Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pyro on November 15, 2000, 11:53:00 AM
-
We've got some work to do on ordnance in 1.05. Here's the stuff we have slated and you can let us know if there's something we've forgotten or something else you'd like to see.
Ordnance damage- The relationship between heavy ordnance like bombs, rockets, and large-bore cannons is disproportionate to that of the smaller MG and cannons. This is most prevalent in the Ostwind's ability to level fields. So the change will be an increase in the damage of the heavy weapon classes while the smaller weapon classes will remain the same.
Bomb shapes- sizes needed to be adjusted for the different sizes of bombs and we may add some new bomb shapes as well.
N1K2-J ammo load- Increased ammo for one of the pairs of cannon.
21cm rockets on 109 and 190- will get a timed fuze.
External fuel tanks on Typhoon.
Disable bomb drops on ground.
We also made a change to bullet dispersion to make them weighted towards the center of the cone of fire.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Did you happen to fix the blast radius problem with the WGr.21 rockets?
------------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Whattaya mean I can't kill em? Why the hell not?!
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/behappy.jpg)
-
21cm rockets on 109 and 190- will get a timed fuze.
Will they explode similar to a bomb and cause area effect damage? In real life they were basically mortars which were used to break up American bomber formations.
------------------
Nath_____
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
"It felt as if an angel was pushing..."
-Reponse of Gen. Adolf Galland after flying the fourth prototype Me 262 in May 1943.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Ordnance damage- The relationship between heavy ordnance like bombs, rockets, and large-bore cannons is disproportionate to that of the smaller MG and cannons. This is most prevalent in the Ostwind's ability to level fields. So the change will be an increase in the damage of the heavy weapon classes while the smaller weapon classes will remain the same.
So.. bomb/rocket damage will be increased? I like that alot.. especially if you work on proximity damage too.
Will this also mean that 1 1k bomb will be able to level a hangar? Or will structure damage also be played with? Afterall... if structure damage stays the same.. an Ostwind can still level a base.
I like the move though... thanks!
We also made a change to bullet dispersion to make them weighted towards the center of the cone of fire.
If you don't mind me asking.. how were they modeled before? An even dispersion throught an area?
AKDejaVu
I wonder if towd will read this thread
-
Hmmmm.
The dispersion cone weighting sounds interesting. I'm thinking it will help the MG armed planes do more damage when their rounds hit. It should affect the .50 cal planes more than the cannon birds I would think.
Should be interesting.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
Or the 0.51 cal planes.
-
Originally posted by Nath-BDP:
Will they explode similar to a bomb and cause area effect damage? In real life they were basically mortars which were used to break up American bomber formations.
And the effect that the mortar had was one of psychological effect and not much more.We all know that its was a psych trip, so it won't work in AH. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The chances of hitting a bomber with those mortars were similiar to the aerial bombing of inflight formations...thus, they should be inaccurrate and unpredicatable. After all, it was a field mortar modified for an aircraft. Field mortars are somewhat predictable on a stationary target, but a flying target? Fat chance.
Sorry to burst your LW-minded bubble. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Pyro: Any chance of being able to set the on/off of individual pairs of guns on certain planes?
Thanks.
-
Pyro,
Looks good. Droptanks for the Spitfire MkVb would be nice.
Originally posted by Pyro:
N1K2-J ammo load- Increased ammo for one of the pairs of cannon.
Boy are we gonna hear whines about this though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Sisu
-Karnak
-
hmm yea, increasing heavy ord damage sounds cool.
If you increase hardness of the targets though, that would sorta outweigh the increase in damage capabilities.
Small-minded people like me don't get the correlation between Osti damage and heavy ord, but I'll take your word for it (unless someone wants to enlighten me).
Fury
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
And the effect that the mortar had was one of psychological effect and not much more.We all know that its was a psych trip, so it won't work in AH.
The chances of hitting a bomber with those mortars were similiar to the aerial bombing of inflight formations...thus, they should be inaccurrate and unpredicatable. After all, it was a field mortar modified for an aircraft. Field mortars are somewhat predictable on a stationary target, but a flying target? Fat chance.
Sorry to burst your LW-minded bubble.
They should still explode and cause area effect damage ya silly bastard, I didnt say they were as accurate as sidewinders.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Thanks Pyro!
Nath, how long do you think it will take before we see alot of people using them AS sidewinders? Who will be the first rocket ACE on your block?
-
THANK YOU PYRO!!!!!!
Just wanted to add to the list possibilty to select different cannon types in airplanes with multiple cannon banks (190 comes to mind)
the effect of the 210mm rocket should be rather like flak i would think, but stronger.
88mm versus 210 mm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The damage you are doing isnt from the KE but from the explosion. And yes they should not be too accurate but rockets in AH now arent too accurate.
Please take a look at panzer's vulnerability to small arms fire from 12 o clock position too.
-
Ok increased damage of large weapons....
37mm will fall under small weapon?
Are ALL objects ingame now going to receive increased hardness?
