 9 miles from the British drop zones. These recce photos, along with intel supplied by the Dutch Underground were dismissed by Montgromery. Montogromery ridiculed SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith when Bedell Smith raised the threat these armored units posed to the airborne assault.
ack-ack
-
Recon flights clearly photographed German tanks 9 miles from the British drop zones. These recce photos, along with intel supplied by the Dutch Underground were dismissed by Montgromery. Montogromery ridiculed SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith when Bedell Smith raised the threat these armored units posed to the airborne assault.
ack-ack
ill have to do some research on this. i was under the impression ( maybe incorrectly) that they only managed a few pictures of a few tanks and troop transports moving on the roads, that the limited number of vehicles photographed was what lead Montgomery to believe they were of no consequence. i was under the further impression that the allies missed the bulk of the vehicles in the area because they were parked in the woods to avoid detection and drawing the attention of allied bombers.
but you could be correct ack, its been awhile since i reread Montgomery's excuses for not heeding the warnings that the underground had sent regarding the tanks in the area of Arnhem. i thought he said it was due to a lack of supporting photo's by the Ariel recon of the region.
FLOTSOM
-
ill have to do some research on this. i was under the impression ( maybe incorrectly) that they only managed a few pictures of a few tanks and troop transports moving on the roads, that the limited number of vehicles photographed was what lead Montgomery to believe they were of no consequence. i was under the further impression that the allies missed the bulk of the vehicles in the area because they were parked in the woods to avoid detection and drawing the attention of allied bombers.
but you could be correct ack, its been awhile since i reread Montgomery's excuses for not heeding the warnings that the underground had sent regarding the tanks in the area of Arnhem. i thought he said it was due to a lack of supporting photo's by the Ariel recon of the region.
FLOTSOM
I think what contributed a large part in Montegromy's and other's dismissal of the intelligence was the wide held belief amongst SHAEF High Command was that the German army was a broken entity, unable to re-organize into an effective fighting force. From what I understand, SHAEF High Command looked on Market Garden to be some what of a cake walk.
ack-ack
-
It isn't all entirely inaccurate about the Lancaster and some other heavy bombers being used to dive bomb. The problem is that some people in these forums take 'dive bombing' quite literally and equate it to diving like a Stuka or other dive bombers. As was noted in previous threads and in this one, Lancasters and other bombers were used to dive bomb but they used shallow dive bombing tactics, not the near vertical dive tactics used by regular dive bombers. 1st Air Commandos in the CBU frequently used their B-25s in the shallow dive bombing role. IIRC, the only known account of a bomber using standard dive bombing tactics was a B-17G that was dumping their bombs in the North Sea on returning to England and they almost didn't make it and it wasn't on any target, just open ocean.
ack-ack
I think most of us know that the B25 was used in low level and "dive" bombing missions on a regular basis. This argument is not about the B25, A20, Boston, Ju88, or any other factual low level/dive bombing bomber... it is about the gross abuse of those bombers that were simply not used for reasons of incapability or logistical reasons in WWII in the manner in which they are being usedin this game. Of course, many couls argue that there are many aircraft that are bing abused in this manner. For starters, the Fw190A-8 was used to hunt bombers, not take on ground targets. The 190F-8 was used far more vs ground targets but yet we see the A-8 used over-whelmingly in the ground attack role. Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter. Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters. Ditto for the Tempest. How many cry babies would we have if HTC removed the abilitly for the Typh/Temp tobe scored as a "Fighter"??? How many cry babies would we have if the 190A-8 could only be scored as a fighter? I'm not advocating that, but just think what would happen if HTC clamped down on the realm of realism across the board and limited scoring or ability to some of these planes to only that mission they actually performed in WWII?
-
Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter. Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters. Ditto for the Tempest.
