Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Dadsguns on November 08, 2009, 05:31:44 PM
-
During this last FSO, the CV we launched from was attacked by a group of planes that initially dropped ord, some hit, most missed. CV was still afloat. What appeared to be a last ditch effort the CV was strafed en mass by fighters until it was sunk.
According to the Rules, is that acceptable?
Rule States:
"All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule. "
-
Yes it was within the rules.
-
During this last FSO, the CV we launched from was attacked by a group of planes that initially dropped ord, some hit, most missed.
Sounds like they attacked with ords to me.
-
It was actually pretty cool seeing them swarm down strafing the CV.
For some reason I was under the impression that 50cal bullets would just bounce off ship armor.
-
That was us (The Nightmares). We had a position report on the CV, so we landed and rearmed. There were a TON of zekes around the CV, but we were a little higher. We all made a dive bombing run, and most of us hit with our bombs, but the CV didn't go down. The call was made to gun it down...I got shot down, but most of my squadies survived. They made multiple passes on the CV, and i forget who finally gunned it down, but he was the last guy out. It was THAT close. I had joined 50cals as an observer, and it was a ton of fun watching them gun the ship down and then fight their way out! <S> To everyone involved.
-
Yeah I loved that cv I hit 14 objects on it with my single 500lb bomb! I was the first in and 2nd to last out ^.^
-
The first wave attack with the B-17's was well within the 60 minute window. Unfortunately, they were not able to calibrate very well, and mostly missed the target. They rearmed and tried to return, but they met with a wall of A6M's and we were unable to defend them. Fortunately the Nightmares were in position to make a followup strike late in the frame, and they succeded in taking it down in a very determined attack. Great Job Nightmares, I thought there was no way we were going to get that CV after seeing the sky full of A6M's
-
Must have been pretty close to sinking to straff it down with .50's. :airplane:
-
It was actually pretty cool seeing them swarm down strafing the CV.
For some reason I was under the impression that 50cal bullets would just bounce off ship armor.
Look at it like the ship was already lost. Critical damage had been done to the ship, and the P-40's were straffing down the personnel on the decks and gun positions that were still trying to save her.
There is no way that a CV can be straffed down without lots of dammage being done by the bombs, even with the AA turned way down.
-
Wish we had 'visual' levels of damage for task groups. For example 1/4 damage would be smoke, 1/2 damage would be reduced speed, smoke and fire in a couple places, 3/4 damage dead in the water with lots of fire and smoke. :)
-
That was an awesome run by the Nightmares. They were called upon to defend a base and then later asked to attack the cv from what I was briefed on.
-
Oh don't get me wrong TracerX, I wasn't complaining about it. The thought just never occured to me to try and strafe down a CV with a plane armed with .50cal guns.
I've tried using .50cals on a soft hanger before to no avail, and just assumed that they were pretty insignificant against a hard target like that.
-
Oh don't get me wrong TracerX, I wasn't complaining about it. The thought just never occured to me to try and strafe down a CV with a plane armed with .50cal guns.
I've tried using .50cals on a soft hanger before to no avail, and just assumed that they were pretty insignificant against a hard target like that.
I understand your question Chapel, and I didn't mean to sound defensive, just trying to present an alternate view. I think you are correct about how ineffective straffing attacks are. This just proves how severely damaged the CV was, that the P-40's were able to Straffe it down. I called them in to drop their bombs on the CV, it was their idea to try to straffe it after bombing it, and that gamble paid off this time.
-
How damaged the CV was could be debated, since it obviously was damaged but to what extent I would not know, but also in that same breath I do not know how much damage was introduced by making several strafing runs by that amount of planes either which eventually sunk it.
With that said, strafing a target as a CV with guns is OK as long as they attempted to drop it with ords and that is the only time strafing is allowed is when there is a attempt using ords?
Once there are no longer ords involved since they have been expired, in essence you are now in a fighter with cannon and you are down to using just that cannon, and at that point I understand this part of the rule to be in effect.
"Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule."
Am I reading this wrong?
-
How damaged the CV was could be debated, since it obviously was damaged but to what extent I would not know, but also in that same breath I do not know how much damage was introduced by making several strafing runs by that amount of planes either which eventually sunk it.
With that said, strafing a target as a CV with guns is OK as long as they attempted to drop it with ords and that is the only time strafing is allowed is when there is a attempt using ords?
Once there are no longer ords involved since they have been expired, in essence you are now in a fighter with cannon and you are down to using just that cannon, and at that point I understand this part of the rule to be in effect.
"Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule."
Am I reading this wrong?
The rule was that you have to make an attempt with ord before 60 minutes. The B17s were that attempt. That is the only requirement. After the initial bombing attempt, it doesn't matter what you use. Ive seen this done many many times during FSOs on targets on air bases. Ive even seen bombers drop their bombs, and then make low strafing passes with their turrets. There is long standing precedent that makes the attack on the CV legit.
-
What BigR said.
-
Legit?.... Yes, it was within the rules.
Gamey?...You be the judge.
I guarantee no CV was ever sunk in real life like that....
-
Legit?.... Yes, it was within the rules.
Gamey?...You be the judge.
I guarantee no CV was ever sunk in real life like that....
Well its a good thing this isn't real life! There is something to be said for having fun while playing a game. Although no CV was ever sunk by strafing, a Japanese CV could at least be put out of commission since its decks were made of wood. All i know is that there was a whole gaggle of Zekes that could have stopped the attack, but they were not able to. The best part was when we realized we just killed their only place to land for about 5 sectors with 15 minutes left in the frame =).
-
That depends on your idea of fun I guess...
While every FSO event is fun as a whole (for me) gameplay issues like this detract from the authenticity of an event that strives to be authentic and realistic.
Strip
-
I see you didn't fly in this last FSO Strip...
Hope you can make it this Friday
Oneway
-
Not under Strip....glad to see your keeping tabs on me and worried about my welfare tho.
:aok
And no I cant.....the Bradenton Five Day is going on this week with $10,000 to win each day with $5,000 second chance race.
Drag Racing>AcesHigh
Strip
-
seems like to me they were just... getting it down ords not enough then strafit it.. good job :salute
-
Oh?
What shadow name did you use for the FSO?
Oneway
-
Mg's can do some solid damage to targets like hangers and cv's a 50 cal is worth about 1.06 ord or something like that if your spray from 1k out and put about 300 mg's in it before pulling away you did roughly 300 ord of damage add in 10 other buddies doing their best with their 50's and 30cal's and you can put some hurt out like that but I digress we did indeed put our ord on that cv hard My guess is the cv was almost spotless of damage when we came in cause my 1 500 lber broke 14 objects on that carrier All I have to say for the people flying those precious b-17's Please take an hour to learn the manual calibration and please keep em alive, you will probably be pleasantly surprised by what those little 100's can do in mass if you can calibrate manually and hit the target.
