Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on March 04, 2009, 11:24:52 PM
-
I sent an e-mail to HTC just now, after witnessing one of the worst abuses of the bomber flight model in this game, and sent in the following grievance. I'm posting it here as well.
I have a major grievance regarding the AH bomber model. I would like to type it out and supply a film clip as an example. I will post on the AH BBS as well in the "Aircraft and Vehicles" forum. Please at least read through it once before discarding or replying, long though it may seem. Thanks in advance for your time.
The 100BG have been pulling some deliberate abuse of the flight models lately. I won't go into some of the other cases, but this one regards the bomber flight model so I will use them, as they are on the film in question.
(link:
http://www.nakatomitower.com/100bg_BSbombers.zip
size: 2.7MB)
Today we found the 100BG running a b17 mission that I DID get on film (for once, I'm glad because I don't record very often). They flew B17s so high that nobody could catch them. I was flying a Ta152, arguably the BEST high altitude performance plane in the entire game bar none, and I could not get a shot off on them without stalling out in the thin air. I could not turn a 180 or even get my nose pointed anywhere near the bombers before they zipped past me in air so thin that astronauts would have been envious. They were flying so slow and yet nobody else could attack them because they were climbing past 35k. I could do nothing but nose down for a burst of speed and take a cheap shot from directly behind.
They were even bragging on channel 200 about it, and taunting people that could not get close enough to shoot at them (note the chatter regarding BBaw's f4u).
This is a blatant abuse/misuse of a flight model that (in this case) probably doesn't take into account players gaming the game. B17s could not fly this high, nor could they float at 100mph IAS (he was doing 204 true, so he must have had the stall buzzer going nonstop) at the top of the world where even the BEST of fighter aircraft gasp for breath.
The bomber flight model is being abused horribly by AH players. Either by taking 25% fuel when historically no bomber ever did so (they topped off for even short range missions), which not only allows them to fly faster in level flight than historically possible, but also allows them climb rates 3x or 4x that of their historical loadout would allow.
On top of that, with no ability to spot 25k bombers until they hit the radar ring, nobody in any plane can climb up to them in the time it takes to stop them from dropping on their target. These bombers often break 300 mph, and at that speed it takes only 5 minutes to cross an entire sector on an AH map. Meanwhile you have only 2-3 minutes from the time they break radar range until they drop.
Level bombers in AH are effectively the equivelant of the B1B stealth bomber. They cannot be detected until it's more than too late, cannot be caught by anybody unless the bombers randomly pass under their noses and if they happen to be sitting in a late war monster plane at 30k waiting for bombers.
Historically they were spotted hundreds upon hundreds of miles away. Ground spotters and radar on BOTH sides could tell when tiny planes approached, let alone giant formations of massive 4-engined bombers. Bombers were reliant upon fuel, it was more valuable than bombs, rations, water, guns, ammo, anything. Damaged bombers would dump everything BUT the fuel. They could not and did not fly at full throttle in order to conserve this fuel. Even on climbout they did not run their engines at full throttle. Full throttle on bombers was takeoff and emergency use only, in the case of the 4-engine-bombers modeled in AH. Whereas historically this gave attacking fighters well over 150-200mph closer rates from behind the bombers' formation, in this game the nonstop full speed, 25% fuel loadouts, and other ahistorical features of AH bombers, even the LATEST and FASTEST warplanes in this game can brag only 50mph closure rates at times. This makes them sitting ducks for the slaved guns in the triple-plane-formation, allowing even a single hit to disable or kill an attacker.
Bombers are such devastating killing tools in this game that only the newest of the newbies dies in them by NOE missions or suicide diving on targets. Even with medium alt ranges (10k is sufficient) they can survive the thickest of furballs and get out the other side and STILL do the damage they wanted to. These are not jet fighters, and yet lancasters have repeatedly flown higher and faster than Me262s can climb. The lancasters can break 32k and fly at full speed, whereas even a high speed 262 cannot climb up to 30k, and if anywhere near this, it cannot make a single 180-degree turn inside a sector's lines without lossing massive amounts of altitude.
Bombers as a whole are being grossly abused, misused, and horrifically twisted from anything resembling Earth's history of flight during the second world war.
Changes are needed, and needed very badly.
These changes could be any of the following, or any combination of the following, or any other ideas not listed which HTC deems valid.
- Mandate 100% fuel on all level bombers regardless of loadout.
- Implement power limits on bomber engines. Perhaps have current "full" throttle become a togglable "WEP" style power setting only allowable for short periods of time
- Have bomber formations automatically show up on maps when they climb past 8k (AAA limit) no matter what the radar status/dar bar/tower up or down status of airfields they are flying over. Have this be a small triangle or chevron to denote formations.
- Reduce the number of guns shooting at the gunner's aim point. Have only that position from the other planes fire (i.e. all 3 tail positions, or all 3 ball positions, but only whatever position the gunner is currently in)
This is a major problem and currently the worst abuse of the flight model as-is for the past few years in AH. Not only would fixing it solve a lot of problems, it would benefit all players (yes, all players) by not coddling one small group of highly disruptive players.
For the same reason we do not have porkable fuel, and the same reason we have a dozen troop barracks at fields now, to stop a small group of players from ruining the gameplay of the majority, we need to put curbs and limits on bombers, which ruin the majority of the fights and gameplay in the current MAs. Further the bomber models are grossly out of balance for historical scenarios or FSO use. Often when matched with their counterparts, the fighters cannot catch the bombers to engage them!
-Krusty
-
Krusty, I'm beginning to think that you have lost your mind....
B-17s routinely flew combat missions between 25k and 30k (yes, they could fly that high). They weren't abusing the flight model, just using it better than you were.
I watched about half of the film and the problem wasn't the B-17s, but your inability to fly that Ta 152.
I prescribe a dose of reality as the cure.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I stopped watching when i saw someone say something in the text buffer
Karaya its starting to rub off on you isnt it oink :D
-
This is a blatant abuse/misuse of a flight model that (in this case) probably doesn't take into account players gaming the game. B17s could not fly this high,
Krusty,
I agree Bombers should be fixed, but so should all aircraft in this game. Engine overheats SHOULD be an issue. However, this particular statement is wrong. The noted max service alt. of the B-17 during world war two was 35,500ft as quoted in Flypast's B-17 Flying Fortress, and an Illustrated Guide to the Flying Fortress.
-
What we need now is a "pwnt" jpeg.
-
Anyone have any popcorn? This is going to be a GREAT thread!
-
Engine overheats SHOULD be an issue.
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
Now once you burn off all your WEP, THAT should be gone. Those planes only carried so much of the water/menthol/whatever the hell it was. Once it's gone it should STAY gone.
Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).
-
Anyone have any popcorn? This is going to be a GREAT thread!
I think its one of those make or break threads that someone needs to set over the top :D
-
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
Now once you burn off all your WEP, THAT should be gone. Those planes only carried so much of the water/menthol/whatever the hell it was. Once it's gone it should STAY gone.
Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).
Sounds good to me. I'm all for anything that makes this a little more realistic!
-
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
That'd be great, but HTC would need enough documentation for every plane in the set, or else they'd have to risk some "conspiracy" complaints for whatever plane "unfairly" had arbitrary/generic engine stress parameters.
Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).
I don't think drones artificially made to blow up on any maneuvering is as good a solution (imo it's a bad one) to lancstukas etc. Make dropping bombs possible only from F6, restrain F6 autopilot to a more reasonable range of dive/climb angles, etc. The bombers in a formation would have been real human pilots in reality, definitely capable of matching whatever it was the lead pilot was doing.
-
That'd be great, but HTC would need enough documentation for every plane in the set, or else they'd have to risk some "conspiracy" complaints for whatever plane "unfairly" had arbitrary/generic engine stress parameters.I don't think drones artificially made to blow up on any maneuvering is as good a solution (imo it's a bad one) to lancstukas etc. Make dropping bombs possible only from F6, restrain F6 autopilot to a more reasonable range of dive/climb angles, etc. The bombers in a formation would have been real human pilots in reality, definitely capable of matching whatever it was the lead pilot was doing.
As far as limiting the F6, keep in mind certain aircraft such as the B-25 gave the pilot the ability to "jettison" ordinance from the cockpit as well.
-
This isnt even a well thought out whine. :rolleyes:
My gripe would be the stallfighting bombers that dive and then zoom while sitting in the tail waiting for anyone to follow. Okay maybe a B17 could do that... Im not sure... but I know the waist gunners would not be happy about it.
'Attention crew Im going to dive hard and then pull up at six Gs...' Yeah right...!!!
Or the Boston formations doing snaprolls... now THATs ridiculous!!!
:D
-
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run? What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps. ;)
-
The US could probably afford the small tradeoff in performance vs. a more reliable engine maintenance schedule.
As far as limiting the F6, keep in mind certain aircraft such as the B-25 gave the pilot the ability to "jettison" ordinance from the cockpit as well.
That's fine, I guess. Make it a case-by-case thing, if that's closer to reality.
-
widewing, your barbs aside, of the 2 dozen or so planes TRYING to get to the 3 bomber formations, only 1 or 2 made it out alive, and my squaddie said on vox he was bugging because he was out of ammo.
Not so much an issue of my handling the 152, it could not have turned any tighter and could not have got a shot on the b17s.
Show me the operational logs of B17s flying at 35k please.
I've seen the figures. A SMALL amount barely made it to 30k. B24s couldn't even get as high as the 17s. Most were in the 25k range, some down as low as the 15k range.
Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.
-
widewing, your barbs aside, of the 2 dozen or so planes TRYING to get to the 3 bomber formations, only 1 or 2 made it out alive, and my squaddie said on vox he was bugging because he was out of ammo.
Not so much an issue of my handling the 152, it could not have turned any tighter and could not have got a shot on the b17s.
Show me the operational logs of B17s flying at 35k please.
I've seen the figures. A SMALL amount barely made it to 30k. B24s couldn't even get as high as the 17s. Most were in the 25k range, some down as low as the 15k range.
Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.
Krusty, give me two days to dig through my books, but I'm sure I have some logs.
-
Krusty the 152 isn't a spitfire. The C47 and B17 have always been very good turners with those huge wings and rudders.