Typhie was introduced to deal with 190s, which the spits and hurri werent fast enough to intercept. the first year or 2 it was used for low-level fighter sweeps against low-level raiders (190s mostly) only later used as a ground attack platform (which it excelled at). The Tempest was considered by its pilots as the Typhie done properly, so it could really compete as a fighter. It was used mainly for high-level fighter sweeps, but also for some ground attack and V1 hunting duties. It bagged many A2A kills of 109s, 190s, sundry bombers and was the best bet for pursuing and killing 262s. neither were just bomb trucks. :)
-
I think most of us know that the B25 was used in low level and "dive" bombing missions on a regular basis. This argument is not about the B25, A20, Boston, Ju88, or any other factual low level/dive bombing bomber... it is about the gross abuse of those bombers that were simply not used for reasons of incapability or logistical reasons in WWII in the manner in which they are being usedin this game. Of course, many couls argue that there are many aircraft that are bing abused in this manner. For starters, the Fw190A-8 was used to hunt bombers, not take on ground targets. The 190F-8 was used far more vs ground targets but yet we see the A-8 used over-whelmingly in the ground attack role. Ditto for the Typhoon.... in WWII the Typhoon was used as a what??? A ground attack plane, not a fighter. Yeah, it had some air to air kills but when launched it went vs ground targets, not enemy fighters. Ditto for the Tempest. How many cry babies would we have if HTC removed the abilitly for the Typh/Temp tobe scored as a "Fighter"??? How many cry babies would we have if the 190A-8 could only be scored as a fighter? I'm not advocating that, but just think what would happen if HTC clamped down on the realm of realism across the board and limited scoring or ability to some of these planes to only that mission they actually performed in WWII?
I really do hate to burst your bubble but shallow dive bombing was a tactic used (depending on the mission and target) by Lancasters and other heavy bombers. If the mission and target required this kind of approach, the shallow dive bomb angle was usually between 20-30 degrees. To be clear, I am not saying this was a regular occurance and the Lancasters approached each bomb run using these tactic but it was capable of using shallow dive bombing tactics and did.
For someone using shallow dive bombing tactics in a Lancaster or other heavy bomber would not be historically inaccurate, using the Lancaster and heavy bombers as pure dive bombers like they are sometimes being used in AH is historically inaccurate.
Someone mentioned in an earlier post about how commanders wouldn't waste men and equipment to attack ground vehicles in Lancasters, well, unfortunately for that particular poster, they were incorrect about that as well.
Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area. They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions.
Put a dive angle limiter to prevent bombers from exceeding 30 degrees when dropping bombs and you'll eliminate the 'Lancstuka' while still allowing bombers to use shallow dive bombing tactics.
ack-ack
-
Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area. They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions.
So they came in at 1,000 and dived like a jabo to take out the armor? :lol
Someone mentioned in an earlier post about how commanders wouldn't waste men and equipment to attack ground vehicles in Lancasters, well, unfortunately for that particular poster, they were incorrect about that as well.
Heavy bombers were used in the break out in Normandy when they were employed in the tactical role of carpet bombing (at all altitudes since the German air threat was very, very low) troop and vehicle concentrations, especially in the Falais Pocket area. They were also used in ground support roles in the Normandy breakout, kind of like an aerial walking artillery bombardment, sometimes so close that over 600 Allied troops were also killed as a result of these tactical close ground support missions.
What altitude? Try studying the carpet bombing, precursor to Operation Cobra, and then tell me how low they flew Lancs, 24s, and 17s? Dude as far as I know no heavy every flew below 12,000' and most of it was 15,000' +. Could you imagine Lancs coming into german 88s and 37mms, in daylight, at 2,000'? :lol
I really do hate to burst your bubble but shallow dive bombing was a tactic used (depending on the mission and target) by Lancasters and other heavy bombers. If the mission and target required this kind of approach, the shallow dive bomb angle was usually between 20-30 degrees. To be clear, I am not saying this was a regular occurance and the Lancasters approached each bomb run using these tactic but it was capable of using shallow dive bombing tactics and did.
Name the missions. My bubbles fine. Your post is all hot air with no facts presented.
-
I knew the Typh/Temp were introduced to be fighters, but they were implemented as attack craft due to the faster Spitfires being produced and the lack of a new for a new fighter, at least in late 1943/early 1944 anyways.