-
<S> All
That was one hell of a run us Nightmares made on that cv. Seeing all those zekes and some coalt as we dove in with our eggs was insane ! That was our 2nd unintended mission, first was the defense of v68.
Would have loved to have seen it from the zekes eyes as we dove in , bombed the cv, egressed killing zekes, zekes trailing.... we turned back to cv with just our 50's LOL zekes still behind us , ini on CV gunning away , our last man Tyrnm got the cv on his pass !! WTG .
On our way out those zekes that tried to kill us met their demise as we flew an awesome rtb defending attack lol
<S> to all Very fun FSO !!
50cals :>)
Nightmares VMF-101
-
That depends on your idea of fun I guess...
While every FSO event is fun as a whole (for me) gameplay issues like this detract from the authenticity of an event that strives to be authentic and realistic.
Strip
I completely agree.
With this rule the way it is, those that cannot or have not taken the time to learn manual bombing or dive bombing techniques can simply attempt to drop ords(miss) or en-route drop them and let the gaggle strafe down targets.
It actually looked and seemed M-A'ish to me, but even there that wouldn't happen since the ack and manned guns would have done a number on them.
IMO
Edit:
After reviewing the film from the FSO attack, it appears that 6 maybe 7 P40's attempted to drop the CV with ords, the remainder of the 10-12 did not have ords.
The remaining 16 P40's that survived the initial attack turned around and strafed with their guns to take it down.
16 P40's can do alot of damage to a CV or structure as you could imagine. And most certainly would not be a realistic tactic due to the high risk involved with manned ack guns and flak.
Had they taken it down with ords alone, that would have been more realistic IMO.
-
The rule was that you have to make an attempt with ord before 60 minutes. The B17s were that attempt. That is the only requirement. After the initial bombing attempt, it doesn't matter what you use. Ive seen this done many many times during FSOs on targets on air bases. Ive even seen bombers drop their bombs, and then make low strafing passes with their turrets. There is long standing precedent that makes the attack on the CV legit.
As I read the rule, for what its worth, strafing of the CV is not allowed, as it say's, "simply strafing the target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of the rule".
And when the beginning of the rule specifically says "bombs and rockets". Where does it say in the rule that strafing is allowed after the first attempt? That part is missing in the rule but with the above statement, it is allowed under the so called "long standing precedent" clause. So it is against the rules, but it is OK to bend the rules because someone did it before.
With an event full of rules, and all I have read that about having to follow the rules, since I am new, what other rules have exceptions to them that I can break because of a "long standing precedent"?
"Long standing precedent" is pretty lame when it comes to rules. Either it's in the rule or it isnt, and in this case it is not, as it is written, and someone at some time didnt want to apply the rule when he should have which resulted in the "hey they did it, so can we" attitude. Why not just follow the rules or amend them so everyone will know what the rule is and get rid of this nonsnse? And those that have said it is OK, would you please point this out to me in the rule where it say's it is OK to do this?
-
As I read the rule, for what its worth, strafing of the CV is not allowed, as it say's, "simply strafing the target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of the rule".
And when the beginning of the rule specifically says "bombs and rockets". Where does it say in the rule that strafing is allowed after the first attempt? That part is missing in the rule but with the above statement, it is allowed under the so called "long standing precedent" clause. So it is against the rules, but it is OK to bend the rules because someone did it before.
With an event full of rules, and all I have read that about having to follow the rules, since I am new, what other rules have exceptions to them that I can break because of a "long standing precedent"?
"Long standing precedent" is pretty lame when it comes to rules. Either it's in the rule or it isnt, and in this case it is not, and someone at some time didnt want to apply the rule when he should have which resulted in the "hey they did it, so can we" attitude. Why not just follow the rules or amend them so everyone will know what the rule is and get rid of this nonsnse?
Well said.
-
As I read the rule, for what its worth, strafing of the CV is not allowed, as it say's, "simply strafing the target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of the rule".
And when the beginning of the rule specifically says "bombs and rockets". Where does it say in the rule that strafing is allowed after the first attempt? That part is missing in the rule but with the above statement, it is allowed under the so called "long standing precedent" clause. So it is against the rules, but it is OK to bend the rules because someone did it before.
With an event full of rules, and all I have read that about having to follow the rules, since I am new, what other rules have exceptions to them that I can break because of a "long standing precedent"?
"Long standing precedent" is pretty lame when it comes to rules. Either it's in the rule or it isnt, and in this case it is not, and someone at some time didnt want to apply the rule when he should have which resulted in the "hey they did it, so can we" attitude. Why not just follow the rules or amend them so everyone will know what the rule is and get rid of this nonsnse?
Ok, it's not that hard to understand this.
Here is the rule verbatim, "All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule."
The bold part is what you want to consider and interpret. As long as a target/objective is attacked before T+60 with ordinance such as bombs or rockets, everything is fine. After that, you can strafe until you're heart's content. The rule is there so that CiC's can't just send a small force of fighters to an objective to strafe it satisfying the rule of attacking by T+60. I wasn't even there this frame so I can objectively tell you that there was no bending of the rules whatsoever. Some people may think it's gamey or not fun and that is their opinion, I'm leaving mine out of this discussion. Any time you have a large number of people getting together for a common cause or event such as FSO you will always have disputes and differences of opinion on a few things and that is fine because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
See, this thread along with others shows the glaring problems that the FSO Team is facing. I'm not even on the FSO Team and it's giving me a headache, much less the guys that are spending their own time to bring this event to life. You have certain people who seem to want a rule for every situation typed out in exact letter and seem to want the rules as air tight as a legal document, but on the other hand there are others who feel that too many rules and a sort of micro-management of the CiC's by the CM's ties the CiC's hands and does not allow much flexibility and creativity. It's a fine line that the CM's are facing to make this an enjoyable event for everybody involved and I believe that a few people need to step back, take a deep breath, and be thankful that they have something like FSO to attend on Friday nights or any of the other special events that take place. Ok, I'm done with the soapbox, who's next?
-
The bold part is what you want to consider and interpret. As long as a target/objective is attacked before T+60 with ordinance such as bombs or rockets, everything is fine. After that, you can strafe until you're heart's content.
"All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame.(MET)
They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.(This wasnt met since all in the attacking force were not outfitted with bombs or attempted to drop ords, as stated only 6 maybe 7 had dropped ords or even had them. Had they all been loaded with ords 16 P40's would have easily taken the CV out in a realistic manner.)
Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule."(16 P40's did just that, strafed the target)
Then it clearly needs to say that. Which it currently and clearly does not.
"See, this thread along with others shows the glaring problems that the FSO Team is facing."