If not will we see 1 Lanc able to do even more damage to HQ than the 50% it can do now?
I don't understand the bullet dispersion point. Pyro? would you be able to explain that in terms those of us not so well educated in weapons might understand? +)
SKurj
Oh yeah How about some of the really large Bombs for the Lanc?
-
Pyro,
Any chance of getting 11.75inch Tiny Tim Rockets for Naval A/C ie. F4U and F6F?
Here is a pic for your viewing pleasure.
They had a 500lb warhead and had were said to have the impact of a 12inch gun from a battleship.
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1111_05.jpg)
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1115_12.jpg)
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
I think i can kinda explain bullet dispersion
right now, there is a "cone" in which the trajectory of the fired bullet leaves, but it is not weighted. ie it has as much chance of going any way as any other way
this isnt't correct tho, it should li\ook more like a bell curve with 80% (just a guess) of rounds falling within 1/4 (just a guess) the total projected area of that cone.
theres some guy who did detailed analysis of this on a webpage but i dont remember where the page is, prolly do a search for dispersion
-
I dont get it. Does that mean that the ostie can still level fields? Can anyone explain this again? Im just not that smart I suppose, but the way he made it sound, it looks like osties can still waste fields.
------------------
Meine Schwester hat keine kartoffel salat? Du bist eine lustige Buba!!!
-
I am new hear but not to Flight sims. If you want to see the HUGE problems that fused rockets will cause in AH, go look at FA2. All of the rockets are time fused. They create a great deal of animosity. Every plane you come up to is a potential "Missile squeak". They are used all the time, they fire into furball blindly, imagine a nice tight fight and BAM, three of you are dead from rocket blasts. People claim there are ways to avoid them but if they have a reliable fuse they will be the death of AH. If you really want to take a look, download FA2 take the three day trial and go into the territorial combat arenas and just watch. the rockets will be nothing more than portable FLAK.
UncleBuck
AKA VTAS_VLAD, AOD_UncleBuck
-
like Matt said above, it sounds like raising the rest of the weapons to equalize the ost, will result in the ability to level the fields even easier. Is the "strength" of the structures going to be increased proportionally also?
Or am I confused again?
I do live in Floriduh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
er, never mind. bad cup of joe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
External fuel tanks on Typhoon.
And lo, the heavens did open up, and there was much rejoicing!
ThankyouThankyouThankyouThank youThankyou!!!!!
<banana falls to his knees, kisses Pyro's..........feet> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Btw Pyro, any work going to be done to increase bomb blast damage radius? Seems very small right now. You pretty much have hit an osty right on the head to get a kill.
-
C202 armament
1- PYRO i remember you that starting fom series XI (C202 AS/CB) the Macchi C202 were equipped with 2underwing strong points for jettisonable fuel tanks ( 100 or 150 liters) or for bombs (50, 100 or 160 kg.).
2- C202 and C205 Breda SAFAT 12.7 mm were equipped with explosive shells.
FabriKA6
1° Gruppo Caccia “Asso di Bastoni”
-
UncleBuck,
"...look at FA2. All of the rockets are time fused."
Bear in mind that its only the late 109's (G6 and G10) and 190's that are able to carry the 21cm rockets. The rest's (allied) rockets only detonates on impact, and I have heard of only very few incidences where such direct hits succeded.
Secondly, each plane can only carry two rockets each (until we get one of the zerstörers), so we won't have them rockets whizzing all over.
Third, the launchers are major drag, even after you have launched rockets. This'll make them unpopular where any dogfight is expected. Having the rockets also leaves out your gunpod option in the 109.
So the chance of running into a rocket blast is basically:
The chance of running into a late 109/190's: 30-40%, times
the chance of them actually having selected rockets in hangar: 5-10% (my guess is they won't be popular at all due to the drag. This number might even be set too high), times
the ammount of them still carrying their rockets: 75% (They might have had previous encounters), times
the ammount of them decieding to use their rockets against you: 75-90% (going with the idea that most will go for the shot), times
The ammount of them actually making it explode in your proximity: 25% (Also a stretch. I am not sure about the actual distance they travelled , but about 1km?, making it a tough shot on a manouvering target, even WITH the blast radius.)
This will give you = 0.3% to 0.7% risk of being damaged by one of these rockets each sortie. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
heh, ok those numbers shouldn't be taken very serious, but I honestly doubt the rockets will play any role in common day fighter to fighter combat.
Only times I will personally take them will maybe be on an intercept against a HQ raid.
Might be good for Jabo too, now I think of it.
------------------
Ltn. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My own homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens)
[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Great list Pyro, <S>!
-
Why not add some more loadouts for A8 so we can have a LW jabo?
blah
-
Nath, I want to see the F-8, but there are already several German Jabo planes in AH.
-
I agree with Nath - give the A8 a multiple bomb load-out... (see LW Jabo thred)
Funked, several Jabo planes? Like? All german planes (besides Ju88 which lacks a bit the JA of Jabo) can only carry ONE single bomb - now look at the allied side... notice something?? Not to speak about the lack of potential of the german cannons vs armour compared to allied...