-
Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run? What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps. ;)
Out of aircraft performance and in-aircraft performance are completely different. I'm sure an engine without a propeller hooked to a dyno and properly ventilated could run on WEP until the world ran out of gas, but when in an armored engine bay there isn't going to be nearly the same airflow over the engine block. The added stress from hauling an aircraft around via a huge 4 blade propeller doesn't help the heat issue either. Those cowl flaps give the pilot to choose between maximizing airflow or maximizing aerodynamics, but I still doubt that the airflow is anything near what is possible outside of the aircraft. Remember, WEP is different between aircraft, even with the same engine.
(This isn't directed at you Anaxogoras, just the last post I saw referencing the idea. :))
-
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
Sorry, but you just can't compare engine runs on a static testbed with normal operating in an airframe. Those two situation a so utterly different that they shouldn't be even mentioned in the same sentence.
As for the extended run of high power settings beyond the manufacturers recommendations without breaking the engine... sure this can work under some conditions, but it may not work if these conditions were different. It depends on a lot of variables.
But thinking that you can run a high performance engine in a plane under any conditions at full power or beyond, no matter what, is naive at best.
-
The crux is fighters cannot catch bombers. Of course, that's false. Buffs fly in the 280 mph tas range. Give or take some. There's an issue of buffs being at point X at a certain airspeed and alt, and me, in a fighter, being at point Y at a certain airspeed and alt.
I can run them down. Period. I also can get above them. Just takes patience. The problem is the "NOW" factor in AH. I want to be higher and faster than him/them NOW.
It doesn't work that way.
-
Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run? What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps. ;)
If you're an idiot you can overheat an engine...that's why the cowl flaps are there. <G>
The problem with running high power settings in real life is not overheating, assuming you're not doing slow flight or something to limit cooling air flow. The problem is the pressures developed in the cylinders, rotational stress from high RPM, etc. You're putting a strain on the engine that takes a toll over time. It might break this flight....it might not break for several hours...not a given thing like the BS temp limits used in sims. However given the limitations of sims a "temp" limit is one way of limiting engine abuse.
-
Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.
A friend of mine flew 32 missions in B-17s. They flew one mission at 32K...the results were so bad they never did that again. Most missions were 22-28K for the B-17s with the Libs a bit lower. (FYI there were only 12,700 B-17s built <G>)
-
Out of aircraft performance and in-aircraft performance are completely different. I'm sure an engine without a propeller hooked to a dyno and properly ventilated could run on WEP until the world ran out of gas, but when in an armored engine bay there isn't going to be nearly the same airflow over the engine block. The added stress from hauling an aircraft around via a huge 4 blade propeller doesn't help the heat issue either. Those cowl flaps give the pilot to choose between maximizing airflow or maximizing aerodynamics, but I still doubt that the airflow is anything near what is possible outside of the aircraft. Remember, WEP is different between aircraft, even with the same engine.
Wrong. The cowlings (not armored btw) are designed to maximize airflow over/around the engine for cooling (in the case of an aircooled engine). In fact without the cowling the engine is more likely to overheat. The engines run on test-stands also have a propellor attached..there has to be a load on the engine. On the B-17 and B-24 the aircraft are NEVER flown with the cowl flaps open, they are fully open only on the ground. For takeoff they are set to "trail"...a position about 1/3 open and once in cruise the cowl flaps are closed. If you fully open the cowl flaps inflight on the inboard engines of the B-24 you get a buffet that feels just like a stall buffet...doesn't give you warm fuzzies. <G>
While you can overheat aircraft engines the whole over-temp thing in sims is generally way overdone.
-
The problem with running high power settings in real life is not overheating, assuming you're not doing slow flight or something to limit cooling air flow.
Right, but in AH, flying at extremely slow speeds, on the edge of a stall usually, is exactly when we run WEP. :lol
-
Krusty, I'm beginning to think that you have lost your mind....
B-17s routinely flew combat missions between 25k and 30k (yes, they could fly that high). They weren't abusing the flight model, just using it better than you were.
I watched about half of the film and the problem wasn't the B-17s, but your inability to fly that Ta 152.
I prescribe a dose of reality as the cure.
My regards,
Widewing
You can be an *** when you want to be. ;)
Due to the size of the maps in the MA, a 2x burn ratio, and the ability for anyone to read the dar bars (and report sightings) I think there isnt anything that can be done about some of his arguments. However, he does have a point about bombers being abused. Bombers did NOT fly bombing missions at 280MPH. The bombing runs were made much slower than that, far slower (180-210 mph, iirc). Bombers also didnt lift with %25 or %50, or even only %75 fuel, they took max fuel. They had to to. Not only did SOP state so, but pilots didnt want to worry about fuel. In the MA (and even scenarios), only the lightest of bombers (Bostons, etc) need to take anywhere near %100 of fuel to get to where they need to go so we have aircraft like the Lancs, B24, B17, Ju88's, B26, etc, that would otherwise need extra room to get to proper altitude able to get much higher that much quicker. Heavy bombers should be no where near the front, they should have to take off from 4 sectors or more to the rear in order just to get alt, especially yhe big boys.
btw... in the PTO the B24's and B17's rarely went above 18k, at least pre-1945. In the ETO, they still rarely went above 23k, and even more rare were missions above 27k. Look up the stats. I cant comment on the RAF, I dont have the stats on their bombing mission at hand like I do the USAAF.
A few things can be done easily to remedy some of the issues that Krusty pointed out, at least on the heaviest of level bombers. First, remove the option to take anything less %100 fuel in all bombers. Second, just like torps cant be used unless they are dropped under 200ft and under 200mph (for DE and Jap torps, anyways), regulate the speed of the bombers to a 210 or so mph before their bombs can be released, that is the way it was in the real deal so why not have it here. The exceptions to that rule would be the Ju88, Ju87, Il-2, A20, B5N, D3A, and SBD because those aircraft are documented to have been dive bombers and were designed with dive bombing in mind. The speed regulator is an easy fix. That is an easy one to code and it makes sense.
Will HTC address any of this??? Probably not. They'll continue on as they always have, turning the blind eye(s).
-
With due respect to Widewing, I challenge any of you to do much better than Krusty did at 32k ft. Flying at that altitude at 180mph ias is very challenging in a plane with terrible lateral/longitudinal stability.
-
Bombers are such devastating killing tools in this game that only the newest of the newbies dies in them by NOE missions or suicide diving on targets. Even with medium alt ranges (10k is sufficient) they can survive the thickest of furballs and get out the other side and STILL do the damage they wanted to. These are not jet fighters, and yet lancasters have repeatedly flown higher and faster than Me262s can climb. The lancasters can break 32k and fly at full speed, whereas even a high speed 262 cannot climb up to 30k, and if anywhere near this, it cannot make a single 180-degree turn inside a sector's lines without lossing massive amounts of altitude.
-Krusty
I'm testing your theory as we speak and I'm going to say that you're not even close. My first question would be at what weight are you trying to do that? At 13,200lbs presently I'm climbing at 1000'/min through 31,000 indicating 225 truing 378. Seems to be performing pretty good.
Attempted a maximum performance turn and actually gained altitude in the process which I used to descend back to the 32,000' entry altitude and reaccelerate to best speed. The turn didn't take even half a keypad square. Slats were extended and pull to the buffet with no flaps used. I'm going to now attempt the same turn using 1-2 stages of flaps as required in the turn the same way I would use in MA fighting situations. Using only 1 stage of flaps resulted in a much more controllable turn with a tighter radius not requiring a pull to the buffet to make the turn much faster. Mind you these are complete 360º turns starting and ending on an East heading.
If you're having issues in the 262 up high you're either:
a.) Too Heavy
b.) Not doing it right
c.) Both
Presently 12,700lbs setting an autoclimb at 225 Indicated. I'm going to leave it alone and see where it ends up. I'm going to say it tops out at about 38 with the wing and engines it has at that speed. At that altitude the range will be exceptional in this airplane and finding your way to a friendly base should present no challenge as you'll be above anything that will engage you and faster than anything that can catch you. Through 35,000 I'm still going up at 600'/min.
-
btw... in the PTO the B24's and B17's rarely went above 18k, at least pre-1945. In the ETO, they still rarely went above 23k, and even more rare were missions above 27k. Look up the stats. I cant comment on the RAF, I dont have the stats on their bombing mission at hand like I do the USAAF.
(...)
Will HTC address any of this??? Probably not. They'll continue on as they always have, turning the blind eye(s).
And how often do you find bombers >23k in Aces High? Like in real life: Rarely.
-
The crux is fighters cannot catch bombers. Of course, that's false. Buffs fly in the 280 mph tas range. Give or take some. There's an issue of buffs being at point X at a certain airspeed and alt, and me, in a fighter, being at point Y at a certain airspeed and alt.
I can run them down. Period. I also can get above them. Just takes patience. The problem is the "NOW" factor in AH. I want to be higher and faster than him/them NOW.
It doesn't work that way.
I think what Krusty was referring to in regard to this was that in real life.. bomber formations were spotted WAY WAY before they could ever reach their targets. I think that is his issue, in AH bombers can "sneak up" on a target and you get an unrealistically short warning of their approach. I agree with this assessment, the dar ring setup makes decent sense for fighters, but for bombers there should be more advanced warning.. 3 big planes instead of 1 small one..
-
I think what Krusty was referring to in regard to this was that in real life.. bomber formations were spotted WAY WAY before they could ever reach their targets. I think that is his issue, in AH bombers can "sneak up" on a target and you get an unrealistically short warning of their approach. I agree with this assessment, the dar ring setup makes decent sense for fighters, but for bombers there should be more advanced warning.. 3 big planes instead of 1 small one..
See darbar forming up at high alt bases behind enemy front lines. Almost always buffs. If you read the map properly it's quite easy to find 'em.
It's more or less my AH profession ;)
BTW, many times things happen as follows: Sizeable darbar forms up in enemy territory, high-alt base. I call it out several times on country. I give updates while I hurry towards them. When I reach them, I shadow them, continually broadcasting heading, alt, force composition.