Like I said before regarding the low level attack made by Lancs and other hvy bimbers.... I seriosuly doubt they hit 1 or 2 or 5 gv's, but instead hit sprawling industrial complexes or prepared defensive positions AND they didnt do it unless there was minimal chance of enemy fighter interception and/or minimal AA defense. However anyone wants to paint a "but they did do it" or "they were capable of doing it" in a WWII picture... go ahead. I've got the guts to say they didint float 500ft off the ground, dump eight 1k bombs on a few gv's, pull up 800ft past the target and do a stall turn and head back to target for a second drop. Aircrat in WWII were not expendable and no pilot in their right mind would ever expose themselves to that kind of risk. Get those hvy bombers at least to 3k before they're able to drop. Mind you, I dont cringe when I see the B25, A20, Ju88, or other such buff at low level dive bombing or floating 500ft off teh ground, just the Lanc, the B24, B17, B26 (medium, I know), and Ar234.
HTC would very well eliminate the above described travesty in any nymber of ways.... will they??? I doubt it. They dont even read these forums anymore.
-
found you some info on low level bombing
http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/13thaaf/13th868th.html
Starting August 27, 1943 nearly nightly missions were flown primarily against the "Tokyo
Express". This was a nightly procession of Japanese ships which sailed down the "Slot"
attempting to reinforce and re-supply enemy garissons from Bougainville to Guadalcanal
itself. These missions amounted to flying for up to 11 hours at 12 to 15 hundred feet
all the time searching for enemy shipping throughout the area shipping lanes. On the night
of September 28, 1943 five "Snoopers" attacked an 11 ship enemy convoy. The attack
took place near Cape Alexander. An enemy destroyer was sunk and the rest of the convoy
was forced to turn tail. While there was great success there were also problems. Since the
"Snoopers" flew at night it meant they were not available to fly regular daylight missions
which reduced the effective size of daylight missions. To alleviate these problems the
"Snoopers" were reformed into a brand new squadron, the 868th. It was activated in
January 1944 and operated independently within the 13th AAF. By this time they had
already sunk 34,000 tons of enemy shipping
The planes flown by the 868th were often called SB-24s and sometimes LABs (Low
Altitude Bomber). They were equipped with SRC-717-B search and navigation radar,
AN/APQ-5 LABS bombing radar, SCR-729 IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) and an
AN/ARN-1 radio altimeter. The ball turret contained the antenna for the SC-717-B radar
Plane for plane the "Snoopers" were sinking and damaging more shipping at night than the
heavies were during the day. During an early raid on Rabaul a "Snooper" is credited with
disabling the heavy cruiser Haguro, the flagship of the forces stationed there.
From January through April 1944, when they moved to Los Negroes, they bagged another
12,000 tons of Japanese shipping sunk, 1,800 probably sunk, and 11,000 damaged.
They participated in the destruction of Truk in April 1944.
In August 1944 they conducted nightly 1100 mile two-plane attacks from Los Negroes
to the Palaus.
The following is quoted from "From Fiji Through The Philippines With The Thirteenth Air Force"
by Lt. Col. Benjamin E. Lippincott, Newsfoto Publishing Co. (1948):
"Ten B-24 "Snoopers" of the 868th Bomb Squadron struck Soerabaja, Java, on 7 May,
flying a total distance of 2660 statute miles, in 17 hours and 40 minutes, one of the longest
flights ever made by B-24 aircraft in combat formation. Seven "Snoopers" shattered their
own record soon after by flying a strike against Batavia, Java, 3 June 1945; they flew in
formation from Palawan to Batavia and return to cover a distance of 3000 statute miles,
in 18 hours and 40 minutes. A measure of success was achieved in both strikes against
Java; in each case, the Japanese were taken by surprise and shipping in the harbors was
left either sunk or damaged."
-
and here is some on lancasters
http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/damsraid4.html
The aircrew selected included the best in Bomber Command and training began with low-level training over lakes in Britain. The flying was most demanding, requiring pilots to descend rapidly to sixty feet and then maintain that altitude and the required speed of 230 miles per hour
"What they did was put a great sheet across the runway at one end and then so many yards down, another sheet. You had to start at the beginning of the runway at 1500 feet and dive, cross the first sheet at 70 feet, cross the second sheet at seventy feet, and at the end of the runway be at 1500 feet. It was quite tricky."