F8? great... but until it's here, mutlitple bombs for the A8 please... even more with all those pesky Ostis around... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Would it be possible to add the 4 x 60kg,or 4 x 250kg bomb load out options to the N1K2-J, as this would reflect it's historical capabilities:
N1K1-J&Ja,2 250kg or 2 60kg & drop tank
N1k1-Jc,N1K2-Ja 4 250kg(or 4 60kg bombs*)
Source:Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War,by Rene J Francillon
*Aero Detail 26,SHIDEN-KAI,shows these 60kg bombs on the aircraft outer wing.
On a slightly different note, that of timed fussed rockets,I say add them they are historically relevant,and as such should be added.
Also I have had some experience with them, I came to AH from FA2 and managed to reach the top 15 for all time in that game before I gave it up(do to historical inaccuracies so blatant I started calling it a game instead of a flight sim), rockets can be avoided u can see them coming simple turn,dive ,climb, whatever. I spent a great deal of time avoiding them, and little using them( I flew for Japan most of the time,no rockets their,except the Zero and only 2 on it). The only people who have to worry are the Bomber drivers, and from what I have experienced the rockets in AH are hard to aim at least for me...
Brady
Brady
-
The problem is that the A-8 did not have multiple bomb loadouts in WW2. The German fighters were smaller than their Allied counterparts (with the exception of the Spit) and therefore had less ordnance carrying capability without extensive modification.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Oh ,one more thing what about torpedos for all the planes that were capable of carrying them?
Brady
PS, wheres the cup holder in the JU 88?
-
I meant to mention that object hardness would go up in proportion to the increase in the increase in heavy ordnance damage. Basically, it means that taking out buildings and stuff will require more fire from lighter weapons but will remain the same with heavier weapons. Right now, light weapons in the game would be defined as 37mm and and under.
The 21cm rockets do have a blast area but they need to detonate in order for that to take place. That's the purpose behind the time fuze. This change doesn't effect other rocket types.
Changes to bullet dispersion is pretty much as Zig described.
I'll see about getting one of the smaller slipper tanks on the Spit V.
Changes to how you select different weapons is not currently planned.
I have the manual for the Tiny Tim and that's a possibility, but I've only tested it a little bit and it's not a high priority. Short answer is maybe.
On 202 drop tanks, we've discussed this before but you present some new info
about it. If you want to send me your sources, I'll look into it more. As it stands now, I'm not aware of them really getting past the experimental stage with them.
Blast radius won't change directly but there will be indirect changes as a result of the damage changes.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
thanks pyro, sounds great
<S>
-
>N1K2-J ammo load- Increased ammo for one of the pairs of cannon.
Sounds Great!!! Thanks Pyro. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Didn´t the Wgr21 had a "approchement fuze" which will lead to the detonation when a target is near the rocket?
-
>N1K2-J ammo load- Increased ammo for one of the pairs of cannon.
Thanks Pyro. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
All Japanese player are finally happy about this.
-
Pyro,
Thanks for fixing the fusing on WGr-21's.
<S>
Ash
3./JG2
P.S. Rip you're funny (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif). I can't wait to apply your 210mm "psychological effect".
-
ahhh thanks for the second bit of info Pyro, it's pretty clear to me now.
Fury
-
funked, that line of reasoning is void if we look at the G8 or F8, which clearly could carry more than one egg.
The Americans have 5 planes that can carry more than one egg. In addition, most of them carry rockets. In addition to that, they have panzer killing Hispanos.
I don't think I am asking for much when I ask for something that enables one of the major forces in the war to take out more than one panzer a flight. Especially as it is historically accurate and *very easy to model* - we already have the A8 airframe and flight model.
Technically speaking, you could call the F4, G2, G10, 190A5, 190A8 jabo planes - but in LW terms they were just fighters that had a bomb added to make jabo a third priority.
The F8/G8 were made with jabo in mind - pretty much like the modifications to the 51 made it a jabo plane. Or the P-47, P-38, chog, dhog, typhoon.
One pesky little plane able to carry more than one egg is all I am asking for. I ain't asking for laser Hispanos so i can shred eerything with guns - just a few more eggs so I can kill more than one panzer a flight.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}
-
Why have a jabo version of a plane we already have? I'd prefer to see the stuka modelled for three reasons:
1) Dedicated ground attack type
2) Early war A/C
3) Would be very useful in historical scenarios simulating the Battle of France or Barbarossa.
I've see very few LW types asking for the Stuka, yet many posts demanding a jabo 190. Why is that?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Pyro,
Thanks, I'll take that as a definite maybe.
It would be very cool to fire a rocket in AH the size of a cruise missle. The sound effect alone would be wild.
Thanks Again
F4UDOA
-
External fuel tanks on Typhoon.
WTG! and thanks !
(merci in french (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
-
OK fair is fair if he get's the tiny tim i want a HS-293,or a Frits-X.