After 30 mins, raid reaches a base and flattens it. Suddenly on country & local vox "WTF?! Wwhere do all these bombers come from?" "Why are they so high, we can't intercept them!" "HTC should fix that bomber crap / radar"
(But I have also been called out for using spies because I was able to "find" 20k buff raids :lol)
-
With due respect to Widewing, I challenge any of you to do much better than Krusty did at 32k ft. Flying at that altitude at 180mph ias is very challenging in a plane with terrible lateral/longitudinal stability.
I do it all the time because I chase bombers until they drop alt to land when I have the fuel for that. Its surprising how many bombers will use their last bit of fuel to climb to 32k but then have to glide home. :D
-
Its just a game guys......
-
Its just a game guys......
LIES!!!
-
What Lusche said. It's been true for ten years now. btw.. Does HTC do something special on their 10th year first point release day?
-
I think bomber formations should show up on dar differently than simple fighter blips.
-
Actually I dont think the problem is B-17s at 32k....its the bombing system that allows them to hit anything from that high.
-
With due respect to Widewing, I challenge any of you to do much better than Krusty did at 32k ft. Flying at that altitude at 180mph ias is very challenging in a plane with terrible lateral/longitudinal stability.
One of my Trainer gigs is to schedule a dueling session from a 30k field in the TA. So yeah, I'm quite comfortable flying and maneuvering at 30,000 feet.
The problem most have with high altitude is that they don't understand how different their aircraft performs up high. To overtake bombers flying that high, you need about 20 minutes to climb up there. Then, you have to build up your airspeed enough to be able to maneuver. Remember, it's your indicated air speed that matters. For many aircraft at 30k, the difference between stall speed and max speed is a very narrow range in IAS.
If you try to climb up behind a formation of bombers, you will be hanging there; a sitting duck for the tail guns. You won't have enough speed to maneuver and any abrupt stick movement can result in a stall. That's why you have to build your air speed and get out ahead of the bombers. Once you accomplish this, you can turn in and attack from a front quarter. You make one pass, fly perpendicular to the formation until about 3k distant. You then turn onto the bomber's heading and get out ahead again. Repeat this as required until ammo or fuel is exhausted, or the bombers are down.
The bombers that Krusty was chasing were climbing at about 250 feet/minute. Their speed was around 190 mph TAS. Had he applied what I illustrated above, he would have easily gained position to attack. The Ta 152 climbs 3 to 4 times faster than B-17s at those altitudes. The issue is time. You have to be willing to take the time. A Ta 152 has excellent endurance, so fuel should not be an issue. Time is what the bomber pilot expended to get to altitude. He understood that high altitude is the best refuge. He's using good tactical judgment. His bombers are vulnerable at lower altitudes. He's not gaming the game or abusing the flight model.
The argument some are using stating that the bombers are flying at full power 100% of the time is a strawman. Those fighters chasing him are flying at full throttle 100% of the time as well. Pot meet kettle.
My regards,
Widewing
-
In the ETO, they still rarely went above 23k, and even more rare were missions above 27k. Look up the stats. I cant comment on the RAF, I dont have the stats on their bombing mission at hand like I do the USAAF.
What "stats" do you have? To say they "rarely" went above 23,000 feet is not accurate. Look at the mission reports here: www.398th.org
Almost all of the missions described are above 23,000 feet. There are quite a few missions that dropped from 28,000 feet.
-
WW is correct. Krusty saw the Buffs and rushed the attack.
-
Actually I dont think the problem is B-17s at 32k....its the bombing system that allows them to hit anything from that high.
Well, in real life the Norden bombsight was supposed to be accurate enough from 30,000ft.
ack-ack
-
Actually I dont think the problem is B-17s at 32k....its the bombing system that allows them to hit anything from that high.
It is their JDAMS :D The AH bomber accuracy must be approaching what our guys are dropping NOW! When they were dropping hangers in Iraq they were dropping 1 or 2 bombs on hangers. I believe it takes three bombs with an AH WWII bomber....with a salvo of 3.
The Norden bomb sight may have had the theoretical accuracy but there is many changes to effect bomb flight from 30K. Turbulence, air density, winds aloft and probably the temperature change.
How accurate is an F-15 E dropping a dumb bomb from 30K? If it could hit a hanger they probably don't need that fancy laser and GPS guided ordnance.
-
Had to read the original post a few times because I found it hard to believe what I was reading.
1) Widewing - Totally agree about pot meet kettle.
2) Dar - The usual 'I can't be bothered to WATCH the map and see whats going on', so make it easier for me. For example, a large darbar appears at either a high alt base, or a base way behind enemy lines, its prob buffs. Certainly aint Interflora! There's your warning.
3) 100% fuel forced on buffs - Sure, but only if applied to all aircraft. Would stop the good old 25% or 50% fuel + drops on fighters. After all thats not really realistic either, is it?
If they took the time to get that high (most complaints are about NOE or really low level buffs) why shouldn't they gain the advantage that this affords them?
Tell ya what if the attacking force is very high level buffs why not just give the option of a 35k mid air spawn for fighters? That make you happy?
[edit] Do agree about going back to the old bomb sight.
-
The harder to calibrate bombsight, not the old laser precision calibration-free one?
-
The harder to calibrate bombsight, not the old laser precision calibration-free one?
Yup the one were you actually had to try and hold the crosshair on a point while you calibrated.
Thinking about the whole thing, you not think that this possibly shows a further two groups of players/squads -
1) Those who watch the map and think tactically.
2) Those who don't.
Good example of 1 - Not long after the LCAs formed they were attacking a base from a field 25 miles away with no alt advantage. After numerous tries a VERY large darbar appeared at a 10k field about 75 miles away. Whole squad (about 12 of us on) jumped into K4's and headed that way, guess what? A bucket load of Lancs, and we had alt on them.
Not hard if you watch whats going on.
And yes we got accused of having a spy and the 'C' word, all because the squad as a whole thinks in a very tactical way.
-
Myopic vision, yep.
-
All this talk about buffs has me hankering for some buff hunting tonight.
-
Well, in real life the Norden bombsight was supposed to be accurate enough from 30,000ft.
ack-ack
Clouds, variable wind conditions at multiple altitudes. historically all the buffs hit from that alt is the ground. No such thing as "precision" bombing from 32k....
-
On mission 115 dated October 14, 1943, two hundred twenty one B17 forts reached Schweinfurt and two hundred twenty released their bomb loads. Altitude between the three air divisions varied between twenty and twenty four thousand feet. Fifty three percent of all bombs dropped landed within one thousand feet of the aiming point of the primary target. One large concentration of at least forty bursts was located in a wooded area 3.5 miles South East of Schweinfurt.
taken from the pages of "Black Thursday" by Martin Caidin
-
Fifty three percent of all bombs dropped landed within one thousand feet of the aiming point of the primary target. One large concentration of at least forty bursts was located in a wooded area 3.5 miles South East of Schweinfurt.
And that was considered precision bombing. Sure is a long ways away from what we have now with bombs hitting within meters of their target.
ack-ack
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd actually like to thank Krusty for his post.
I really needed a good laugh. :rofl
-
in an FSO, I was doing like 350 at about 35k in a 152. The one where it was the 2nd BoB.
You just gotta get up there, and get speed up, I think one of our squaddies even went to like 40k before it started to quit. :O
-
~41k is the optimal level speed altitude. It takes over 20min to go from 180IAS to top speed flying level.
-
I don't have to look at the film Krusty, I know you're a good stick. Flew with you when I started as a knight.
So if you have a problem with it, there probably is an issue.
There are major issues with the flight characteristics of many planes in this game.
Arguably the worst modeled plane is the Spit16...it's the very reason why I quit the game for months. Kills me not to fly it as I've always had a love affair with spits, but can't cheat like that.
-
There are major issues with the flight characteristics of many planes in this game...the Spit16...can't cheat like that.
:rofl
-
ROFL
somebody need high alt training :noid
wtg mates!
-
I can't remember the last time someone complained that a guy was trying to stay alive in his bombers.
-
none of this alters the fact that closure rates in AH are way lower than IRL, which is especially noticable in BoB scenarios with the 88s. the difference between full/mil power and max cruise in 88s is about 30mph - thats the difference between a Spit I and a Spit IX/VIII :confused:
-
did they actually hit their targets from that alt? i thought htc had wind drift modeled in?
if they want to spend the time to climb a set of b17's to 30k+, then let em. who really cares? ya follow em, and kill em when they come down..which they have to do sooner or later.
now, if you were talking about a b17 performing an immel, and not losing his drones.........
-
none of this alters the fact that closure rates in AH are way lower than IRL, which is especially noticable in BoB scenarios with the 88s. the difference between full/mil power and max cruise in 88s is about 30mph - thats the difference between a Spit I and a Spit IX/VIII :confused:
Yes, but as Widewing already said, fighters in AH get to fly at full power all the time too, so the lack of realism goes both ways.
Tell me again why you all don't want more sophisticated engine modeling? :P
-
did they actually hit their targets from that alt? i thought htc had wind drift modeled in?
the game supports wind, but it stays turned off. there have been numerous threads asking.. begging to turn it on.
-
none of this alters the fact that closure rates in AH are way lower than IRL
And you know that how? I've read annecdotes from German pilots that mention tail chasing bombers and having a hard time with the speeds. Our problem is the people that have been deluded through their reading/movies, that German fighters were able to bust through Allied formations at will, with very little effort, mowing planes down at the cyclic rate. Fact: number one killer of 8th AF bombers in WWII was flak.
-
I think buffs should show up as larger blips on dar. :aok
-
Arguably the worst modeled plane is the Spit16...it's the very reason why I quit the game for months. Kills me not to fly it as I've always had a love affair with spits, but can't cheat like that.
It is? Why don't you provide some evidence that it is the worst modeled plane in the game?
ack-ack
-
My grandfather was a navigator in WW2 on B17's and B24's (halfway through the tour they switched from the 17's to the 24's). I would always ask him about those days, and he was very open to chat about it. Anyway, he said rarely did they ever (keep in mind this was his unit, not the whole ETO) fly at low altitudes (12k), but routinely flew at 30k. Now, I know some of the flamers will jump on me, but this was from a guy who was there, flew 4 missions on D-day alone, was shot down at one point, watched the 262's make passes on them (interesting story there in itself), and continued on for 33 years in the Air Force.