- F/Sgt. Ken Brown
kinda sounds like the gv dive bombing we hear about in here!
but wait there is more this is about the bombsights and combat manoeuvres during bombing
Bomber Harris and his aircrews were not slow in voicing their strong dislike of both the Mk lX and the ABS. and called for their early replacement. Their strong views were registered with the Tizard Committee and a founder member of that committee Prof. Blackett volunteered to design a new sight to meet the needs of Bomber Command. He was given facilities at Farnborough and the services of a small team of engineers. The bombsight that resulted was the Mk XlV regarded then as the wonder sight of the day. It was designed to enable the run up to the target flying straight and level to be restricted to a mere ten seconds and enable the pilot to carry out evasive manoeuvres on his approach to the target. It could be used to bomb both on the climb and the glide. The bombsight consisted of a computer cabinet mounted to the left of the Air Bomber and a stabilised sighting head with optical graticule. The sight was one of the first practical uses for a mechanical computer and Babbage would have been proud of it.
the bomb sight in the lancs were also able to aim at up too 12 degree up or down level, and some had sights that allowed for up to 30 degree down bombing (dive bombing)
certainly a plane with the ability to carry 22000 pounds of ord. at 275 plus mph. would be strong enough to do some radical moves once some or all of that ord load was gone, so the aircraft can do what it does in the game, now the crew might have had a few resevations about it! :huh
i posted a long time back about the ability of the a-20 and why on earth we needed any other fighter
just a bunch of very good pilots, trained by cobia<<S>> could wipe out the whole german airforce! that plane does amazing things, i dont know how many of you have run across him or nkl5 :salute in one but if you have i imagine you were transported to the tower alot faster than you thought you might be!
is this correct? i doubt it, but the plane is modeled correctly and i was told that it is capable of doing those things they make them do :rofl and i am satisfied with that answer, i also aproach them with much more caution, instead of just barreling in!
-
and here is some on lancasters
kinda sounds like the gv dive bombing we here about in here!
Go ahead and drop your bombs at 70 ft. :D Also the article didn't say they had a full load of bombs. Just that it was training for changing and maintaining an altitude. Not pushing over a formation at a steep angle and dropping bombs on a jeep. Basically they had to lose 1430 ft. of altitude in the length of a runway.
-
Go ahead and drop your bombs at 70 ft. :D Also the article didn't say they had a full load of bombs. Just that it was training for changing and maintaining an altitude. Not pushing over a formation at a steep angle and dropping bombs on a jeep.
sorry i added some more info to my post, you might want too check it out!
and no, i don't want to blow my lancs up by droping at 70 feet, my rule is never below 450, and no , they had to dive 1400 feet fly level for atleast ten seconds them climb back up 1400 feet in the length of a runway
the reason was to drop a bomb in that ten second time frame
-
The real issue here is that this is a tactical and not a strategic simulation. The reality is that formations are a bad idea and there is no need for any heavies in this game. further no bombers medium or heavy EVER flew formations like they do in AH. The losses due to accidents in both training and combat were very high do to collisions. Formation flying in a fully loaded B-24 was exceptionally difficult.
-
The real issue here is that this is a tactical and not a strategic simulation. The reality is that formations are a bad idea and there is no need for any heavies in this game. further no bombers medium or heavy EVER flew formations like they do in AH. The losses due to accidents in both training and combat were very high do to collisions. Formation flying in a fully loaded B-24 was exceptionally difficult.
Who's reality? This is a game. You could not be more wrong in your first sentence. This is as much as a strategic simulation as is a tactical one.
When you collide with your own you dont explode, or fall to pieces while 10 guys are chasing a con, certainly that isn't real either.
I dont see where all the bomber haters are coming from, is it because you are used to shooting down newbs to get and land all your kills and when you get your arse handed to you by someone that isn't so "easy" to kill in bombers you all of a sudden dont find a "Need" for bombers in this game.
This game incorporates strategy not only in air warfare and the way you fight, but the ability to conduct a fight strategically.
I dont even care what half of you say about bombers until you at least spend the time in them and understand that point of view, until then your just crying about bombers being in the game, or they have to many bombs, they wont let me take my fighters up with my friends, or whatever heartache complaint there is,,,,, good that's the intent on taking away your ability to fight.
Each plane in this game is used for strategy and tactical situations based on its strengths and abilities, if you have not figured that out yet, your on your own.
:rolleyes:
-
Wow whiskey, what a pull.
I already mentioned Operation Chastise and the training you are referring to is the training that led up to the damn busting mission. Not only did the Lancs bomb level but one was so low the bomb bounced back up and shwacked the Lanc. They lost almost 1/2 their aircraft on that mission and only tried it cause it had to potential to cause serious disruption in Ruhr production and transportation.