Me 410 would be a GREAT JABO,Hs 129 would be a good ground attack plane,or a Il-2.
Brady
-
Me 410 is Zerstoerer not a Jabo aircraft.
-
Sounds great!
Is there an ETA?
Eagler
-
Santa "in LW terms", any single-engine fighter with a bomb on it was a Jabo.
Fw 190A-8 did NOT carry multiple bombs.
P-51, P-47 etc did NOT require special modification to carry bombs.
Yes we need a Fw 190F-8. But I will still confront you when you say things that are incorrect.
-
Hi Pyro,
Many JU-88A-4s had 20mm MG FFM-cannon mounted in the nose. It was aimed/fired by the observer/bombadier and when locked it could be fired by the pilot. This thing would be neat when a con would get too confortable turning with the 88...he'd be in for a nasty surprise (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)...with the current MG 81 "peashooter" it's like throwing rocks at him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) That brings me to the MG 131s...they would also add JU-88's remote chance of fighting back. They were there in numbers in real Ju-88A-4s...would so much like to see them in AH's Ju-88 too!
Then something about the bomb loadout options...I'm pretty sure what no JU-88A-4
could ever load more than 18 50kg bombs in its bombbay. One could use aft-bombbay with forward internal fueltank but using forward bombbay with aft-internal fueltank wasn't possible because if you installed bombracks to the forward bombbay you had to install them to the aft-bay as well. Anyways, max internal bombload was 900kg of 50kg bombs and only 8 could be housed in the forward-bay
and 10 to the aft-bay.
Wing's bombracks could hold 2800kg bombload. Inner racks could even take 1800kg bomb (only one 1800kg egg could be carried, 1800x2=3600 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))!!! So it would be nice to have *atleast* 1000kg bombs for the inner racks. There was also option for outerwing ETC 500/IX d bombracks carrying 250kg bombs(These racks were mounted almost in wingtips). This option was shown in an illustration discribing Ju-88A-4s loadout options and it's taken from somekind of manual or operating handbook.
These would be very nice additions for Ju-88 and sure would make me happy!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
1Wmaker1
Lentolaivue 34
I was coached at Pensacola to never trust the Air Force, by a Navy pilot who had challenged an F-86 squadron at nearby Egland AFB to an encounter at 30,000 feet with the Navy's new Cougar, F9F-8. According to this officer, "Those cheating Air Force guys showed up at 35,000. If we hadn't
been at 40,000, they would have waxed us!" - Tom Nelson
[This message has been edited by Wmaker (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
I've see very few LW types asking for the Stuka, yet many posts demanding a jabo 190. Why is that?
1)Slower than hell
2)Climbs like a rock
3)its armament would make the 202's guns look uber
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Pyro I have 2 different sources that give documentation that C202 can carry bombs an fuel tanks
An English publication
“PROFILE PUBLICATION N°28 ,THE MACCHI C202” (at pag. 5)
Written by Gianni Cattaneo Published by Profile Publication Ltd. , P.O. Box 26 , 1 a North Street, Leatherhead, Surrey. Printed in 1966 by Hills & Lacy., London and Watford.
And an Italian publication
“REGIA AERONAUTICA , TUTTE LE MACCHINE DELLA 2° GUERRA MONDIALE”
“Royal italian Air force, all the aircraft of WWII “ (at pag. 24 )
Written by Nico Sgarlato Published by Delta Editrice snc Casella Postale 409 Borgo Regale, 21-43100 Parma Tel. 0039 0521 287883. Printed in 1999.
FabriKA6
1° Gruppo Caccia “ Asso di Bastoni “
-
Will the Typhoon be able to carry 4 rockets as well as the drop tanks? And are the "external tanks" droppable? I seem to remember seeing someone claiming they weren't.
-
I know they at least expiremented with one of the FW's and the 1800kg bomb.
Did they ever take one into combat with that huge thing slung on the center pylon?
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
Did they ever take one into combat with that huge thing slung on the center pylon?
No, but take a look at the JU88 loaded to the gills with explosives under that FW190! (Mistletoe?)
-
So with the 21cm rocket now being fixed does this mean they're no good for ack? Then it's time for the true Jagdbombers the "F" and "G" series FW190's because without'em means an A8 will be down to 1 bomb per plane and ammunitions that bounces off most everything on the ground except ack and M3's, thats not fun. I also believe something that stands a fighting chance after ord has been dropped is needed first like the FW190F/G series. Or would I be wrong to assume that after a Stuka dropped it's ord has a better chance of escape or defending itself against the hords of Spits, Niki's, 190A5's, P-51's, G10's, C-Hogs, 190A-8's and P47's that will chasing it? The deck has been stacked with late war monsters in AH alongtime ago, to race a model-T Ford against a Ferrari would be a waste of a an effort no matter how good the intention. The Stuke will be sitting in the hangar with the rest of the early warbirds we have in AH already.