There is no question that real-life and in-game are not mimicked exactly. Changing one aspect offsets another however (c'mon, you guys know this), so while there are inconsistencies, there is a general balance going on.
To the original poster, as a squad, we routinely and fairly accurately, figure out what are bombers and such from the radar. Taking the bombers to extreme altitude isnt a problem, thats just smart play. The question I would ask is why don't most planes perform up there too, at least the ones that should be able to? Someone in bombers at 12k in the game, flying into a hotspot, is really asking for trouble. Thats why we run escorts :salute
-
the game supports wind, but it stays turned off. there have been numerous threads asking.. begging to turn it on.
THAT would make it much more interesting. i rarely ever bomb from any higher than 14k or so.....but i also rarely ever miss at that alt either. it has no challenge, unless there's fighters up with me....and then, it seems that when i WANT the fighters to attack me, they don't...when i want to be left alone.....they attack me. :rofl
-
the game supports wind, but it stays turned off. there have been numerous threads asking.. begging to turn it on.
People cried when they had tough times taking off due to the cross wings and bombing tool sheds and it was removed.
ack-ack
-
Fact: number one killer of 8th AF bombers in WWII was flak.
Great. Give us the 88.
-
People cried when they had tough times taking off due to the cross wings and bombing tool sheds and it was removed.
ack-ack
crosswind takeoff's aren't that hard in real life.....i can only imagine them being easier in ah.
i wonder how wind would affect our dogfights in here?
-
... The question I would ask is why don't most planes perform up there too, at least the ones that should be able to? Someone in bombers at 12k in the game, flying into a hotspot, is really asking for trouble. Thats why we run escorts :salute
The airplanes that are supposed to perform 'up there' do its just most people online dont know how to handle their plane at that altitude. Most aircraft that I have engaged at high alt (and there are exceptions) dont make it past one-half turn before they panic and dive to the thicker air. Others wallow and flutter and snaproll and die and then pm the 'c-word' because we all know they have perfect knowledge of how to fly... :rofl
-
The question I would ask is why don't most planes perform up there too, at least the ones that should be able to?
Like it taking 20min for the 152 to accelerate from 180mph ias to top speed at altitude? :lol
-
i wonder how wind would affect our dogfights in here?
Wind doesn't affect dogfights at all, in terms of the maneuvering, when both aircraft are moving in the same air flow. The only real difference it makes is that the fight will drift in the direction of the wind. As an example, suppose you put a swimming pool on the back of a lorry and it was moving at 30mph. Two swimmers can swim around each other completely oblivious of the general motion of the fluid they are moving in. To them it would make no difference if the fluid they were swimming in was moving or stationary. Same thing applies to two aircraft when the mass of air they are flying in is moving.
Badboy
-
Wind doesn't affect dogfights at all, in terms of the maneuvering, when both aircraft are moving in the same air flow. The only real difference it makes is that the fight will drift in the direction of the wind. As an example, suppose you put a swimming pool on the back of a lorry and it was moving at 30mph. Two swimmers can swim around each other completely oblivious of the general motion of the fluid they are moving in. To them it would make no difference if the fluid they were swimming in was moving or stationary. Same thing applies to two aircraft when the mass of air they are flying in is moving.
Wolfgang Langewiesche likened it to a man sitting or walking in a moving train car (a more common experience than swimming in pools on the backs of lorries) (except in England, so I hear).
- oldman
-
Wind doesn't affect dogfights at all, in terms of the maneuvering, when both aircraft are moving in the same air flow. The only real difference it makes is that the fight will drift in the direction of the wind. As an example, suppose you put a swimming pool on the back of a lorry and it was moving at 30mph. Two swimmers can swim around each other completely oblivious of the general motion of the fluid they are moving in. To them it would make no difference if the fluid they were swimming in was moving or stationary. Same thing applies to two aircraft when the mass of air they are flying in is moving.
Badboy
see...i almost think it would. obviously i've never flown real combat, and that's why i asked that. i do know that when i'm in the pattern, i need to adjust my bank angles according to what the wind is doing to make my turns as i want them. same if i'm doing a turn around a point. i'm constantly changing my bank to keep the target on the ground where i want it.
that's what made me wonder if combat pilots had to do things slightly differently on windier days.......or on turbulent days too.
-
Wolfgang Langewiesche likened it to a man sitting or walking in a moving train car (a more common experience than swimming in pools on the backs of lorries) (except in England, so I hear).
- oldman
sooooo.....then turbulence(which would be the equivalent of the train rocking and bumping) could affect their maneuvers then?
this is actually kinda cool....a decent conversation coming out of a complaining thread. it's usually the other way 'round
-
anti aircraft artillery resulted in most 8thAF bomber aircraft losses in WW2?
-
Think AAA fire was the leading cause of all aircraft kills.
ack-ack
-
That many people flying that high and bragging because nobody can catch them and they don't have to fight???
Who cares, let them play American Airlines.
-
And you know that how?
as I understand it low-alt raids would be done at high speed if possible to reduce time over target, high alt raids generally at cruise speeds because of the fuel required to climb to alt and because they were deeper into enemy airspace, again a fuel consideration. engine wear is also much greater running at full power settings, so this would have been a factor.
if SOP for high alt raids was full power climb, cruise to target, then full power over target, I stand corrected :)
-
Another little tidbit about mission 115....
1st Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Nine B17s
3rd Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Two B17s
Two Hundred Ninety One B17s took off from England.
Two hundred twenty eight B17s made it to the drop point and dropped:
Four Hundred Fifty 1000 pnd HE bombs
Six Hundred Sixty 500 pnd HE bombs
One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One 100 pnd Incendiary bombs
The Butchers Bill:
Forty B17s lost from various causes; exact reasons unidentified.
Two B17s lost from flak; positive identification.
Eighteen B17s lost from fighters; positive identification.
A further Five B17s lost in England on return.
-
...high alt raids generally at cruise speeds...
What exactly is the "cruise speed" of a formation of B-17s or B-24s flying at 25,000 feet--in True Air Speed? I'll tell you that for a loaded B-17 at that altitude, it was around 240-260 mph TAS, based on a planning chart I found on Zeno's website. Now, once the weight was gone, they could pull a little power, but their speed would have stayed pretty similar due to the decrease in induced drag, which at those weights and altitudes is pretty high.
On long missions, they replaced bombs with fuel. That's why the B-17 would carry 5,000-6,000 lbs. of bombs instead of what it was potentially capable of. The bomb bays were rarely "cubed" out.
I appologize if I sound curt, but I've argued this pretty much every time Krusty starts one of his bomber rants, and its getting tiresome.
-
Another little tidbit about mission 115....
1st Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Nine B17s
3rd Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Two B17s
Two Hundred Ninety One B17s took off from England.
Two hundred twenty eight B17s made it to the drop point and dropped:
Four Hundred Fifty 1000 pnd HE bombs
Six Hundred Sixty 500 pnd HE bombs
One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One 100 pnd Incendiary bombs
The Butchers Bill:
Forty B17s lost from various causes; exact reasons unidentified.
Two B17s lost from flak; positive identification.
Eighteen B17s lost from fighters; positive identification.
A further Five B17s lost in England on return.
I appreciate your illustration here, but picking one mission, especially when the majority of the aircraft were lost to unidentified causes, is an example of selectivity bias. If I'm wrong regarding the statistics, I'll admit it and eat my crow.
-
Granted, its a mere slice.....but that mission was arguably the most costly and difficult of the entire daylight precision bombing campaign. It effectively shut the 8th bombing command down for four months.
Also, there can be little doubt that flak played some role in those 40 B17s lost due to undefined causes....yet fighters must surely have as well.
There must be some anecdotal evidence to support your position, I just haven't been able to locate it.
-
According to USAF records the following numbers of aircraft were lost over Europe to each cause.
- Lost to enemy Aircraft- 4,274
- Lost to Anti-Aircraft- 5,380
- Lost to other- 2,033
Looking at the chart below you can see that there is room for both sides of the argument. Specifically looking at just the heavy bomber losses you can see that initially most were lost to enemy aircraft, but later in the war it shifted to predominately AA losses.
(This is from the USAF Historical Research Agency's web site http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/ (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/), lot's of good data to be found there.)
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/Stuff/ETOLossesByTypeAndCause.jpg)
This may help provide some additional information;
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf)
-
Looking at the chart below you can see that there is room for both sides of the argument. Specifically looking at just the heavy bomber losses you can see that initially most were lost to enemy aircraft, but later in the war it shifted to predominately AA losses.
Excellent find, Baumer. By the end of the spring of 1944, of course, the Luftwaffe had pretty well been shot out of the sky, so it isn't surprising that the balance of kills changes. Except for January 1945 - when heavy bomber operations were maxed out because of the Bulge piled on top of their other duties - AA never was as effective as fighters were (when there were fighters around!).
- oldman
-
AA never was as effective as fighters were (when there were fighters around!).
That is an excellent find; Baumer continues to find the good stuff! Apparently I was wrong.
I'm not sure that a net 13 aircraft equals a "never as effective as" :)
-
That many people flying that high and bragging because nobody can catch them and they don't have to fight???
Who cares, let them play American Airlines.
That was my thought too. If someone wants to waste that much of their time climbing that high to drop bombs, have fun. I'll be about 30K below that looking for a fight.
That aside, can someone show me any documentation of Ta152s attacking B17s? With so few 152s operational I'm wondering if they ever did?
I'm not implying it didn't btw, I just don't remember seeing anything about it.
-
What exactly is the "cruise speed" of a formation of B-17s or B-24s flying at 25,000 feet--in True Air Speed? I'll tell you that for a loaded B-17 at that altitude, it was around 240-260 mph TAS, based on a planning chart I found on Zeno's website.
I did a little test with a B-17 in the TA, takeoff 20k base, 12x500lb, 50% fuel. The charts show about ~285mph TAS at 25k and after climbing to 25k these are the steady state speeds I got for different settings:
- B-17G: Bay closed (Bay open)
- Military Power: 280mph (270mph)
- Normal Power: 260mph (250mph)
- Max Cruise: not sustainable at 25k
which suggests your RL example is closer to AH Normal Power settings than the firewalled Military Power settings which we encounter in AH.