If rules were worded in a way that did not lead to different conclusions or interpretations then they wouldn't have that issue. Would you not agree?
I appreciate what the FSO team has done and what they accomplish for so many others. But to be honest, they do not have the proper guidance in the rules to be successful or to minimize issues as this where wording of the rules are apparently not clear, but more vague or left to the "long standing precedent" way of interpreting the rules.
I wont say who it was but yes I do believe this tactic along with the diving B17's attempting to drop its ords was M-A'ish. :lol
-
Ok, it's not that hard to understand this.
Here is the rule verbatim, "All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule.
Lowzx14, I dont have any problems understanding this rule at all. Seems pretty black and white to me. First part" "they must be attacked with explosive ordinance (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Second part: "Simply starfing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule". First part says bombs and rockets only, second part says no strafing.
It doesnt say you should attack "first" with rockets or bombs and it doesnt say you are allowed to strafe later.
If all attacking "must" be done within the T60 time frame as the rule says, are you saying that squads have to follow the rules to attack within 60 minutes, but it is ok to attack after the 60 minute mark, while strafing? Is strafing a boat not attacking a boat?
So while you think that I and am having a hard time with this, throwing up a rule verbatim simply tells me that you are having a hard time explaining where it is allowed in the rule to do this, which is what I asked for in the first place.
As far as the other rules and what has happened in the past, I dont believe that is on the table for discussion now.
-
I think the rule is pretty clear... :headscratch:
-
So, what I'm gathering from some of these posts is that some of the player base would like it to read like this.
"ll targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule. However, after T+60, targets may be attacked by any means available to include strafing."
I for one don't see the need for it, but I'm guessing the FSO Team is going to take all of this into consideration. The only mention of strafing is that it does not satisfy the rule that targets must be attacked by T+60, nowhere else does it say that it's forbidden.
I can agree that some, keyword some, rules can be interpreted in different ways but not most of the time. I don't see how the FSO Team doesn't have the proper guidance in the rules to be successful though. I know a lot of people here have flown in FSO or any of its predecessors longer than I have but I have never really not been clear on a rule even when I have CiC'd in the past. If there was ever a question which I may or may not have, I don't remember, I would have simply asked the Admin CM to clarify a little. I thought the rules were pretty self-explanatory but like I have told other people, sometimes you have to break things down Barney style for some people to understand (not talking about you Dads in particular just a generalization). I'm guessing the rules have to be written just like a good instructor would use, write and speak to the level of the audience which is why newspapers are written to be read on a 5th grade reading level.
B-17's dive bombing like TBM's, yes to me that's a little much :lol but just like with the rules and anything else in life, if there are loopholes or glitches for people to exploit, they're going to do it.
-
I think hearing from the people running the event would end some of this debate.
Are you guys okay with strafing down large ships using fighters on a authenticity and realism level?
(Pretend for second that no precedent has been set.)
Strip
-
Lowzx14, I dont have any problems understanding this rule at all. Seems pretty black and white to me. First part" "they must be attacked with explosive ordinance (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Second part: "Simply starfing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule". First part says bombs and rockets only, second part says no strafing.
Ok, I understand a little bit more of what you are saying but I'm still having a little trouble understanding something.
It doesnt say you should attack "first" with rockets or bombs and it doesnt say you are allowed to strafe later.
You just stated that the first part does say you have to attack with bombs or rockets and it doesn't say you are not allowed to strafe later. It says you have to attack your target by T+60 with bombs or rockets, simply strafing the target does not satisfy this rule. Where does it say that after T+60 you can't strafe? It doesn't say that anywhere, it only says you can't do it before which simple deduction leads me to believe that after T+60 you can strafe.
If all attacking "must" be done within the T60 time frame as the rule says, are you saying that squads have to follow the rules to attack within 60 minutes, but it is ok to attack after the 60 minute mark, while strafing? Is strafing a boat not attacking a boat?
As far as the other rules and what has happened in the past, I dont believe that is on the table for discussion now.
Yes and yes, I am saying that a credible force (as defined by the rules) must attack within 60 minutes with ordinance such as bombs or rockets. After the 60 minute mark you can strafe. Strafing a boat is attacking a boat but as long as the strafing is not just the initial attack you are well within the rules.
-
You just stated that the first part does say you have to attack with bombs or rockets and it doesn't say you are not allowed to strafe later. IT says you have to attack your target by T+60 with bombs or rockets, simply strafing the target does not satisfy this rule. Where does it say that after T+60 you can't strafe? IT doesn't say that anywhere, it only says you can't do it before which simple deduction leads me to believe that after T+60 you can strafe.
Yes and yes, I am saying that a credible force (as defined by the rules) must attack within 60 minutes with ordinance such as bombs or rockets. After the 60 minute mark you can strafe. Strafing a boat is attacking a boat but as long as the strafing is not just the initial attack you are well within the rules.
Isn't that the goal of FSO is to recreat a scenario to be as authentic and realistic as possible?
So what your saying is that this is authentic and realistic?
It isn't, and that's why this has been brought up, I don't think that the rule was intended or created according to how its was written to accomplish a M-A'ish result of killing a CV at all cost, even with strafing or dive bombing 17's even though it can be exploited.
While every FSO event is fun as a whole (for me) gameplay issues like this detract from the authenticity of an event that strives to be authentic and realistic.
This is the goal of FSO and support it.
"Strafing a boat is attacking a boat but as long as the strafing is not just the initial attack you are well within the rules."
:headscratch: But not authentic or realistic and not clearly stated is all.
-
You just stated that the first part does say you have to attack with bombs or rockets and it doesn't say you are not allowed to strafe later. It says you have to attack your target by T+60 with bombs or rockets, simply strafing the target does not satisfy this rule. Where does it say that after T+60 you can't strafe? It doesn't say that anywhere, it only says you can't do it before which simple deduction leads me to believe that after T+60 you can strafe.
The rule says "must" be attacked within T+60 minutes, which is telling me that you cannot attack after the T+60 minute mark. Saying you can attack after T+60 minutes because it doesnt say you cant is more bending of the rules to suit your needs.
If you attack your target within 15 minutes of taking off with bombs and rockets, per the rule, are you telling me that you are going to hang around somewhere for 45 minutes just so you can go back and strafe after the T+60 minute mark because it doesnt say we cant?
Maybe I missed it but I dont remember reading "credible force" anywhere. I read that a "full squad" which can be anywhere from the minimuim to the maximum allowed. Im going to look for it.
-
Yes sir, I agree with you 100% that the goal is to have an event that is as close to being historically accurate as possible. I'm not saying that strafing a CV is very authentic and realistic, as a matter of fact the only info I can find about strafing is on smaller vessels and cargo ships such as in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in March 1942 where B-25's and A-20's of the 89th and 90th BS ripped apart a Japanese convoy headed for Lae. There were reports of Japanese Cruisers being strafed during Leyte Gulf, the 8th Pursuit Group strafing a Japanese Naval Task Force with P-38's off Mindoro in December 1944. I haven't found any reports of carriers being sunk by these methods though.