I can just imagine Bomber Harris sending his Lancs against Panzer-lVs at 1000'
Bomber Harris and his aircrews were not slow in voicing their strong dislike of both the Mk lX and the ABS. and called for their early replacement. Their strong views were registered with the Tizard Committee and a founder member of that committee Prof. Blackett volunteered to design a new sight to meet the needs of Bomber Command. He was given facilities at Farnborough and the services of a small team of engineers. The bombsight that resulted was the Mk XlV regarded then as the wonder sight of the day. It was designed to enable the run up to the target flying straight and level to be restricted to a mere ten seconds and enable the pilot to carry out evasive manoeuvres on his approach to the target. It could be used to bomb both on the climb and the glide. The bombsight consisted of a computer cabinet mounted to the left of the Air Bomber and a stabilised sighting head with optical graticule. The sight was one of the first practical uses for a mechanical computer and Babbage would have been proud of it.
And what altitude did they do it at? Any airplane can go up, down, left, right. What we are talking about is an airplane modeled in the game that disrupts GV'ing, in a smelly, gamey way, that in no way has any connection to what it actually did in the war.
And you can snoop all you want. At night, with radar, against an enemy whose defensive convoy system was a joke. Like Japans was, "and they still bombed level". Whats that got to do with pulling a stuka job with one formation of Lancs after another during an Aces High tank battle?
-
rich
your problem ,, or argument goes back to killing the ords! no ords no bombers, and by the way if you want to complain,, find me some historical data on IL-2's killing tigers in a single pass.
i see that as much more of a problem than your lancs,
because ords stay down for a while, bomber hangers only stay down 15 min.
a good group of jugs can kill more gv.s than a set of lancs most days, and while i can kill gv's all day long in my lanc;s i said before i do it mostly thru the bomb sight! so do you want to stop me from doing that?
the fact that the lanc could dive from 1500 feet to 75 feet drop ord and return to 1500 feet in the length of a runway says that the plane could basically dive on a target kill it and pull away, and yes in that mission 8 of the 9 lancs went down but only one to a collision with its ord, the rest went down to enemy fire, those targets were defended well, they were able to dive pretty hard, bomb, and climb pretty hard in a short distance, they trained for it and did it, in the game if you do that you will kill yourself, unless you drop above 450 feet.
the fact that f-3 is enabled is your real problem!!! target locating would be much more difficult after a hard turn or dive!! if you want the problem fixed maybe you should try to convince someone to disable that instead of porking the plane to meet your preferences in the game, tho i hope you are unsuccessful!
-
The real issue here is that this is a tactical and not a strategic simulation. The reality is that formations are a bad idea and there is no need for any heavies in this game. further no bombers medium or heavy EVER flew formations like they do in AH. The losses due to accidents in both training and combat were very high do to collisions. Formation flying in a fully loaded B-24 was exceptionally difficult.
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/B24s.jpg)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/group.jpg)
funny those look like formations to me
besides groups were created to help defend against fighters, with overlapping gunfire, the lanc's didn't fly them as tightly because hey bombed at night for the last parts of the war, but when they flew daylight missions they also flew tight overlapping formations to help protect each other. i don,t know why HTC has them but i like them :aok
-
there is no need for any heavies in this game.
There goes a hefty chunk of customer base. :rolleyes:
-
There goes a hefty chunk of customer base. :rolleyes:
exactly :aok
-
Do you guys think that the linked lazer guns on the formations are for fairness or a good representation of bomber defensive capabilities?
I ask simply because my Grandfather, after watching the game for a bit commented that he wished that his fellow gunners and formation planes all converged fire like they do in game when he was in a B17 on his way to bomb the Ploesti oil fields.
-
rich
your problem ,, or argument goes back to killing the ords! no ords no bombers, and by the way if you want to complain,, find me some historical data on IL-2's killing tigers in a single pass.
i see that as much more of a problem than your lancs,
because ords stay down for a while, bomber hangers only stay down 15 min.