-
I think buffs should show up as larger blips on dar. :aok
The little realism we've in radar is that you cannot identify the plane from the "dot". I guess in RL a plane could have been identified only by his speed, actually it could be done in AH too. So leave the AH's radar as it is now.
And you know that how? I've read annecdotes from German pilots that mention tail chasing bombers and having a hard time with the speeds. Our problem is the people that have been deluded through their reading/movies, that German fighters were able to bust through Allied formations at will, with very little effort, mowing planes down at the cyclic rate. Fact: number one killer of 8th AF bombers in WWII was flak.
I can't agree more on this one. Luftwaffe pilots were afraid to attack bombers, remember that a single b17 has more than 10 x .50cal machineguns and if u get shot down from these bombers you actually dont risk your life (yes, dweebs, this is a game), but only 5 / 10 minutes. Compared to the time a B17 needs to climb to a certain altitude it is just a fraction ( one third? ). Here's why we (I'm talking about my squad and me) take our time to climb up that high when we dont have escorts. The number of the enemies is much lower at 27k than when bombing at 10k...
-
see...i almost think it would. obviously i've never flown real combat, and that's why i asked that. i do know that when i'm in the pattern, i need to adjust my bank angles according to what the wind is doing to make my turns as i want them. same if i'm doing a turn around a point. i'm constantly changing my bank to keep the target on the ground where i want it.
that's what made me wonder if combat pilots had to do things slightly differently on windier days.......or on turbulent days too.
The difference is when in the pattern your flying in reference to the ground....in air combat your flying in reference to another aircraft -- both of you are in the same air mass.
-
Actually with most of the early US radars you could infer what the inbound target was by the strength signal. Especially with a type "A" display shown below, the peak was much higher for a bomber than a fighter. However, this was not full proof, a perfect example is the attack on Pearl Harbor. The in coming Japanese planes in close formation were mistaken for a flight of B-17's coming in from California.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/radar-p2c.jpg)
The USN historical center has some excellent information on early US radar, check out this article;
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar.htm)
-
checking the B-17 manual, our Mil Pwr settings are for "Take off and maximum emergency power." Even climbout to alt used Normal Pwr at most, the manual talks about cruise climb, which is presumably lower settings than Normal Pwr. Normal Pwr is defined as "Maximum continuous power." Its almost like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the same as WEP for fighters, so perhaps it should be remodelled that way. It would certainly result in more realistic speeds.
-
which suggests your RL example is closer to AH Normal Power settings than the firewalled Military Power settings which we encounter in AH.
Ok, we've already discussed that the throttle setting works both ways--i.e. a fighter gets to run Military all the time just like the bombers do--so that's a wash. But, even if it wasn't, you're still looking at a 100+ (closer to 150 in a TA-152) mph rate of closure in a tail chase, which means that the fighter gains almost 1.5-2.5 miles a minute on the bombers. In five minutes of flying, you could get an half-sector ahead of the bombers. Widewing said it before, its all about patience.
Its almost like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the same as WEP for fighters, so perhaps it should be remodelled that way. It would certainly result in more realistic speeds.
No, its exactly like the Mil Pwr setting for buffs is the exact same as Mil Pwr for fighters in-game, so it is balanced. If you look at an American fighter POH, it will tell you that Military was limited to 5 minutes as well. I have no idea how much manifold they ran during climb, but I do know that they were typically still climbing by the time they hit the Danish coast. Perhaps a good in-game test would be to load up with bombs and full fuel, and take off from a sea-level base. Takeoff and climb with 5 minutes of military, then reduce power to normal, and see how long it takes you to get to 25,000 feet. I had sent a request for information to the 398th BG Website a few years ago, to see if they could help me understand some of the more detailed operational facets like power settings, fuel loads, and airspeeds at which they flew. Unfortunately I never got an answer even though they did reply.
-
comparing with the Spit IX pilots' notes, the settings for "Max takeoff to 1000' and Combat 5min limit" correspond to our WEP setting for fighters, "Max climbing 1 hour limit" is Mil Pwr and "Maximum continuous" is Normal Power.
So according to the operators' manuals, takeoff and emergency is WEP in the Spit but Mil Pwr in the B-17, sustained climb is Mil Pwr in Spit and Normal Pwr (at most) in the B-17.
Put simply, during a 1 hour sortie a Spit should be able to use Mil Pwr for the entire flight, the B-17 should not, according to RL usage.
B-17:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA58 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA58)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA60 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA60)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA87 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RtNtnWt8O7AC&pg=PA87)
Spit:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/SPIT9MANUAL.pdf (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/SPIT9MANUAL.pdf) p.30
:)
-
That was my thought too. If someone wants to waste that much of their time climbing that high to drop bombs, have fun. I'll be about 30K below that looking for a fight.
That aside, can someone show me any documentation of Ta152s attacking B17s? With so few 152s operational I'm wondering if they ever did?
I'm not implying it didn't btw, I just don't remember seeing anything about it.
I have never seen anything indicating that Ta 152Hs ever got the chance to attack B-17s or B-24s.
-
I have never seen anything indicating that Ta 152Hs ever got the chance to attack B-17s or B-24s.
i thought the sole reason for the ta152 was t intercept our bombers?
-
I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter.
Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.
-
I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter.
Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.
Only one page. ;)
-
i thought the sole reason for the ta152 was t intercept our bombers?
It wasn't designed to intercept bombers exclusively. It's just been a further progression of the 190 series designed to fill many roles, including recon.
And situation had much changed when the Ta finally saw service in limited numbers in the last weeks of the war.
-
I give the original poster a 6.7 on the whine-o-meter.
Final score of 7.9 based on the thread running 7 pages.
and thats got to be an easy 9 on the trollometer (-1 point for mentioning the thread at all) :P
-
Regradless of Krusty's success or lack of success in attacking those bombers, he is very correct in stating that there are problems with the flight. Between the flight model, the high speed bombing runs, %25 or %50 fuel loadouts, and the precision bombing from 25k+, there are lots of issues. They all tie in together to create the fiasco of "simulation" bombing. Bombers are far more capable in this sim/game than they were in the real deal.
He isnt whining. He made a good point. Disagree with him all you want, but some of you need show yourself some dignity and stop acting like 5 year olds. If you dont like what his point, then back up what you say and simply adding your opinion doesnt cut it.
Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph. They didnt take a %25 or %50 fuel loadout. Lancs and B17's didnt do dive bombing runs from 1200ft vs a single gv. Shall I go on?
-
Regradless of Krusty's success or lack of success in attacking those bombers, he is very correct in stating that there are problems with the flight. Between the flight model, the high speed bombing runs, %25 or %50 fuel loadouts, and the precision bombing from 25k+, there are lots of issues. They all tie in together to create the fiasco of "simulation" bombing. Bombers are far more capable in this sim/game than they were in the real deal.
He isnt whining. He made a good point. Disagree with him all you want, but some of you need show yourself some dignity and stop acting like 5 year olds. If you dont like what his point, then back up what you say and simply adding your opinion doesnt cut it.
+1 :aok
-
And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride. :lol
-
...Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph. They didnt take a %25 or %50 fuel loadout. Lancs and B17's didnt do dive bombing runs from 1200ft vs a single gv. Shall I go on?
And single 190s and La7s didnt make suicide runs into a field to take down one dar and then auger. P38s didnt do the dance of the sugar plum fairies to force an overshoot and 262s didnt gang horde the HQ to strafe it down either.
News Flash: This isnt WWII.
-
And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride. :lol
And I note that AvA is the only arena which retains the more accurate, albeit more difficult, bomb sight that was introduced to and then withdrawn from the other arenas.
- oldman
-
And yet, when people ask for more detailed engine modeling everyone is against it if it would affect their ride. :lol
I think that matter was explained to you in detail by the man with real knowledge of the modeling of this sim in another thread.
Even more important he's also the man the final say so on the matter.
-
Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph.
With an IAS of 150mph at 25,000' the true airspeed is about 225 (assuming I remember how to calculate TAS). With a bit of tailwind I can see ground speeds of 300mph or more being likely.
-
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
-Krusty
This gives me an idea.
Why not have dar rings expand with altitude?
While not absolutely "realistic" it might improve gameplay some - especially with respect to buffs.
Regular dar bar up to say 10K and expanding by say... a couple miles each 1K over that until, theoretically speaking, a 35K buff would be visible on dar from 3 sectors away?
Might discourage the strato-spit crowd, too, as an ancillary benefit.
-
And single 190s and La7s didnt make suicide runs into a field to take down one dar and then auger. P38s didnt do the dance of the sugar plum fairies to force an overshoot and 262s didnt gang horde the HQ to strafe it down either.
News Flash: This isnt WWII.
Quite true, but this is a SIMULATION and if the fools in the La7's and 190A-8's want to take their aircraft and eat dirt then let them. Your arguement is based on the idiocy (or lack of knowledge, talent, or care) of a player using an aircraft withinin its typical performance range and not the abuse of an aircraft's misrepresented performance threshold. Two very different things.
-
This gives me an idea.
Why not have dar rings expand with altitude?
While not absolutely "realistic" it might improve gameplay some - especially with respect to buffs.
Regular dar bar up to say 10K and expanding by say... a couple miles each 1K over that until, theoretically speaking, a 35K buff would be visible on dar from 3 sectors away?
Might discourage the strato-spit crowd, too, as an ancillary benefit.
best idea, if you don't want buffs dropping on your base?
fly hi cap. don't let them in. if you suspect that buffs may come in that hi, then be there waiting for them.
:aok
-
Didn't read the whole thread...Did anybody tell the OP that "the airing of grievances" is supposed to be done on Dec 23 :D ?
-
Didn't read the whole thread...Did anybody tell the OP that "the airing of grievances" is supposed to be done on Dec 23 :D ?
ooooo you missed an unusaully long one then from ht himself.....look one or two pages back.......BTW.,....i'm just leaving work, and about 1 hour from home....you gonna be in ta tonight? was looking for some 38 guidence. i'm lost on how to fight the little wiggly things that're missing an engine.....short of bnzing them, which i don't want to do.
thanks!!