-
So, what I'm gathering from some of these posts is that some of the player base would like it to read like this.
"ll targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule. However, after T+60, targets may be attacked by any means available to include strafing."
No, substituting the word "first" for the word must in the opening sentence takes all the guess work out of it, if strafing is going to be allowed anytime during the mission.
But opening the door to strafing after bombs and rockets are used, I can see that CV's wont last very long and the mission orders are going to change to account for this.
I have a hunch that there was an attempt to leave strafing out to prevent what is going to happen in the above sentence, but it was poorly worded and exploited to suit their needs. If you get out of the mentality of 'because it isnt written then it must be OK', things would probably go a little smoother. But, those that enforce the rules need to enforce them and not let things get out of control.
-
Oh, I clearly read a "full squadron", if assigned with ords would be the attacking force.
It can easily be exploited, since a 16 man squadron could load there planes the way they seem fit for example:
10 would drop ords on runway and 6 remain heavy, this would become a force that the CM did not intend in the scenario, thus doing so would arm 6 with ords and the other 10 for cap and meet the requirment of dropping ords in T+60 and then all 16 strafe to complete the mission.
Thats gamey.
Where would it stop? Even if 1 out of the 16 had ords to drop, it would still meet the requirment of dropping or attacking with ords, then all 16 strafe to complete the mission.
Its taking the easy route, instead of the intended purpose of the recreation of the event.
-
The rule says "must" be attacked within T+60 minutes, which is telling me that you cannot attack after the T+60 minute mark. Saying you can attack after T+60 minutes because it doesnt say you cant is more bending of the rules to suit your needs.
If you attack your target within 15 minutes of taking off with bombs and rockets, per the rule, are you telling me that you are going to hang around somewhere for 45 minutes just so you can go back and strafe after the T+60 minute mark because it doesnt say we cant?
Maybe I missed it but I dont remember reading "credible force" anywhere. I read that a "full squad" which can be anywhere from the minimuim to the maximum allowed. Im going to look for it.
If
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooook. How long have you flown in FSO? I'm not trying to be a smart you know what, but of course you can attack after T+60. You have always been able to attack after T+60. I'll let some of the Admin CM's from FSO weigh in on this but if you happen to attack your target in 15 minutes of taking off you don't have to hang around until after T+60 to go back. As long as the initial attack meets the following criteria, everything is all good:
-Before T+60
-Uses bombs and/or rockets
-Is attacked by a credible force
-Is not just strafed
After the initial attack you can feel free to attack however you see fit.
BTW, I'm looking for the definition of credible force, I remember it being there somewhere from when I CiC'd in the past.
-
Yes sir, I agree with you 100% that the goal is to have an event that is as close to being historically accurate as possible. I'm not saying that strafing a CV is very authentic and realistic, as a matter of fact the only info I can find about strafing is on smaller vessels and cargo ships such as in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in March 1942 where B-25's and A-20's of the 89th and 90th BS ripped apart a Japanese convoy headed for Lae. There were reports of Japanese Cruisers being strafed during Leyte Gulf, the 8th Pursuit Group strafing a Japanese Naval Task Force with P-38's off Mindoro in December 1944. I haven't found any reports of carriers being sunk by these methods though.
I agree with this. Strafing smaller ships and cargo ships is reasonable but those are not in FSO's. I would imagine that going in on a ship that is firing back with everything they have just to make a bombing or torpedo run would cause the seat cushion to get sucked right up because of the "pucker factor". Why on earth, unless in desperation, would these pilots want to go back in and strafe a huge ship with bullets after they survived by the skin of their teeth on the bombing run? If not done in real life, there is no place for it here, because it will turn into the MA atmosphere which someone brought up.
-
Oh, I clearly read a "full squadron", if assigned with ords would be the attacking force.
It can easily be exploited, since a 16 man squadron could load there planes the way they seem fit for example:
10 would drop ords on runway and 6 remain heavy, this would become a force that the CM did not intend in the scenario, thus doing so would arm 6 with ords and the other 10 for cap and meet the requirment of dropping ords in T+60 and then all 16 strafe to complete the mission.
Thats gamey.
Where would it stop? Even if 1 out of the 16 had ords to drop, it would still meet the requirment of dropping or attacking with ords, then all 16 strafe to complete the mission.
Its taking the easy route, instead of the intended purpose of the recreation of the event.
That is a very good question. Right now, I don't see anything prohibiting anyone from doing that as long as the bombs were dropped first. I agree that it is taking the easy route instead of the intended purpose. I was just trying to clarify that the way the rule is written as long as you make an initial attempt to attack by T+60 with ordinance you can have follow on attacks of any nature after that.
-
That is a very good question. Right now, I don't see anything prohibiting anyone from doing that as long as the bombs were dropped first. I agree that it is taking the easy route instead of the intended purpose. I was just trying to clarify that the way the rule is written as long as you make an initial attempt to attack by T+60 with ordinance you can have follow on attacks of any nature after that.
lowZX14,
I think their are two issues here, one being if it was against the rules, the other, if it was within the spirit of the FSO mantra.
Strip
-
I understand you Strip and Baumer and others have pointed out that it was not against the rules. First the ships were hit with bombs, second the rules don't say you can't do it for a follow on attack.
As far as being against the spirit of FSO and the gamey-ness of the situation, that is being discussed in another undisclosed location ;) and I'm sure that the opinions and feedback of the player base from this thread and others will be taken into account and decisions made as to whether it is allowed or not. I've got a feeling that they way FSO normally is, it will be one of those things that is up to the Admin CM of that certain event and there would be no need for more rules to be put in place.
-
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooook. How long have you flown in FSO?
Hmmmmm, let me see. My first time back was Nov 6th. Before that, probably four or five seperate times when our squad was in FSO's a couple of years ago.
However, how many times or how long I have been here is not the issure. As the FSO CO for my squad, I am just entitled as any other CO to have a clear interpretation of the rules and I am going to learn all the little "long standing precedents" so I can bend the rules to the benefit of my squad and the country I fly with, if this is the way FSO's are run.
"All attacks must be made within 60 minutes of the start of the frame" It does not say you can also attack after the 60 minute mark, and if you are allowed to do this, why do you feel the need to include this in the rule change that you posted about earlier? Am I the only one who thinks that all attacks have to be made within "60 minutes" of the start of the frame?
However, after T+60, targets may be attacked by any means available to include strafing."