My thoughts are if AH goes with early warbirds there better be a selection of historical arenas available where they stand a chance of survival. Without those arenas, early model have no place to go
[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
As for the Typhoon carrying four rockets as well as two wing tanks. Do you really think it is a good idea to fire Flame spewing projectiles that are going to bath a couple hundred gallons of Avgas in flame? Not to mention if you hook up the extra fuel and rockets would that not kill your wingloading?
UncleBuck
-
Any chance of fixing the Spitfire IX droptank, ie: so it's not a German 300l tank!
And 2x250lb wing bombs for the Spitfire V.
-
Dowding, most of the Luftwaffe's Stuka units converted to the Fw 190F and G by 1944. The Ju 87 was just not survivable in an environment with 400 mph fighters buzzing around, kind of like AH.
Hence the wish for the 190 variants.
They carry just as much ordnance as the Stuka but in a much more survivable platform.
And they were not bad fighters at all. There were many 190 aces in Stuka and Schlacht units.
-
UncleBuck,
(http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/bin/imageserver.x/0007a8a6/walrus1/typhoon2.jpg)
-
Looks like wing tanks replace 4 of the rockets on the typhoon?
AKDejaVu
-
I am with the men on the "no stuka" side of the line,not because i don't like it i do,but u need to be careful what u ask for, it will be slow, it will climb painfully slow under load,and it will die fast.It would be cool for historical battles but their are countries in more need of another plane type then Germany,USSR,Japan,Italy, all without a bomber of any kind, and all having worthy planes for this role.
The F8 would be a better choice,but again do u realize what u are getting...a slower A8 with more armor to protect it against ground fire(ostys will still kill it)and it will be more vulnerable to fighter attack than the A8.
A side point on ammo... the ammo fired by the MK 103 and the MG151/20's should be tailored to the ground attack role , that is to say more AP ammo than mine shells.
Also the F8/U2 could cary a 700kg BT 700 torpedo.
The A5/U14 could cary a LT F5b torpedo on a ETC 502 rack.
If we most ask for a plane for the luftwaffe, and a new one why not a Me 410, the armament possibilities on it are amassing, and it would be "survivable" in the MA.
Brady
-
Judging by that picture, wouldn't it be possible to load 4 rockets and 2 1000lb bombs?
- Jig
PS You'd have to pretty dumb to light off those rockets with the fuel tanks still on... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
No, but take a look at the JU88 loaded to the gills with explosives under that FW190! (Mistletoe?)
Fine, let the LW have project Mistletoe.
But let the USAAF have project Aphrodite.
I figure a B-17 loaded to the gills would pack a little more punch. If you haven't heard of it, I suggest looking it up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Aviation History had good write up a few years ago, might be on www.thehistorynet.com (http://www.thehistorynet.com)
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 11-17-2000).]
-
Brady - so basically you want an uber fighter-bomber that carries the ordanance of a lancaster and fights like F4U-C?
Yes, the Stuka was slow and vulnerable. But that isn't a very good argument for not having it. The truth is it was made in large numbers and used on virtually every Axis front.
It is the architypal LW plane.
-
Dowding said:Brady - so basically you want an uber fighter-bomber that carries the ordinance of a Lancaster and fights like F4U-C?----
What did I say that led u to believe that?
Yes, the Stuka was slow and vulnerable. But that isn't a very good argument for not having it. The truth is it was made in large numbers and used on virtually every Axis front.
It is the architypal LW plane.
True, and I mentioned that I do indeed like the plane,but I feel that it would sit in the hanger a lot that's all.I also feel,that a lot of other countries are lacking a bomber of any type and should get fair billing.
In short if the Germans half to have a JABO,give them a FW 190 F8,and let the game gods work on a new plane for one of the three countries on the short end of the stick,USSR Japan, Italy,Heck Germany just got a JU 88. I just feel a lot of time and work will go into a plane that will not get a lot of airtime.
By the way my first love is German planes, I just think fair is fair.
Brady
-
What we need for Jabo, and given both its production numbers and its actual effect on the war it is the only choice, is an Il2-M3.
I'm not very familiar with its loadout options, but I do know that it should have gun options for either 2 23mm cannon or 2 37mm cannon.
The Il2-M3 was one of the most important military aircraft EVER. They built 42,000 of them and it served in some of the hardest fighting that the world has ever seen. It is incredibly tough and not too shabby in the speed or maneuverability areas for a ground attack aircraft. It would add another aircraft to the Russian list.
The Il2-M3 should be at the top, or very near the top, of the list of aircraft to be added.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Nawshorn, I didn't say it was not possible, just do you really think it is safe to launch rockets with the tanks on? I think there should be a Significant danger of firing them in the game if they are not jettisoned.
UncleBuck
-
At this site you can find a foto of a C202 with Underwing pilons.
www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/8245/ricerche/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/8245/ricerche/index.html)
-
In Tatooine, Jagdbomber means "fighter-Bomber"...maybe here means a different thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I cant understand why people keep calling Ju87, Il2, Il10, Hs129 and all those things "Jabos"...is like calling the Millenium Falcon a TIE fighter!!!!! (jeezus, Han will kill me if he hears me comparing a Stuka with ...er..."that thing" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Ju87 was a bomber. In its G version, was an attack plane. Il2 was a bomber. Il10 was a bomber.