-
ooooo you missed an unusaully long one then from ht himself
Not really.. that was in a diffent thread ;)
-
Not really.. that was in a diffent thread ;)
oops........
sorry 'bout that chief<in my best maxwell smart voice>
-
Not really.. that was in a diffent thread ;)
Yep, and I didn't miss it ;)
-
best idea, if you don't want buffs dropping on your base?
fly hi cap. don't let them in. if you suspect that buffs may come in that hi, then be there waiting for them.
:aok
Very time consuming.
Understand Im not trying to discourage bombers from flying at 25K feet, Im just saying it would be a heck of a lot more fun if I had enough warning to get up there and mix it up with them. :aok
-
Very time consuming.
Understand Im not trying to discourage bombers from flying at 25K feet, Im just saying it would be a heck of a lot more fun if I had enough warning to get up there and mix it up with them. :aok
"Course, the buff pilots may find they have a heck of a lot more fun when you don't have enough warning to get up there...
-
Can't fly em high, can't fly em low, someone please officially post the correct altitude for every plane! :rofl
-
"Course, the buff pilots may find they have a heck of a lot more fun when you don't have enough warning to get up there...
If bombing a target unopposed is fun for them, I have some laundry that could use folding. :aok
-
Time is what the bomber pilot expended to get to altitude. He understood that high altitude is the best refuge. He's using good tactical judgment. His bombers are vulnerable at lower altitudes. He's not gaming the game or abusing the flight model.
Hmmm.
Regularly on this board we have derogatory references to "alt monkeys" in fighters, pilots climbing so high as to practically guarantee they will be able to enter the fight with an energy advantage. Especially common is people speaking of some P-51s/P-47s/P-38s/F4Us flying at "realistic" altitudes as being "crazy high" and "timid". (One wonders exactly what is illogical about airplanes which have the advantage in high-alt performance choosing a high cruising altitude...but I digress).
But when a buff pilot takes advantage of excessive free time, lack of a boredom gene, and laser-accurate bombing to shut down fights through toolshedding (Lets face it folks, that is the *ENTIRE* purpose of buffing in the MA. You don't do it for the thrill or because 20 minutes of climbing and setting up a bomb run is fun.) at realistic altitudes where they are almost certain to not be intercepted, this is just using good tactics?
For the record, I don't want to take away anybody's ability to climb as high as they wish. However, I might want to take away unrealistically accurate bombing, linked defensive gunfire, and quite possibly, the ability for one player to take 2 spare planes along with him on a sortie without paying anything for it.
-
Regularly on this board we have derogatory references to "alt monkeys" in fighters, pilots climbing so high as to practically guarantee they will be able to enter the fight with an energy advantage. Especially common is people speaking of some P-51s/P-47s/P-38s/F4Us flying at "realistic" altitudes as being "crazy high" and "timid". (One wonders exactly what is illogical about airplanes which have the advantage in high-alt performance choosing a high cruising altitude...but I digress).
But when a buff pilot takes advantage of excessive free time, lack of a boredom gene, and laser-accurate bombing to shut down fights through toolshedding (Lets face it folks, that is the *ENTIRE* purpose of buffing in the MA. You don't do it for the thrill or because 20 minutes of climbing and setting up a bomb run is fun.) at realistic altitudes where they are almost certain to not be intercepted, this is just using good tactics?
This way of thinking requires to take all that constant "alt monkey timid dweeb" stuff seriously in the first place.
Which I don't. :)
-
Didn't read the whole thread...Did anybody tell the OP that "the airing of grievances" is supposed to be done on Dec 23 :D ?
don't forget the feats of strength!!! (triple exclamation point)
-
Lets face it folks, that is the *ENTIRE* purpose of buffing in the MA. You don't do it for the thrill or because 20 minutes of climbing and setting up a bomb run is fun
Using high-altitude bombers in-game is not griefing. Using bombers at anything other than their optimum altitude, or without proper escort, is in my opinion, suicide. There was a time a couple of years ago when I used to grab B-17s and go on hour-long missions dropping at 25,000 feet or so. I used those sorties to decompress when I wasn't getting my butt handed to me in fighters.
To characterize those that choose to fly bombers this way as such is not a positive contribution to the discussion.
-
Snip
Alt monkey!
;)
-
For the record, I don't want to take away anybody's ability to climb as high as they wish. However, I might want to take away unrealistically accurate bombing, linked defensive gunfire, and quite possibly, the ability for one player to take 2 spare planes along with him on a sortie without paying anything for it.
I think the accuracy is by far the biggest problem. Yes, RL B-17s did fly at 30k, but they paid a price for that alt that is not reflected in the game. Yes, the Norden was supposed to be effective up to 30k... just like the 110 was supposed to be an effective long-range bomber escort in 1940. The reality turned out to be a little different. Also, IIRC, the Norden was extremely complicated to use, to the point where most of the bombadiers couldn't get anything like its full effectiveness out of it. If we're going to remove that complexity for the sake of playability, remove the hyper accuracy that goes with it. After all, we don't have point-and-click automatic lead-computing HUDs in fighters, or "invisible" gyrostabilizers in GVs.
Loss of accuracy with height ought to be exponential - all but unnoticeable under 5k, manageable but significant at 10k, very difficult to hit without laying down a large pattern at 20k, and at 30k, you're lucky if you hit anywhere on the base.
-
I think the accuracy is by far the biggest problem. Yes, RL B-17s did fly at 30k, but they paid a price for that alt that is not reflected in the game. Yes, the Norden was supposed to be effective up to 30k... just like the 110 was supposed to be an effective long-range bomber escort in 1940. The reality turned out to be a little different. Also, IIRC, the Norden was extremely complicated to use, to the point where most of the bombadiers couldn't get anything like its full effectiveness out of it. If we're going to remove that complexity for the sake of playability, remove the hyper accuracy that goes with it. After all, we don't have point-and-click automatic lead-computing HUDs in fighters, or "invisible" gyrostabilizers in GVs.
Loss of accuracy with height ought to be exponential - all but unnoticeable under 5k, manageable but significant at 10k, very difficult to hit without laying down a large pattern at 20k, and at 30k, you're lucky if you hit anywhere on the base.
hhmm......you brought up a point........
the guys at 30k.....they need to sit in their freezers while they;re at that altitude. but wait....our freezers aren't as cold as it was for them. o well...still fairly cold though. :D
-
Hey Krusty ... I was the guy flying the 17's you were trailing that night. There were 4 flights of us up for a very successful (and long) strat mission that night. We were returning home and I elected to climb from our normal bombing alt of about 23k. You picked me up abt 28k and I just kept climbing. Think I got up to 32k before I ran low on fuel and needed to come down.
As I recall you got all 3 of my planes at abt 25k or perhaps a little less. I had no fuel to get away or manuever at that point. WTG on the shoot down and your dogigness in your pursuit.
I'm not going to disput anything you said about the techincal aspects of the game or the 100th bombing missions. Who knows, maybe you're right. All I know, bombing can be a difficult proposition under the best of circumstances.
My squadies and I are expert in what we do .. we don't cheat, or "game" the system ... ever. Please don't accuse us of not playing fair. Never did it, never will.
Hope to see you up there again ... hopefully in my sights this time.
Regards and thanks for starting an interesting discussion.
100Maru
-
Classy reply, Maru. Salute
Krusty, i'm surprised you complained about this now that i find you got the kills also. Your complaint is that bombers would not fly this fast or high in real life due to engine restrictions and fuel consumption....yet it seems that maru paid the price by running out of fuel before you did.
Aces High is how it is and its not perfect, but it is good enough if we all stop trying to highlight the few small problems.
-
163's, launched in sector, stand a chance of intercepting the high alt raid. In reality, the LW would pass the '17's at a lower alt and climb up in front of them. Make a head on pass, extend low, just a bit, and use the speed to pass the '17's again and do it over.
IMHO, the 100th spent the time to gain the advantage. One must then invest some time to do the same.
One could make the flight models so realistic (mechanical and controls) that only a real licensed pilot would stand a chance of flying.
The Norden bombsight was quite effective in the right hands of maintenance and operations personnel. Keep in mind that a ordinance impact within 1500 feet was considered good back then. Carpet bombing the maintenance and aircraft parking areas on a base was effective. In the game the bases have hard taxiways and runways. In WWII a lot of the airfields consisted of a big pasture with maintenance facilities and parking areas next to them.
For gameplay, the FH's and BH's simulate these efforts and are hardened to reflect the total bombing effort needed to effect and degrade a fields war mission.
If you don't want one (I) to bomb your homeland, then shoot one down. Please keep in mind that all the principles that affected aerial gunnery, as in the real deal, are very realistically recreated here.
http://www.oldmanuals.com/gunnery.htm works here. I bought the manuals. I do not have laser guns, I just know where to aim.
My glass is empty and the cheese crumbs on the plate are green.
-
I'd just like to know how lancs can do 484 mph in a dive and not break stuff.
http://files.filefront.com/484+mph+rated+lancahf/;13471385;/fileinfo.html (http://files.filefront.com/484+mph+rated+lancahf/;13471385;/fileinfo.html) (26 second film)
-
Hey Krusty ... I was the guy flying the 17's you were trailing that night. There were 4 flights of us up for a very successful (and long) strat mission that night. We were returning home and I elected to climb from our normal bombing alt of about 23k. You picked me up abt 28k and I just kept climbing. Think I got up to 32k before I ran low on fuel and needed to come down.
As I recall you got all 3 of my planes at abt 25k or perhaps a little less. I had no fuel to get away or manuever at that point. WTG on the shoot down and your dogigness in your pursuit.
I'm not going to disput anything you said about the techincal aspects of the game or the 100th bombing missions. Who knows, maybe you're right. All I know, bombing can be a difficult proposition under the best of circumstances.
My squadies and I are expert in what we do .. we don't cheat, or "game" the system ... ever. Please don't accuse us of not playing fair. Never did it, never will.
Hope to see you up there again ... hopefully in my sights this time.
Regards and thanks for starting an interesting discussion.