Nobody is "complaining" here. None of this affects me. I drive a tank maybe three times a month and cant ever remember being stuka'd by a Lanc. But Ive seen it, and shot a lot down doing it, and to me it smells like that cartoon skunk Pepe Le Pew. I'm not looking up Tigers and IL-2s because the fact they are in the air shooting heavy cannon is at least historically accurate. Besides the best way to kill tanks, as it was in real life, is with either other tanks or Jabos dropping bombs/rockets. Lancasters and Heavy bombers did not dive bomb on them.
And I kill ords for a living Whiskey. I dont need to be reminded. This has nothing to do with ords.
Lastly, and this really is lastly cause I'm bored, I find F3 far more realistic then a gaggle of hairless/maladjusted teenies upping countless, use once & throw away, Lancs to ruin the fun of two crews tanking it out. Heavies had crews manning guns and had both eyes and comms on the bombers 360%. You cant take that away because bombers couldn't fly formation and track IB cons, while flying historical. Besides the excitable boys would just upp Lancstukas, fly from the front gunner using rudders, and then pop into pilots seat to drop on the dive.
My guess is if they havnt changed the model yet then they never will.
-
Heavy bombers did not manuever like welded wing fighter Vics. Go ahead and enable friendly collisions and get the 3 best buff drivers you can and try and duplicate those moves. you want 3 buffs, take 3 pilots.
-
So now the complaint is the guns, it was the dive bombing which I dont agree with, however now we have to find something else to whine about, GUNS.
Read closely, LEARN HOW TO ATTACK A BOMBER.
Do you guys think that the linked lazer guns on the formations are for fairness or a good representation of bomber defensive capabilities?
YES!,
"LAZER"? As with any aircraft gun, you still have to aim them.
With proper ACM and tactics, A well flown 190, spit, 110, can easily take out ALL 3 Bombers with ease in this game, factor in just one more fighter to help and most bombers are toast. Fly one and find out.
If you or anyone else find yourself in the tower after attacking a Bomber, ask yourself what you could have done different, I think your looking for 3 kills in one pass and that simply is not realistic even in WWII.
Again, many comments have been made to defend the bombers, and I agree with them.
-
So now the complaint is the guns, it was the dive bombing which I dont agree with, however now we have to find something else to whine about, GUNS.
Oh, I'm sorry! I thought this was a disscussion. Not a "look at the whiner and bash" thread. :rolleyes:
Read closely, LEARN HOW TO ATTACK A BOMBER.
YES!,
Did I ask for help in how to attack bombers? No, I asked for opinions on how the defensive gunning affects gameplay. A well defined question that you simply ignored and went into rant mode.
"LAZER"? As with any aircraft gun, you still have to aim them.
So after telling me to read closely on how to attack a bomber you don't even give any advice? Your post is looking less and less useful the further I go! At least you get to the gun subject I mentioned here, even if it is completely useless commentary.
With proper ACM and tactics, A well flown 190, spit, 110, can easily take out ALL 3 Bombers with ease in this game, factor in just one more fighter to help and most bombers are toast. Fly one and find out.
Wow! Look at this wealth of knowledge in how to attack a formation of bombers! I'm sure I'll master it in no time! [/sarcasm] Still didn't address my question or really give any good information on approaches, points to aim for, or even how to effectively use a wingman in the attack. But thanks for the tip on an inceptor choice! :rolleyes:
If you or anyone else find yourself in the tower after attacking a Bomber, ask yourself what you could have done different, I think your looking for 3 kills in one pass and that simply is not realistic even in WWII.
All 3 in one pass would be something to write home about. Took two b24s and flamed the 3rd with a 262 one time. It's about the only thing besides a lucky 110 pass that I would expect to get multiple kills in one pass with any regularity. But where do you get this idea that I'm always expecting bombers to just die in droves? All I had recently mentioned was how the bombers guns linked and converged.
I even gave a real world example. My Grandfather also mentioned that no guns were that steady, especially the ones that weren't in a turret mount like the ball guns, the rear or top guns.
Sorry to lay into you so hard Dadsguns, but your post was nigh useless and didn't do anything to further the line of disscussion.
-
Oh, I'm sorry! I thought this was a disscussion. Not a "look at the whiner and bash" thread. :rolleyes:
Did I ask for help in how to attack bombers? No, I asked for opinions on how the defensive gunning affects gameplay. A well defined question that you simply ignored and went into rant mode.