This is the problem here, rules are bent and twisted to suit whatever the mission is called for, and in this case, Daddog is calling foul, yet you go back through the list of replys's and just about everyone says it's OK. Probably because they were the ones strafing the CV and dont want to admit to doing something wrong. Does anyone want to come forward and say "I broke the rules as they were written"? Of course not, its easier to for the rule breakers, uh excuse me rule exploiters, to stand behind their exploitations and say it is within in the rules when it is against the rules.
Im sure that in the spirit of fair play and fun for all, FSO's was not designed for one side to have a little more fun than the otherides by circumventing rules to gain more points. Gain more points by exploiting rules, surely that doesnt go on here?
There doesnt need to be a boat load of rules. There does need to be well defined rules, and any exceptions to the rules can be issued by whomever is writing up the orders goals or whatever for the frames, for that set of frames only.
-
"All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame.(MET)
They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.(This wasnt met since all in the attacking force were not outfitted with bombs or attempted to drop ords, as stated only 6 maybe 7 had dropped ords or even had them. Had they all been loaded with ords 16 P40's would have easily taken the CV out in a realistic manner.)
Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule."(16 P40's did just that, strafed the target)
Then it clearly needs to say that. Which it currently and clearly does not.
As the CIC for the Allied Side, I will make you aware of what happened. You are missing out on part of the story. I had committed as many of my limited supply of B-17's to attacking this carrier as possible. This amounted to 8 B-17’s per CV, Twice the number of B-17’s required to sink a CV if all of the Bombs hit the target. Unfortunately, and it is completely expected with manual calibration, only one of the B-17’s struk the CV on the first wave, killing 10+ objects and guns. The surviving B-17’s went and rearmed for a 2nd strike.
During the rearm, I called in other squads to help with the CV, knowing that it was only lightly damaged. The Nightmares responded, having defended their target, and being one of the only squads still close to full strength, I called them in. Fortunately, they had followed orders and loaded bombs on their P-40’s so that after rearming, they could be called to support a follow up attack.
The B-17’s on their return, were wiped out along with their escorts by a massive swarm of Zeros. The Nightmares were notified of the large force, and told to approach the CV with extreme caution. Luckily, they made it to target, dropped their eggs, and doing heavy damage to the CV, could tell that it was almost dead. They decided to attempt a few passes (at great risk while taking AA fire and engaged by fighters) to see if the CV could be sunk. Fortunately, it only took a few passes, and it went down.
Please note that a substantial force was targeted on the CV, the enemy defenses were successful in neutralizing a large part of the attack, and the follow up attack was risking much by staying in the AA fire while engaged by enemy fighters. They would not have been there if they did not have a substantial amount of ordinance to drop on the CV. This was not calling in a force just to strafe down the CV. The hardness of the CV, the AA guns from the support destroyers and the enemy fighters would make a pure straffing attack suicide.
-
TracerX, after reading the orders, I've yet to see a problem with what happened, and in the entire thread where there was a rule broken or compromised. Great orders, nice touch with the p-40's initally upping with ords. In the end it was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.
:salute
-
Hmmmmm, let me see. My first time back was Nov 6th. Before that, probably four or five seperate times when our squad was in FSO's a couple of years ago.
However, how many times or how long I have been here is not the issure. As the FSO CO for my squad, I am just entitled as any other CO to have a clear interpretation of the rules and I am going to learn all the little "long standing precedents" so I can bend the rules to the benefit of my squad and the country I fly with, if this is the way FSO's are run.
"All attacks must be made within 60 minutes of the start of the frame" It does not say you can also attack after the 60 minute mark, and if you are allowed to do this, why do you feel the need to include this in the rule change that you posted about earlier? Am I the only one who thinks that all attacks have to be made within "60 minutes" of the start of the frame?
This is the problem here, rules are bent and twisted to suit whatever the mission is called for, and in this case, Daddog is calling foul, yet you go back through the list of replys's and just about everyone says it's OK. Probably because they were the ones strafing the CV and dont want to admit to doing something wrong. Does anyone want to come forward and say "I broke the rules as they were written"? Of course not, its easier to for the rule breakers, uh excuse me rule exploiters, to stand behind their exploitations and say it is within in the rules when it is against the rules.
Im sure that in the spirit of fair play and fun for all, FSO's was not designed for one side to have a little more fun than the otherides by circumventing rules to gain more points. Gain more points by exploiting rules, surely that doesnt go on here?
There doesnt need to be a boat load of rules. There does need to be well defined rules, and any exceptions to the rules can be issued by whomever is writing up the orders goals or whatever for the frames, for that set of frames only.
I think you may be the only one who thinks that all attacks as a whole have to be made within 60 minutes. Yes the initial attacks have to be made but you can make follow on attacks any time after that. That rule has been clearly stated and I have never heard of anyone not understanding it until now. As long as I have been a part of this and anyone can back me up, you've always been able to attack after T+60. I told you earlier, I'm not trying to seem condescending or anything, but you're reading too much into the rules.
As far as people saying it's ok being the ones who participated, I don't know who was there or not but I wasn't and I'm saying there was no violation.
Daddog never cried foul. He agreed with BigR who said this....
The rule was that you have to make an attempt with ord before 60 minutes. The B17s were that attempt. That is the only requirement. After the initial bombing attempt, it doesn't matter what you use. Ive seen this done many many times during FSOs on targets on air bases. Ive even seen bombers drop their bombs, and then make low strafing passes with their turrets. There is long standing precedent that makes the attack on the CV legit.
-
See, this thread along with others shows the glaring problems that the FSO Team is facing. I'm not even on the FSO Team and it's giving me a headache, much less the guys that are spending their own time to bring this event to life. You have certain people who seem to want a rule for every situation typed out in exact letter and seem to want the rules as air tight as a legal document, but on the other hand there are others who feel that too many rules and a sort of micro-management of the CiC's by the CM's ties the CiC's hands and does not allow much flexibility and creativity. It's a fine line that the CM's are facing to make this an enjoyable event for everybody involved and I believe that a few people need to step back, take a deep breath, and be thankful that they have something like FSO to attend on Friday nights or any of the other special events that take place. Ok, I'm done with the soapbox, who's next?
QFT
-
Let me be absolutely clear on this.
I am the designer of this FSO.
I have reviewed the orders TracerX created, and the attack on the CV was well within the rules of FSO.
The initial attack force as intercepted but did moderate damage. The P-40E's (which were initially assigned to defend a target and did) were a follow on attack that the CiC asked for later in the frame, again this is completely within the rules of FSO.
And M36 just to put your mind at ease, I am flying axis in this FSO so I have no bias.