100Maru
<S>
pwnt
-
I haven't been on in a week or so, or logged in to AH. Been busy.
I appologize if I sound curt, but I've argued this pretty much every time Krusty starts one of his bomber rants, and its getting tiresome.
And I'm sorry to be curt right back: You bring this and another comment up EVERY time, and are wrong.
Your claim is that cruising speeds are ... frankly... very high. You've brought this up before, and once claimed average economy/cruise speeds were 10-20mph slower than MAX speed. Not much fuel economy saved that way, eh? The point was range, not speed, and duration, not blowing your engines out. Even the much more powerful B-29s later in the war could not climb on military power. There was a post in one of the many B-29 threads talking about how it took x hours to climb to x alt, and they might have reached 30k (or was it 25k?) in 30 more minutes but they would have risked the engines doing so, so had to throttle back even further. The numbers you come up with don't jive with actual fuel consumption reduction. Meaning what you say is "cruise" is not cruising, but almost wide-open-throttle. There would be little to no fuel savings dropping 10 or even 20mph on a 300mph plane.
Aircraft manufacturers have a tolerance of performance they allow to vary in every worthy craft. I can't recall whom, but I believe somebody has stated many allowed 5% performance difference. For a 300mph plane that's 15mph. So while 2 aircraft could be worthy of shipping to the USAAF, one might fly 285mph on max power (full fuel consumption) whilst another might save a few minutes of gas by pulling back a fraction on the throttles (often the speeds you claim as cruise) and yet the lower tolerance plane will run out of fuel before it's halfway to the target. You have yet to pull out any "cruise" speeds that make sense, Stoney, and this is why I disregard your comments whenever you (repeatedly) make these responses to every bomber-related-thread I make.
Ok, we've already discussed that the throttle setting works both ways--i.e. a fighter gets to run Military all the time just like the bombers do--so that's a wash.
It is not a wash. Bombers did not run at full milpower, even in the thickest of flak and fighters. Their saving tactic was FORMATION, POSITION, and ESCORTS. The box formations were rigidly adhered to (for US bombers), so that their fellow bombers could all cover themselves. They flew at cruise/economy settings out of necessity, and the formation kept them alive. Whereas fighters engaged at milpower and even WEP every time. Fighters could run at military power form 30 minutes to over an hour depending on the plane. They always engaged at full power (if not WEP), so you are comparing Ferarris to Ugos. The comparison is a wash, and the argument stands. Fighters DID perform somewhat similar to the specs they have in-game, but bombers did NOT perform like this. I fail to see why "it's a wash" and why the fact fighters can do it cancels out why bombers SHOULD do it. It's like saying "My mustang can hit 80mph without blowing up, so therefore my Ugo van should be able to hit 80mph without blowing up" -- it's a false argument, and far far too naive for the likes of Widewing to make. [WW is said to have made that around page 4-5, I was skimming so I missed his actual post]
To those that mentioned wind: It currently does not work in AH properly. It's not wind, it's just lateral motion, moving everything regardless of surface area or friction (wheels against ground, LVTs in water, etc) 10mph "thattaway" and is totally inaccurate in how it should work. Not only does this ruin any ground handling or takeoff/approaches, it made it impossible to stop LVTs in neutral because you could not stop the vehicle to reverse or shift gears during Stalin's Fourth. Wind doesn't work, that's why we don't use it. The FSO/SEA folks did a lot of testing on it and have shown it's screwed up.
Batfink: I killed one B17 while he was still passing 25k. At that time I was able to actually manuver. This was the only alt that any of the fighters got kills on the bombers. Up at 32k+ I could not. My second kill was essentially a suicide run. I was out of fuel, having chased a B17 so far that 75% internal fuel on a Ta152 could not save me. Not even with a long-span 152H-1 could I match the B17 performance at 32k. I could not nose up to get any alt over the bombers (thus no chance to make ANY diving attacks, with speed) and I could not turn around doing 180 to make a single slashing guns pass inside their icon range, and well the second you get outside icon range you're no longer attacking, and they can turn (even a few degrees away) and you'll not get back to them again. I took a Ta152 up to 40K once -- and have screenshots of myself over an enemy HQ to prove it -- and the plane cannot sustain this alt in level flight unless you're on auto pilot. Even banking a few degrees drops your alt, you power is nonexistent, and turning around takes complete concentration on your instruments (not any targets outside of your plane). Technically it can fly high, but it cannot engage anything that high. Even the vaunted 262 can't fly above 30K in this game. It can barely operate in level flight at this alt.
-
You're doing it wrong. I've compressed coming down on bombers that were flying at 35k. And the 262's optimal alt is 20k or so, the charts show it. Dunno where you got the idea it ought to be competitive above 30kft.
-
Per Gen. Hap Arnold, USAAF, "A bombers best defense is altitude and speed."
-
You're doing it wrong. I've compressed coming down on bombers that were flying at 35k. And the 262's optimal alt is 20k or so, the charts show it. Dunno where you got the idea it ought to be competitive above 30kft.
If you happen to already be at 40k when the bombers pass over, maybe. If you HAPPEN to be anywhere over a bomber formation anywhere inside the MA you have a chance attacking them. Every knit plane was scrambling to climb up to them when we engaged, co-alt, and had to follow them UP while making slashing passes from below.
If I were already above them I'd still have a major grievance for the way they are flying. I *have* caught lancasters at 35K before in 109K4s. The K4s can barely fly above this alt either, and all you can do is make tail-chase attacks (dead 6) and get shot to hell in the process.
-
Per Gen. Hap Arnold, USAAF, "A bombers best defense is altitude and speed."
Per Stanley Baldwin Bomber Command, "The bomber will always get through!"
It's been proven that bomber command mentality for BOTH US and British command was flat-out wrong, and flawed. The bomber is so important that... well, lookee here. We've got almost none left in the arsenal! Those we have are leftover from the Vietnam war!!! The few B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s we have in service are a tiny tiny fraction compared to UCAVs, naval fighters, and single-engined precision attack weapons. Bombers are gone. Even with Mach3 speeds during the cold war, the bombers would not have gotten through. Fighters always have and always will catch them, be it in WW2 or in WW3.
-
Per Stanley Baldwin Bomber Command, "The bomber will always get through!"
It's been proven that bomber command mentality for BOTH US and British command was flat-out wrong, and flawed. The bomber is so important that... well, lookee here. We've got almost none left in the arsenal! Those we have are leftover from the Vietnam war!!! The few B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s we have in service are a tiny tiny fraction compared to UCAVs, naval fighters, and single-engined precision attack weapons. Bombers are gone. Even with Mach3 speeds during the cold war, the bombers would not have gotten through. Fighters always have and always will catch them, be it in WW2 or in WW3.
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of ICBM's with the ability to wipe out entire cities. Since that was already available to all countries on a large and useful scale in WWII and all.
-
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of ICBM's with the ability to wipe out entire cities. Since that was already available to all countries on a large and useful scale in WWII and all.
^^ Winner.
-
Per Stanley Baldwin Bomber Command, "The bomber will always get through!"
It's been proven that bomber command mentality for BOTH US and British command was flat-out wrong, and flawed. The bomber is so important that... well, lookee here. We've got almost none left in the arsenal! Those we have are leftover from the Vietnam war!!! The few B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s we have in service are a tiny tiny fraction compared to UCAVs, naval fighters, and single-engined precision attack weapons. Bombers are gone. Even with Mach3 speeds during the cold war, the bombers would not have gotten through. Fighters always have and always will catch them, be it in WW2 or in WW3.
Proven? Hmmmm...Allies won, Axis lost. Based on my 20 years of experience in the USAF during the Cold War, enough of the bombers would have got through. When defenses prohibited altitude and speed, we went low and fast. During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA. The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.
During WWII, Gen. Arnold was correct. Look at the experience you are complaining about. The bombers had altitude and speed. That was their best defense. They got through.
Glass is still empty and the green cheese crumbs are now moving about on the plate.
-
During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA. The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.
False.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp
-
Looks like Krusty has some quite unrealistic expectations with regard to WWII air combat at high altitude. I've successfully fought a B-17 bomber stream (5-7 formations) at 25-30k in a 190A-8 (with the mk108's even). It takes time ... a lot of time, and you need to plan your attacks very carefully. That particular sortie resulted in 4 kills, but took the better part of an hour from take-off to landing, covering several sectors.
Attack from a few thousand feet alt above the bombers from the front quarter and exit in a long careful turn towards the bombers course so you can use your built up speed to overtake the formation and plan your next attack. Speed is your best defence, but never ever dive to avoid defensive fire ... if you do you won't catch the bombers again before they get home or you run out of gas. If you see a bomber formation on radar attacking a base it is already too late to get airborne, so just let them go. You need to be at altitude (25-30k) in a sector where enemy bomber activity is likely (hoard or popular strat target). Bring extra fuel if you can and loiter using the bare minimum of power needed to keep altitude on auto. Use radar and contact reports to get ahead of the bombers, or if you can't, use the time they take to hit their target to set up an attack on their most likely egress route.
Intercepting bombers at high altitude is not easy and demands a lot of patience and planning. In real life the 109 had an endurance of about an hour and a half on internal fuel, and twice that with a drop tank, but still the "rote lampe" (red warning light on the fuel gauge) saved more allied bombers than any other tactical factor.
-
Posted on: Today at 03:54:13 AMPosted by: Die Hard
Quote from: 2Slow on Yesterday at 10:25:35 PM
During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA. The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.
False.
Perhaps you are correct. I went to the Snopes link and a bunch of other places. There is some doubt that Gen. Giap said "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi.
You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or
two, we were ready to surrender!"
I remember hearing the above quote attributed to him in the '80's while I was in the service.
-
Looks like Krusty has some quite unrealistic expectations with regard to WWII air combat at high altitude. I've successfully fought a B-17 bomber stream (5-7 formations) at 25-30k in a 190A-8 (with the mk108's even). It takes time ... a lot of time, and you need to plan your attacks very carefully. That particular sortie resulted in 4 kills, but took the better part of an hour from take-off to landing, covering several sectors.