So after telling me to read closely on how to attack a bomber you don't even give any advice? Your post is looking less and less useful the further I go! At least you get to the gun subject I mentioned here, even if it is completely useless commentary.
Wow! Look at this wealth of knowledge in how to attack a formation of bombers! I'm sure I'll master it in no time! [/sarcasm] Still didn't address my question or really give any good information on approaches, points to aim for, or even how to effectively use a wingman in the attack. But thanks for the tip on an inceptor choice! :rolleyes:
All 3 in one pass would be something to write home about. Took two b24s and flamed the 3rd with a 262 one time. It's about the only thing besides a lucky 110 pass that I would expect to get multiple kills in one pass with any regularity. But where do you get this idea that I'm always expecting bombers to just die in droves? All I had recently mentioned was how the bombers guns linked and converged.
I even gave a real world example. My Grandfather also mentioned that no guns were that steady, especially the ones that weren't in a turret mount like the ball guns, the rear or top guns.
Sorry to lay into you so hard Dadsguns, but your post was nigh useless and didn't do anything to further the line of disscussion.
try a 110 with 4 air to air rockets, about 1 to 1.5 behind, aim high fire two at the spot between two , kick rudder and fire the other two at the opposite side of the lead, once you get it right you will feel sorry for the bombers :uhoh also when i fire my guns in a bomber i have noticed they have a convergence just like the guns on your fighter(about 600 i think) stay out of that spot and you wont get hit by all those guns unless he gets a lucky shot i can usually get most planes behind me with the gun i am sitting in, unless my target moves into that sweet spot, them by all means i am firing all of them,, but i fly lancs and they don't have very many defencive guns to start with , at least not like the 17's and 24's
-
try a 110 with 4 air to air rockets, about 1 to 1.5 behind, aim high fire two at the spot between two , kick rudder and fire the other two at the opposite side of the lead, once you get it right you will feel sorry for the bombers :uhoh
Thanks, but I really don't need this advice. I'm very comfortable attacking a set of bombers. I'm looking for more disscussion on how the bomber guns are modeled in game as compared to how they performed IRL. I think they've been made much more powerful and accurate to balance the gameplay for bomber pilots. Looking for more discussion in this regards.
also when i fire my guns in a bomber i have noticed they have a convergence just like the guns on your fighter(about 600 i think) stay out of that spot and you wont get hit by all those guns unless he gets a lucky shot i can usually get most planes behind me with the gun i am sitting in, unless my target moves into that sweet spot, them by all means i am firing all of them,, but i fly lancs and they don't have very many defencive guns to start with , at least not like the 17's and 24's
See, more along the lines of what I was attempting to discuss. Thanks!
-
Thanks, but I really don't need this advice. I'm very comfortable attacking a set of bombers. I'm looking for more disscussion on how the bomber guns are modeled in game as compared to how they performed IRL. I think they've been made much more powerful and accurate to balance the gameplay for bomber pilots. Looking for more discussion in this regards.
See, more along the lines of what I was attempting to discuss. Thanks!
i think someone else was complianing about not haveing an idea of how too shoot them down, wasnt you i imagine, if you want info, this isn,t the right place, try general forums.
some people here want the bombers to be newtered or gone all together, if i was wanting something more than to defend the bomber drivers it would be the removal of the il-2 guns that can kill a tank in one pass, but instead i have just been trying to figure out how too beat them , instead of trying to get rid of them! no one has said if there was ever an account of this happening in real war. yet it happens in here a lot
-
I agree with Ack Ack. There needs to be a max down angle allowed on heavys, or they rip.
-
I agree with Ack Ack. There needs to be a max down angle allowed on heavys, or they rip.
... but only if it models the real aircrafts performance envelope.
-
... but only if it models the real aircrafts performance envelope.
Agreed.
ack-ack
-
I will give you probabley the best advice you can get, anyone can tell you what they do and how they do it, you will find many different ways that will accomplish what you seek.
My advice to you is to fly the Bombers of your choice and LEARN them in defense and attack modes, as you would any other aircraft. I have learned so much by OJT (on the job training) than what has been posted, I know who can take down bombers really well and have an awesome stalk tactic by my experience in getting shot down, I simply have watched closely on what they do and immulate what worked against me on other bombers. That is knowledge that you learn to get a feel for.