I never saw a US navy officer quote calling an Intruder a "fighter Bomber", but I see loads of them calling the F/A-18 just that.
Same with F16s and A-10. Someone here dares to call the Hog a fighter-bomber? I think the difference is quite significant (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So, give the LW lovers a Fw190G8 or F8. With little work you get a new plane, and they will stop their ranting.
so they can start yelling for a jet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Luke Skywalker (edited 11-17-2000).]
-
Luke...I am your father. Go to your room, you're grounded.
------------------
-
Brady - Sorry for jumping to conclusions. It's just that I can't see the point of arguing against a mass-produced A/C just because its performance was a little lacking. I see your point regarding arena usage, but there are already planes that don't get much use. From my experience, I see loads of nikis but very few zeros. I fly mainly the La5, and until recently I rarely saw one.
Give us a stuka with one of those massive tank killing cannons and I'm sure it would be well used. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, I would prefer to see an Il-2 first. Am I right in thinking this plane was, like the stuka, pretty useless against a dedicated fighter?
-
Dowding...I concur completely on the Il-2 point,I had the great fortune to actually put my "paw" on the one at the Paul E Garber facility and it was a religious experience,from what I gather I was very maneuverable at slower speeds,and with a buddy along as a gunner you would be a tough target for any fighter.
When they added them to FA many(including me) racked up lots O kills do in part to maneuverability and its armor,and gunner, in fact it was so UBER they had to tone it down with at least 2 neutering, to the point that it was actually way under modeled, just so it could stay in the game( another reason I left FA unrealistic flight models for political reasons).
Brady
-
Il-2 Type 3M is a much better attack plane than a Ju 87G. The Il-2 is faster at low altitude, and much more armoured. And the Stuka can't carry 2x250kg bombs and 4x132mm rockets. Or 192x2.5kg PTAB anti-tank bomblets. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 11-17-2000).]
-
another reason I left FA unrealistic flight models for political reasons...
I didn't know that - I'm assuming they modelled Allied (spec. US) planes to be greater than USSR, Axis? At least AH is apolitical when it comes to plane modelling.
Or 192x2.5kg PTAB anti-tank bomblets.
Now that sounds good. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Dowding:
I don't think you will see an Il-2 here any time soon.
A: The Il-2 is probably the definition of Cannon resistant. The whole plane was built around it's armor. Cannon rounds could rip 3 or 4 square meters of wing apart without knocking the plane down. Destroying flight controls was possible or concentrated fire into wing roots was usually lethal otherwise this plane was a flying tank. Other than that the only way a MG armed plane could kill one was to hit the cockpit vertically at 90 degrees and kill the pilot. And thats with 13mm or AP rounds mind you.
B: It would have the most powerfull cannon and armaments on any fighter in the game. It's 20mm shells had enough penetration to cut a Pzkw IV's turret apart- I have pics of one that is split from the cannon flashing to the top of the turret with about 10-15 penetrations from a Vya cannon. In AH this would be a horrifying gun to face. It would make a C hog look positivly tame. And if your not attacking it from a frontal position it's tail has a 12.5mm MG equal to a .50 cal with a slightly heavier shell. There are few good attack passes possible against it where it cannot defend itself.
C: The Il-2 was NOT a bomber. Nope nope nope. It was a fighter- a ground attack fighter specialty. And as pointed out when unloaded of bombs and rockets (usually around 20% of it's weight) this plane WAS highly manueverable. Oleg maddox at Il-2 (Produced by Maddox games) sent me some info on this when I questioned how his planes were flying in the movies he shot. Clean Il-2's were capable of loops and acrobatics and could both turn and maintain E well at low speeds. Yak-1 pilots and Lagg pilots in mock fights for training found the Il-2 impossible to follow in manuevers. Instead German and finnish pilots preferred sneak attacks against unaware ones or slashing gun passes and disengagement.
Looking at those three the Il-2 would almost be impossible for HTC to model in the game currently. The plane would just totally outbalance the arena like it never did historically. Historically they were always at a disadvantage because they attacked lower ground targets and were usually cought unawares or had to combat with rockets and bombs attached. In AH it would be up high and clean and would HO everything in sight until it ran away using the MG to cover it's bellybutton in the extension.
Sorrow
-
IL2 was NOT a fighter. And it was a pig to fly. Just don't get in front of it or it could vaporise you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
More importantly please don't use FA flight models as the basis for how any aircraft would have been like in WWII.
IL2 would be great! But if they operate under hostile skies they're dog meat.
-Westy
-
How anybody could say the Il-2 (which carried bombs INTERNALLY) is not a bomber is a mystery to me.