-
I agree with this. Strafing smaller ships and cargo ships is reasonable but those are not in FSO's. I would imagine that going in on a ship that is firing back with everything they have just to make a bombing or torpedo run would cause the seat cushion to get sucked right up because of the "pucker factor". Why on earth, unless in desperation, would these pilots want to go back in and strafe a huge ship with bullets after they survived by the skin of their teeth on the bombing run? If not done in real life, there is no place for it here, because it will turn into the MA atmosphere which someone brought up.
Then again, FM-2s were strafing Japanese battleships and heavy cruisers at the Battle off Samar. No they're not carriers, but just goes to show you fighters strafing capital ships DID happen.
-
As the CIC for the Allied Side, I will make you aware of what happened. You are missing out on part of the story. I had committed as many of my limited supply of B-17's to attacking this carrier as possible. This amounted to 8 B-17’s per CV, Twice the number of B-17’s required to sink a CV if all of the Bombs hit the target. Unfortunately, and it is completely expected with manual calibration, only one of the B-17’s struk the CV on the first wave, killing 10+ objects and guns. The surviving B-17’s went and rearmed for a 2nd strike.
During the rearm, I called in other squads to help with the CV, knowing that it was only lightly damaged. The Nightmares responded, having defended their target, and being one of the only squads still close to full strength, I called them in. Fortunately, they had followed orders and loaded bombs on their P-40’s so that after rearming, they could be called to support a follow up attack.
Interesting, so as long as the the primary mission is carried out and the mission completed or there are signs that a particular squad does not need to defend because a lack of bad guys, they can be called away on a seperate mission to help complete someone elses'? As in your case of finding a bunch of P-40's dressed up and know where to go.
I think you may be the only one who thinks that all attacks as a whole have to be made within 60 minutes. Yes the initial attacks have to be made but you can make follow on attacks any time after that. That rule has been clearly stated and I have never heard of anyone not understanding it until now. As long as I have been a part of this and anyone can back me up, you've always been able to attack after T+60. I told you earlier, I'm not trying to seem condescending or anything, but you're reading too much into the rules.
If that is the interpretation, then that makes sense to me. If that attack that has to be made is the initial attack under the 60 minute mark. Going along with that thought there is no limit to the number of attacks at all within the time period or after as long as the initial is within.
As far as reading to much into the rules, I think with being the CO and this past Friday was my first time, I have to read into the rules and, I am entitled to get a good clarification of the rules. If something is written into the rules that is black and white, but thats not really what it means when it comes to playing, and if FSO's is run under that premise, then I am going to learn how to game the game as others seem to be doing. Im not saying its a bad thing if this the norm, but whats good for the goose...........
Im not making accusations of any intentional crookedness, but I need to find out how this all works, and I realize I wont figure it out in one frame. Even two for that matter.
-
Let me be absolutely clear on this.
I am the designer of this FSO.
I have reviewed the orders TracerX created, and the attack on the CV was well within the rules of FSO.
The initial attack force as intercepted but did moderate damage. The P-40E's (which were initially assigned to defend a target and did) were a follow on attack that the CiC asked for later in the frame, again this is completely within the rules of FSO.
I understand that, and it is good to know. However, the reason for the original post needs to be ruled on. I have posted my feelings on it and I would like to hear the ruling so I know how to act with my squad in the future.
-
Thanks for the inputs and sharing some interesting views.
I think we can all agree that the one thing we don't want to continue to see or remotely be accepted in the FSO is the MA mentality of all or nothing, that is not in the spirit of the FSO of recreating a historic event.
I cherish the events that I get to participate in and try to make it as enjoyable for me as I do for anyone else including my foe, some will take advantage and exploit what they can for whatever reason they must, but at least have a catch net in place to prevent ruining a good thing so that it is clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I may stand alone when I say I don't agree with strafing a CV, and I will continue to do so since I know that it isn't what happened during the time the recreation of that event was meant for, that's just me and I wont participate in that. If I don't have the skills to take it down with bombs than its just not meant to be taken down.
My perception of FSO will always be an arena where it takes a more disciplined pilot to execute orders that are given, execute them to his best ability against another skillful foe, someone that does not need to take shortcuts or an easy route to accomplish a goal, but skill that will ultimately dictate the outcome of his mission success.
-
Im getting the Dads mixed up. I said Daddog, but meant Dadsguns. My bad.
-
I may stand alone when I say I don't agree with strafing a CV, and I will continue to do so since I know that it isn't what happened during the time the recreation of that event was meant for, that's just me and I wont participate in that. If I don't have the skills to take it down with bombs than its just not meant to be taken down.
Your not standing alone....
:salute
-
Thanks for the inputs and sharing some interesting views.
I think we can all agree that the one thing we don't want to continue to see or remotely be accepted in the FSO is the MA mentality of all or nothing, that is not in the spirit of the FSO of recreating a historic event.
I cherish the events that I get to participate in and try to make it as enjoyable for me as I do for anyone else including my foe, some will take advantage and exploit what they can for whatever reason they must, but at least have a catch net in place to prevent ruining a good thing so that it is clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I may stand alone when I say I don't agree with strafing a CV, and I will continue to do so since I know that it isn't what happened during the time the recreation of that event was meant for, that's just me and I wont participate in that. If I don't have the skills to take it down with bombs than its just not meant to be taken down.
My perception of FSO will always be an arena where it takes a more disciplined pilot to execute orders that are given, execute them to his best ability against another skillful foe, someone that does not need to take shortcuts or an easy route to accomplish a goal, but skill that will ultimately dictate the outcome of his mission success.
+1 :cheers:
We all enjoy the professionalism of the FSO operations and I also would not want to see these events reduced to a MA mentality in the way of orders being carried out or interpreted.
-
I may stand alone when I say I don't agree with strafing a CV, and I will continue to do so since I know that it isn't what happened during the time the recreation of that event was meant for, that's just me and I wont participate in that. If I don't have the skills to take it down with bombs than its just not meant to be taken down.
From my posts Im with Dadsguns. I hope the jury is out on this, for the frames in the following months. I am very interested in the outcome.
-
new rule for FSO- no one is allowed to shoot INK down!
seriously :t :airplane:
-
Im getting the Dads mixed up. I said Daddog, but meant Dadsguns. My bad.
LOL That saved me a long reply. :)
-
Interesting, so as long as the the primary mission is carried out and the mission completed or there are signs that a particular squad does not need to defend because a lack of bad guys, they can be called away on a seperate mission to help complete someone elses'? As in your case of finding a bunch of P-40's dressed up and know where to go.
In a nutshell yes. Many CiCs actually tend not to fly during the frame they are managing so that they can better direct and redirect forces as the battle plays out.
- I strike goes bad find out if you have anybody else nearby with ordinance left or who can rearm and hit the target later
- Defense is wipe out at a target but based barely damaged, CiC takes a look and redeploys a group of surviving fighters to defend what he considers a higher value target.