Attack from a few thousand feet alt above the bombers from the front quarter and exit in a long careful turn towards the bombers course so you can use your built up speed to overtake the formation and plan your next attack. Speed is your best defence, but never ever dive to avoid defensive fire ... if you do you won't catch the bombers again before they get home or you run out of gas. If you see a bomber formation on radar attacking a base it is already too late to get airborne, so just let them go. You need to be at altitude (25-30k) in a sector where enemy bomber activity is likely (hoard or popular strat target). Bring extra fuel if you can and loiter using the bare minimum of power needed to keep altitude on auto. Use radar and contact reports to get ahead of the bombers, or if you can't, use the time they take to hit their target to set up an attack on their most likely egress route.
Intercepting bombers at high altitude is not easy and demands a lot of patience and planning. In real life the 109 had an endurance of about an hour and a half on internal fuel, and twice that with a drop tank, but still the "rote lampe" (red warning light on the fuel gauge) saved more allied bombers than any other tactical factor.
Well said.
-
Bombers did not run at full milpower, even in the thickest of flak and fighters.
"We all but lost an engine just before the IP – a bad mag, no doubt. In order to catch up, we had to pull 52 inches on the other 3."
"We pulled military power from the IP past the target & how I hated to do it."
Quoted from the war diary of 2nd Lt. Charles J. Mellis: http://www.398th.org/History/Diaries/Mellis/Diary_Index_Mellis.html
Lots of good stuff to learn from on this website.
-
all but losing an engine seems a decent reason the use emergency power, but certainly not normal usage. why was it Lt Mellis "hated" to use Mil Pwr settings? Was it because he knew the engines were only rated to use those settings for 5mins or so and would likely disintegrate if used any longer?
-
More likely he didn't want to take the chance to find out when his life was on the line.
-
More likely he didn't want to take the chance to find out when his life was on the line.
Or, perhaps it was his first time ever doing it. Imagine his confidence in the aircraft after having successfully coaxed such performance out of those engines.
Regardless, its merely two quotes from two different missions used as a response to Krusty's statement that bombers never used military power, "even in the thickest of flak and fighters".
-
It would seem he wasn't terribly concerned about the engines since 49 inches/2500RPM is the Max allowable on the 1820 in the B-17.
-
It would seem he wasn't terribly concerned about the engines since 49 inches/2500RPM is the Max allowable on the 1820 in the B-17.
:) I was waiting for someone to make this observation. I had imagined an incredulous "but you can't pull 52" of manifold pressure in a B-17!"
-
Dear Kristy,
I understand your frustration, that being said if you want an easy kill on some B-17s you might not pick the OD ones.
Seems to be bad for any ones health. We take the time to get the alt, boring as it may be. I feel your frustrations are stemming from
a lack of dedication, tactics, and wanting of a big clinking pair. Next time try picking on a noob, I'm sure they wont be as taxing, and they probably wont
shoot you down, or talk crap on 200. This is the 100Th BGH, we climb, we fight, we bomb.
-
Krusty, the comment about the bomber always getting through was made in the early '30s, during a time when the monoplane bombers entering service were as fast or faster than the biplane fighters entering service.
-
:) I was waiting for someone to make this observation. I had imagined an incredulous "but you can't pull 52" of manifold pressure in a B-17!"
Well you can pull that much power...but it's probably best to have a spare jug or two in the hangar. <G>
-
It would seem he wasn't terribly concerned about the engines since 49 inches/2500RPM is the Max allowable on the 1820 in the B-17.
He was more concerned with keeping up with his group. Falling out of formation and flying alone was nearly a death sentence over Germany.
-
He was more concerned with keeping up with his group. Falling out of formation and flying alone was nearly a death sentence over Germany.
I think you are correct. Stragglers were on their own.
I recall one scenario where I was one of the very few to RTB to the UK from a raid over Germany. I encouraged and implored the other mission members to keep up in formation. Their reply was that they were not leaving anyone behind. They dropped altitude and speed to form up on stragglers.
They were correct, they did not leave anyone behind. They joined them in the fields of France or the POW camps.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Karnak, the comment was made in the late '30s and carried well into the 40s. The entire US mentality of self-defended bombers was so erronous that they almost shut down all daytime bombing because of bomber losses. If the long range US fighters hadn't shown up when they did, our bomber losses would not have been sustainable.
Stoney: Quit trolling. You know the issue at hand and yet bring up examples that don't fit, and waiting for responses that cry "foul!" (basically, you're trolling). A bomber blows an engine so throttles the rest up. Yeah... RIGHT... that really proves your point (insert oldrolleyes here). I've explained why your comments are not realistic or logical and you come back with a troll?
As for the 100BG pilots. Heeeeere we go. I did not bring this up until they started swearing and taunting at me. They're crying foul at me because one of their pilots stick stirred and warped his way out of certain death. It was 100Bull. He was flying level in a p-47 and bouncing left and right, up and down without any change in pitch or orientation, flat spinning while zoom climbing UP. I and several others witnessed his BS. I told him he was as close to cheating as possible and if I had been rolling film he'd have been reported to HTC. I asked the others that saw it and they did not roll film either, but did see it.
***HE*** then proceeded to brag that he truly knew how to fly this plane, and that he was some sort of master (of what I won't say) and he went on repeatedly bragging about how he could take me to the TA and show me how to do the exact same thing with some practice. He was literally climbing while spinning out like a gyro, and recovered higher than he entered, also bouncing up and down and left/right so hard that I (200d behind him, steady, lined up, not closing, kill-shot-ready) couldn't even ping his arse. So far he was bouncing from outside one side of my gunsight to the outside of the opposite side of it. I *REALLY* wish I'd got that on film. It was 100% intentional.
Well, I used PMs but apparently they've been gabbing about it on their forums because whattayaknow here come all the 100s swearing and cussing at me in his defense. I didn't even bring this up, they did otherwise it wouldn't have intruded into a serious issue with AH2's gameplay (bomber performance). I did not whine for an hour about your tactics, as you say. Both of Hooch's posts are antagonistic, hostile, and quite defensive, and quite outside the point of this thread. Bull's post is just plain insulting and defensive, and also has nothing regarding this thread/topic. They ought to be removed from the thread so it may stay on track.
Diehard, you didn't read my previous posts: Unless you happen to be randomly above and in front of any bomber stream in this game, they can more often than not do their deeds and get home before you can kill them. We're not talking DGS (a scenario for other folks, FYI) where you knew what they were, where they were coming, how many they would be, and were already planning to intercept them 20 minutes before you knew they were over your territory. Even in DGS the 190a8s have major issues you don't mention. At 32k they are barely 20mph faster than B17s. They gain maybe 10mph by dropping some more. Making diving attacks on bombers this high just isn't possible in this game. The very act of climbing up to get ABOVE them lets them move so far outside of icon range they are effectively scott-free and have gotten away. Once a bomber is so far away from you he's outside icon range he can change course, rtb, whatever he wants, and thus you've lost him. Letting him get so far away is effectively letting him go.
-
I sent an e-mail to HTC just now, after witnessing one of the worst abuses of the bomber flight model in this game, and sent in the following grievance. I'm posting it here as well.
The 100BG have been pulling some deliberate abuse of the flight models lately. I won't go into some of the other cases, but this one regards the bomber flight model so I will use them, as they are on the film in question.
Are you accusing a squad about flying heavies too high ?
Did u read my previous posts, and the majority of community's replies ?
Dont blame hooch and bull about their replies, as they've got strong feelings toward our squad they just (and so I did) felt insulted. I'm sure anybody would had too if in our place.
[jk]Anyways IF that was an abuse. It was the BEST abuse of the "bomber flight model". not the worst. LOL [/jk]
-
If i have an extra life, I ll loan it to you KRUSTY.. GET A LIFE oh hell.. you should at least GET A CLUE from the responses. It's a freaking game.. You arent a real pilot.. accept it... Go to a drug rehab or AA meeting for the heck of it. I am sure they'll teach you how to accept your suckiness. :rock :rock
Whew... back to reality.
-
Regradless of Krusty's success or lack of success in attacking those bombers, he is very correct in stating that there are problems with the flight. Between the flight model, the high speed bombing runs, %25 or %50 fuel loadouts, and the precision bombing from 25k+, there are lots of issues. They all tie in together to create the fiasco of "simulation" bombing. Bombers are far more capable in this sim/game than they were in the real deal.
He isnt whining. He made a good point. Disagree with him all you want, but some of you need show yourself some dignity and stop acting like 5 year olds. If you dont like what his point, then back up what you say and simply adding your opinion doesnt cut it.
Bomber didnt drop ord at 280mph. They didnt take a %25 or %50 fuel loadout. Lancs and B17's didnt do dive bombing runs from 1200ft vs a single gv. Shall I go on?
$15/month, and you want a full 100% accurate simulation? Have fun deal with it. :devil
-
Hmm I give this 90 Krusties on the BS scale.
:aok
-
Popcorn, I tell ye, popcorn.
-
See Rule #4
-
Hooch you went from a respectable position to this silly mudslinging. If you keep your responses somewhat professional you might receive a better reception.
-
ravings of a lunatic
100hooch, you ought to follow 100maru's lead and handle this with some civility instead of coming off like 100sweetheart.
I don't have a dog in this fight but your posts are not helping your squad one bit.
-
Stoney: Quit trolling. You know the issue at hand and yet bring up examples that don't fit, and waiting for responses that cry "foul!" (basically, you're trolling). A bomber blows an engine so throttles the rest up. Yeah... RIGHT... that really proves your point (insert oldrolleyes here). I've explained why your comments are not realistic or logical and you come back with a troll?
Ok, although I wasn't trolling, I'll give you the first quote since it was the result of mechnical failure. The second quote was not--it was a legitimate operational use of military power during a bomb run. I guess it takes too long to actually read some of the resources I quote from or else you would know that.
I'm done.
-
I just randomly went through Krusty's postings on the board. Whoa.. I regret I responded to this one. I take back everything I said. I dont have time for someone who spent as much time as him on this 'game' and still b1tch so much about everything.. I apoligize for my presence.
I am out, hooch take care of kow and chkn, o3up you are the best! :rock
-
This horse is DEAD. No point in beating it any more.