About the maneuverability: It had a big old wing. Il-2 wingloading (Full fuel, ammo, and internal bombs) is about 32 lb/ft^2. This is equal to or better than many of the fighters in AH. Once the bombs (400 kg) are gone the wingloading becomes superior to most fighters in AH. In a very slow turning fight this would be a formidable plane.
Power to weight ratio is about 8 lb/hp which is much worse than any of the AH fighters, and it has a ton of drag. So it's not going to be any kind of E-fighter or have a great turn rate. But don't discount the value of a small turn radius in defensive maneuvering. Can you say "scissors"? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
A good Il-2 pilot/gunner combo will be able to frustrate less-skilled fighter pilots with regularity.
-
IL2 was VERY heavy with all the armour don't forget.
-Westy
-
Starting to sound like the IL2 would be a great addition to Aces based on Sorrow's post.
It would rarely be spotted at 20k+ due to a slooow time to climb, it would give the Nikis and spitits fits, and it would be a great Attack plane.
Its a bomber/fighter with a chance of survival.
The typical Late war monster would be able to BnZ the thing with impunity IMO. The stall fighters would pay +)
The majority of pilots in the MA end up low and slow on the deck, which is not as it was in reality. The IL2 would like serve to discourage some of this +)
My thots..
AKSKurj
-
What about the fact that the bombs fall perfectly straight down and dont disperse ANY as they fall they land the same from 35k.
-
I'm not so sure it would be a great dog-fighter, for the reasons people have already given.
Clean Il-2's were capable of loops and acrobatics and could both turn and maintain E well at low speeds.
But relative to what? I find it hard to believe that with all that armour it could go 1v1 with an La5/7 - if what you say is true (and I don't doubt it is) then the russians must have come up with a wonder plane, and as such should have used for ALL roles (jabo and fighter). I just find it hard to believe that with the amount of armour needed to be so impervious to cannon fire, they could still have a manoeverable dogfighter capable of beating the La-5. But what do I know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
MrWobble - are you talking about level bombers or dive-bombers (the Il-2 would be a dive bomber)? Because I don't know anyone who can take out a tank from 35k with a dive bomber, especially if said tank is moving (in which case a level bomber would be lucky to hit it).
-
Wobble? You're from AW aren't you? Bombs in real life, and here, don't fall perfectly straight down. In real life also, they do not "disperse" as you might picture. Read this topic from a few weeks ago for some clarification and insight:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/006286.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/006286.html)
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
Westy it weighed about 13,500 lb (late war version, heaviest version) and had 414 ft^2 wing area. Compare this to a Fw 190A-8 with 9,500 lb and 198 ft^2. It's not even close.
-
How about a 2,000lb torpedo on the B-26B? Hmmm?
PS: Westy, what funked said. Imagine a P-47(Il-2 was a bit bigger actually) with 38% more wing.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
Define fighter. Il-2 was a ground fighter from the get-go. The VVS had bombers- they did not include the Il-2 in the list nor did they operate it beside them. Il-2 was a fighter, expected to defend itself against other fighters while attacking armor and ground targets.
The bombs were inside for 2 reasons. 1st drag was radically reduced allowing faster speeds and second ... would you like to get shot at with 400 kg's of bombs laying unprotected under your ass? Having your ordinance inside does not inherently make you a bomber because others were silly enough to hang them outside.
"Fly like a pig"
No. Not true AT ALL.
Read what I said, the plane was skipping and hopping like a rabbit once it dumped the ordinance. It was light on controls and easy to fly. And as it got lower it had a low stall as well.
Note: I said Lagg and yak 1 not La7 or La5. It was NOT an E fighter, it was too heavy and not powerfull enough. But if anything short of a spit or zero starting turning and stall fighting it they would be in trouble fast. The Il would be able to IGNORE snap shots from anything smaller than 30mm and it's own would be lethal as all heck.
gracefull Dogfighter?
no.
Lethal SOB in any kind of good shot and acceptable pilot? oh yeah.
PS: Juzz
A side to side looks to me like there is NO big difference between the p-47 and Il-2 like you suggest:
P-47 Il-2
Wing:
40 47.9 feet
Engine:
2000 1700 (m3)
length:
30 38 feet
Height:
14 13.5 Feet
Weight (empty):
9,900 9,975 lb
(fully loaded)
14,000 14,021 lb
Wing area:
300 414.4 sqft
Sources: http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/il-2.html (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/il-2.html) http://www.french-property.com/ref/convert.htm#length (http://www.french-property.com/ref/convert.htm#length) http://www.p47advocates.com/thep47.html (http://www.p47advocates.com/thep47.html)
The only real weak part is the lack of a supercharger and more HP on the Il-2.
But the armor, higher wing area and massive cannons kind of make up for that in a low fight.
-
Westy,
I was referring to the fact that if you drop 12bombs from 35k at say delay .2 and a salvo of 12 they will land EXACTLY the same as if dropped from 6k, that is not right. from 35k a fast salvo of bombs would wander apart and land all over field . Not in a perfectly staright line, evenly spaced. that is my big beef, thats why sme folks hate bombers, ya can snipe gun emplacements from 35k and you CANNOT carpet bomb cause they will not drift apart ANY and will jsut make a neat little line.