- Etc.
In the case of a defending squad maybe it is now T+80 and no attack shows. So the CiC figures that maybe the attack force assigned to hit their target was intercepted and destroyed. He then has a couple of options to weigh:
1) Leave the defenders at their original base they are defending in case the opposing CiC is scraping together a force from his survivors to hit the base because the original attack was stopped / destroyed.
2) Or gamble that their is no attack coming since it has not materialized by T+60 and is 20 minutes past that mark and redeploying those assets elsewhere ... attack a target that still needs more damage, help defend a nearyb target under attack, vector to hunt down and kill egressing bombers, etc. Of course this leaves what they were defending undefended now so if a scraped together force does appear they have a clear shot at that target.
So after the T+60 mark the CiC can start thinking about how best to use his survivors and to what purpose.
-
If the CV was only strafed and sunk it'd be an issue worth complaining about. But the CV musta been well and truely porked FROM BOMBS to be able to go down from 50's.
For those playing the 'authentic' and 'real life' card, if the CV was so damaged as to be sinkable by 50 cal's, then the CV would've been considered a write of in real life anyway.
-
The basic cadence of FSO is to attack/ deffend for the first hour, then tulips assets and objectives met or not met and try and improve your sides standing by frames end.
With this in mind, it would be counter productive to make rules based on small variables such as: Would a real WWII pilot attempt to finish a CV off with 50Cals.
I agree that when someone takes advantage of a large whole in the rules or design it should be dealt with and has with hast in the past.
I do not feel this is a case that needs this much attention. It sounds more like a stepping stone to the "cookie cutter, neutered FSO" some of us old hands fear will happen if the rules are expanded much further.
Up till now the more memorable FSOs IMHO have been the ones where one or both CiCs realized there were things left to do in the second half. And they should be allowed to do it with whatever is available. The worst were the ones where one side was happy enough with the first hour or did poorly and basically withdrew. With the B-17s decimated, TracerX should have backed off? :headscratch:
<S> TracerX and Nightmares for a memorable one.
-
If the CV was only strafed and sunk it'd be an issue worth complaining about. But the CV musta been well and truely porked FROM BOMBS to be able to go down from 50's.
For those playing the 'authentic' and 'real life' card, if the CV was so damaged as to be sinkable by 50 cal's, then the CV would've been considered a write of in real life anyway.
Thats the point, other than fire 50 caliber rounds would do little damage to the hull of the ship. No matter how many rounds you put into the carrier deck it would still never penetrate to the water line. The hull alone would probably be sufficient to stop 20 mm rounds in most places. If it cant punch a hole you might as well fill the thing with lead to try and sink it. Even if you call the flight deck a write off your still a long ways away from a new reef. Bottom line, no large ship such as a carrier, was ever sunk in this manner.
Strip
-
Historically that's not the case... Many examples of cruisers and such being strafed down. It's not that you're punching holes in the water line, it's that you're hitting other vital areas. Some dramatic gun cam footage out there of several ships' boilers blowing up from strafing runs.
Now, the big flaw in most US carriers was the weak deck armor. Often times bombs went right through it. It was for the aircraft, not for the benefit of the areas below it.
Now there's a completely different debate as to whether CVs could be strafed down and sunk by gunfire only, but historically warships were killed with 50cals.
Buttloads of 50cals mind you, but 50cals nonetheless.
EDIT: Note that in AH this may or may not apply. Right below the CV deck was storage, gas, bombs, the giant hangar bay where all the planes were prepped... A fire in this area usually resulted in out-of-control blazes that eventually sunk the ship. Is it going to end-up like AH's damage model shows? No... But it'd be out of combat. Debate is open as to whether it's valid in FSO and whatnot.
-
For the record Dadsguns, there were 10 P40Es with a bomb, and approx 4 P40B naked. We dove through the cap to divebomb. Most of us hit. We egressed to escape the zeros, made a wide arc and passed ONCE over the ship, guns blazing. The last guy, Tyrnm got the ship sunk.
Unfortunately this game doesnt show extent of damage, raging fires, listing from flooding etc. The CV is basically 100% or Sunk. That CV was dead no matter how you slice it. Fortunately for us we slapped an explanation point on it so it wouldnt slip thru the frame as "Survived".
Im pretty sure if the CV had survived with .0005 life remaining, few would be complaining on here that it should have been sunk.
-
Thats the point, other than fire 50 caliber rounds would do little damage to the hull of the ship. No matter how many rounds you put into the carrier deck it would still never penetrate to the water line. The hull alone would probably be sufficient to stop 20 mm rounds in most places. If it cant punch a hole you might as well fill the thing with lead to try and sink it. Even if you call the flight deck a write off your still a long ways away from a new reef. Bottom line, no large ship such as a carrier, was ever sunk in this manner.
Strip
Whether .50 cal bullets can pierce the hull is not relevant. Imagine a ship that has been hit with 10+ 500lb bombs. There would be hull damage, fires and all kinds of secondary damage going on. The ship's crew would be working franticly to contain the damage and keep the boat afloat. If these crew members are not able to attend to the ship because they are under fire from straffing aircraft or killed by them, then the ship will perish as Vulcan has already stated. The simulation of killing these crew members or doing other damage to the ship that causes secondary explosions as Krusty has mentioned, is why .50 cals are allowed to do damage to ships in the game. It is not out of line with what historically happened. It would help if you were to expand your perception to include these kinds of events when considering the damage of straffing aircraft on ships.
-
At this point I am done with this conversation as I have said my piece and moved on.
However, not once have I denied that large (I question the validity of a cruiser being sunk tho) ships have been sunk in this manner. I do however contest the fact that an aircraft carrier (regardless of origin) has been sunk with 50 caliber weapons. Or any military vessel of similar tonnage......
Strip
-
Fortunately for us we slapped an explanation point on it so it wouldnt slip thru the frame as "Survived".
This is more like the all or nothing approach mentioned earlier................
For the record Dadsguns, there were 10 P40Es with a bomb, and approx 4 P40B naked. We dove through the cap to divebomb. Most of us hit. We egressed to escape the zeros, made a wide arc and passed ONCE over the ship, guns blazing. The last guy, Tyrnm got the ship sunk.
I was wrong. For the record.
I counted 9 P40's attempt a drop in a dive with a total of 18 P40's in the air.
The group of 8 you were in (this shot) plus one out of the frame makes 9.
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/BISHOPP40s.jpg)
This was the shot from the strafing run. 17 in the air(1 chute), and the 11th guy strafed it and killed it.
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/BISHOPP40sSTRAF.jpg)
-
The overage in P40s must have been with another unit. I was referring to our squad.
-
They all look like RED guys to me.......... :lol
I want to add that your squad was not the first to strafe it, your squad finished it off.