Good luck,
-
As it is now, bombs must travel 1000' through the air before they become armed. Why not just increase that distance to 5000' for the heavy bombers. It could be more or less than 5000', I just picked that number at random.
Coogan
nice thinking pyro already has the code, all he needs to do is click 5000 feet or what ever it would be easier.
-
I agree. At least planes shouldn't be able to dive bomb with bombs coming out of a bomb bay with doors. They wouldn't fall out of the bomb rack right, or not at all, or they would hit the plane as they came out.
-
As a bomber pilot in the game, the Lancasters used for sinking cv's now in the game has been changed a little. The auto ack from the cv group has been turned more lethal now and when the player drops the bombs 1500 to 2000 ft over the cv. The result is now losing all three bombers from the ack. All the bombers are shot up beyond flight control and two of them usually blow up right away and the third is finished real soon.
As for the gv's, it becomes a case of rock, paper, or scissors. Tanks killed by Planes. Flaks killed by tanks. Planes killed by flaks. Heavy bombers used for gv killing is just a bonus for $15 a month.
As far as the 'realism' in the game, it's all there in the cockpit with the instrument panel. The gauges, the way the aircraft behave in relation to the aerodynamics, and the authentic use of actual machines is the realism for what this game is "Combat Flight Simulator".
This is a re-creation of WWII aircraft and vehicles to the best of software and technology coupled with the creative talents of human beings referred to as High Tech.
That being said first. I understand the frustration of players when the "Big Boys" do kill cv's and gv's. I've been on the receiving end myself countless times. Did this happen in real life? Probably not due to things like loss of air crews, expensive bombers, and low probability of success.
Were these bombers capable of doing these maneuvers? Simply yes.
As far as "gameing the game", these actions of the heavies doesn't even come close. In a situation where a player bombs a cv or hangars, achieves success and bails out afterward. they have three bails on thier score and bails count towards the negative like kills and captures. They lose rank for bailing out.
When a Lanc pod kills a cv, the damage points are small around 10,000 or less. A Lanc pod at 20,000 ft with 18 500 lb's and one 4000 lb. MOAB being dropped on town buildings and factories will generate 700,000 damage points.
The main arenas are set up as "The Ultimate Do-Over Game". A player gets shot down and what happens they get a second life and go back up. The second life gets shot down and what happens? WOW!!!! They get a third life and so on and so on.
The only realistic aspects of game play are in Special Events like FSO's, Snapshots, and Scenarios where it's only one life events. Just like in WWII.
Remeber, this is only a game nothing more. $15 a month with hundreds of hours a month for fun. Play with great people and pretend your the best in the air. There will always be problems with convering reality into fanatasy.
In reality, war is beyond simple description. Death and destruction maybe the simplest. Ask any person who survived one.
This is fantasy. The only thing that can be hurt is yourself from hitting the wall with your head in anger. that's just an ego problem.
I enjoy flying the heavies especially the Lanc's. I take them up to 27,000 ft. Over an hour to climb to that altitude. Level off and fly another 30 minutes to enemy territory. Drop bombs on targets. Ans what I really love to do is shoot down fighters with the puny .303's from my tail guns. There is plenty of players who have experienced that from me. That's usually a two hour sortie and I do them quite alot.
When I sink cv's and kill tanks from flying low level dive bombing, that's my icing on the cake.
This game has alot of great fighter pilots. I believe I'm one of the great bomber pilots. I can hit targets at 30,000 ft. Dive bomb cv's. Fly single bombers as fighters. And shoot down Me-262's, 163's, Mustangs, Spits, Jugs, Hogs, Zekes, La La's, Tiffies and Tempies, 190's, 109's, and anything else while in bombers. Sometimes I might lose the bombers. I also fly the smaller bomber pods at 10000 fr for fun to.
In closing, It's a game. Learn tactics and strategies. Learn and understand strenghts and weaknesses to all aircraft and vehicles. Learn from your mistakes on why you got killed. The whole purpose of a flight simulator for the military and NASA is to finf new ways to kill the occupants in a virtual world before they get into the real stuff enabling them to be better prepared and trained with experience for when things go wrong.
-
Dive-bombing bombers into a CV is proven not necessary. B26's level at 8K work just fine.