-
I agree Wobble, that's why there is this topic about four down from thsione started by Jekyll
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001055.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001055.html)
The mechanics of the bombs is not broken so much as the skill required to be a bombardier is next to nill. The lack of any complexity to being a bombardier combined with the method that HTC has it setup: hit F6, wiggle the stick till the crosshairs are on the fully magnified target and then hit B... is too easy.
Easy as cake, piece of pie!
-Westy
-Westy
-
Westy
thats true. but weather the bomb sight is perfect or not dropping 12bombs from 25k+ you couldent really aim at a hangar or whatever, they should just land randomly in and about the perimiter of the base, wish i could paste a diagram of what i am talking about cause i cant really explain it that well. As a bomber pilot i would like it better just having to dump a wad of bombs and know that they will land kinda spread out over the target area, cause if you do that now they will make a cute little line across bese doing not much damage, so the only alternitive for you is to aim every bomb. and that is unrealistic and it well ...SUCKS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
OK i would accept one small change fer buffs..
Reduce the max zoom level on the bomb sight...
Then the buff pilot would be encouraged to drop "extra" eggs to ensure a hit (or larger eggs) from high alt, or reduce his alt(and die sooner)
another Thot...
AKSKurj
-
There is no bombsight zoom, that was removed several versions ago. The zoom bombers use now is the normal viewing system FOV zoom.
-
The zoom is not really a prob, neither is the acuracy of the bomb sight, the problem is that the bombs fall perfetly in line and accurate, they dont drift apart or anything!
it is as though HTC put the laws of phisics(sp) on hold when desiging the dropping of bombs and what REALLY annoys me is that they are picking through all these VERY specific deatails and ignoring a VERY large and problematic issues with the basic principal of a falling object! I mean it is SOOO obviously inaccurate and wrong but they would rather make sure that the p-51 has a climb rate that matches historical charts within an inch or so....Then only thingI can say is KAFKA!
-
Well ok whatever juzz, reduce the level of zoom in the bombsight is still IMO the best way to add a little human error.
SKurj
-
putting in the basic principals of falling objsects would fix ALL of the problems EVERYONE has with bombers being too accurate, the way it is now is just plain....well stupid, not to be rude but that is the best descriptive.
-
BTW Pyro- was there any chance of seeing the 9UT or 9T show up?
-
Wobble, you're talking out of your rear end.
(.squelch Wobble)
-Westy
-
yes and when the words come out of my rear end they will fall in a perfectly straight line no matter how high up i am,
-
Il-2: when I stood under the nose of the Il-2 at the Paul E Garber facility, the first thing that I noticed or rather stood awestruck by was that" Oh My God It's All Armor!!!" the whole freaking front end of the plane is an armored shell, the cowling is Not aluminum it is STEAL thick armor!, it is one thing to read about it and another to have your "PAW" on that steal and think to your self I see why Hartman said " I aim for the oil Coollier on the bottom of the plane" because anything else would be a waste of time , and the wing is huge!
It would be great to have this plane in AH.
Oh and what about a Do 217 and a Fritz X?
we would have to steer it to the target (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
-
Zigrat wrote:
theres some guy who did detailed analysis of this on a webpage but i dont remember where the page is, prolly do a search for dispersion
Dunno if I am the guy, but I did an analysis a couple of years back on this subject:
http://www.cris.com/~reaper/ (http://www.cris.com/~reaper/)
go to the "Gunnery" link
It could probably do with some "freshing up", the gunnery tool I created for that study has been improved some, but the results will still be very close.
-Ogre
-
Wmaker already mentioned those 1000kg bombs for Ju-88 A-4
I'd like to have those also and possible MG-FF
I can go find the book of FAF JU-88's from the library during this week, if this flu doesn't get any worse and scan those pictures.
Theres one with MG-FF and it does have bombsight also, it was brought from germany as it is.
Then theres pictures of 1000kg bombs placed in inner racks (those are big!).
-
Hi...again Pyro (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There has been discussion about LW-aircraft's jabo-capability in AH...Giving Bf109G-6 and G-2 ETC 50 VIId bombrack option (Rüstsatz 2) with 4x50kg bombs would give
"more than one egg"-capability for the 109s. Bf109F-4 with 4x50kg configuration was known as F-4/B.
I'd also like to see MW-50 and GM-1 being implemented to the 109G-6. It might be hard to get both of them because it might require change in loadout option menu. So if I'd have to choose between these two systems MW 50 would be more viable in MA conditions. Also, does the Bf109F-4 modeled in AH have GM-1? I haven't flown it much.
I know these wouldn't be a total fix for this Jabo problem and wouldn't take away the need for FW-190F-8 but it would make it possible to kill more than a panzer per
flight in these 109s.
1Wmaker1
Lentolaivue 34