-
Historically that's not the case... Many examples of cruisers and such being strafed down. It's not that you're punching holes in the water line, it's that you're hitting other vital areas. Some dramatic gun cam footage out there of several ships' boilers blowing up from strafing runs.
Now, the big flaw in most US carriers was the weak deck armor. Often times bombs went right through it. It was for the aircraft, not for the benefit of the areas below it.
Now there's a completely different debate as to whether CVs could be strafed down and sunk by gunfire only, but historically warships were killed with 50cals.
Buttloads of 50cals mind you, but 50cals nonetheless.
EDIT: Note that in AH this may or may not apply. Right below the CV deck was storage, gas, bombs, the giant hangar bay where all the planes were prepped... A fire in this area usually resulted in out-of-control blazes that eventually sunk the ship. Is it going to end-up like AH's damage model shows? No... But it'd be out of combat. Debate is open as to whether it's valid in FSO and whatnot.
There was no evidence of any US warship that was strafed and sank that I am aware of. You saw footage of foreign ships being strafed but not a US warship causing it to sink. If so provide it, I am aware of none. Frigates, Destroyers,,,, maybe. Never happened to a CV or a Battleship/Cruiser.
As what has been stated, .50 cal loaded with AP (armor piercing)would still not be able to penetrate the hull or even the hanger deck of a CV.
"armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875" (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).
Essex class fleet aircraft carriers
Displacement: 34,881 tons full load
Dimensions: 820 x 93 x 28.5 feet/250 x 28.3 x 8.7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 872 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/265.8 x 45 x 8.7 meters ("Long Hull" types: 888 x 147.5 x 28.5 feet/270.6 x 45 x 8.7 meters)
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 565 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp, 33 kts
Crew: 2,631
Armor: 1.5 inch hangar deck, 2.5-4 inch belt
Armament: 4 dual, 4 single 5/38 DP, 18 quad 40 mm AA, 61 single 20 mm AA ; single 20 mm AA replaced late WWII/postwar by 35 dual 20 mm AA
Aircraft: 100
And for the record, The "cruiser" in this game is modeled much like a Battleship and looks more like one. Either way, they were both heavily armored, their weakness was the stacks, which if even a small amount of ords was dropped into the stack area would disrupt the boiler causing a massive explosion.
Whether .50 cal bullets can pierce the hull is not relevant. Imagine a ship that has been hit with 10+ 500lb bombs. There would be hull damage, fires and all kinds of secondary damage going on. The ship's crew would be working franticly to contain the damage and keep the boat afloat. If these crew members are not able to attend to the ship because they are under fire from straffing aircraft or killed by them, then the ship will perish as Vulcan has already stated. The simulation of killing these crew members or doing other damage to the ship that causes secondary explosions as Krusty has mentioned, is why .50 cals are allowed to do damage to ships in the game. It is not out of line with what historically happened. It would help if you were to expand your perception to include these kinds of events when considering the damage of straffing aircraft on ships.
:rofl Your way off and its way out of line of what really happened......... Ask the Chief Shipmate...... You do realize that the ship under attack in your scenario would have all hands below deck complelty safe from strafing with .50 cal. We call that GQ(General Qaurters) the only people topside in WWII would have been the gunners manning all the flak guns and various gun mounts. The other 2,000 Sailors would be below deck. Sure there would be secondary explosions, fire, etc. but if we are going to account for all of that then shouldnt we expand our perception to include these kinds of events as the ack from the battle group? 18 fighters came in and not one was hit with ack that destroyed their plane. Where do we draw that line of make-believe?
It wasn't just sunk with 50 cal weapons, it was also sunk with bombs.
:headscratch:
-
I do however contest the fact that an aircraft carrier (regardless of origin) has been sunk with 50 caliber weapons.
It wasn't just sunk with 50 cal weapons, it was also sunk with bombs.
-
I have read this thread with a great deal of amusement.
One individual is working tirelessly to salvage a damaged ego, while others work just as hard to explain the circumstances and conditions that needed to be and were met for the actions to happen in the FSO.
I did NOT fly the FSO nor have I flown in one in some time.
But I can understand the rules quiet easily, and no where to date has there been a portion that I could see as being "gamed" or abused.
Please Dadsguns, tell us your background in ship building and structural support. I would really find that interesting.
As a veteran sailor, if I knew that an aircraft with .50cal weapons was about to strafe my ship, I for one would be praying for a miss on the attackers part. His weapons may not penetrate the hull, but they would certainly penetrate all spaces above the waterline. The damage caused would be tremendous!
While I did NOT serve during the war, I know enough about the systems of those ships to say that Dadsgun, please stop. Your notes are biased at the very least by your attempt at saving face. They are NOT wholly supported by the facts that you state.
At any point that you desire to further debate what could and would likely happen aboard a ship being strafed, please send me a PM. If your current line of thought is what you intend to follow, be prepared to have your ego crushed.
After reading all your posts, I think my signature really sums up how you have ended up looking in this thread.
-
Sim,
Did you just get off the bus? :lol
You think your having a good time, I am laughing my arse off.
For some of your comments to even attempt to contradict what I have said, as well as others, are ludicrous. And for you not even to have been there and to question me, that's laughable.
Everything that I have stated about hull thickness of ships is common knowledge. You debate that?
If you think that this is about ego your wrong. It may be about yours in question now.
This all started with a clarification to the posted rules. Then has morphed into the gamey aspects, then into other make believe things. And to tell you the truth, I don't even know why I am responding to you. :lol I made my point several times, and debunked some myths already. Cause my Crown Reserve is doing me right.
Did you read the part about it being gamey or M-A'ish to strafe a CV as a last ditch effort for points, etc. etc. That's been admitted. Not only through the action of doing it, but it was stated that was the purpose.
FSO isn't going to be perfect, but the scenario in question and the actions in the scenario can be improved. With that said, CV's were never strafed with .50 cal and sank from it, bomb damage alone sank CV's, it never happened by finishing it off with 50 cal. This happens in the MA everyday. Some of us don't expect to see it in the FSO. Sure its happened in the past, I haven't seen it until this last one, and I play FSO often. I was disgusted from what I saw, nothing more than a MA tactic and asked for clarification, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, didn't label anyone, I simply stated I don't agree with it and history and facts is why.
Sure I have participated in CV raids in the FSO, but we killed them with bombs. Never thought twice about strafing it. Didn't have too, used the skill from what I have practiced to be successful. Didn't need to take an easy route.
While you rant about me, you have not provided anything to add but to try and discredit what I have stated. Some insist, that a .50 cal round could and has, sank a CV. Never happened. Some insist that .50 cal has sunk a cruiser. Never happened.
If so, you could please enlighten me.
I hear you rant, just all bark, no bite.
And after meeting you Sir, I think my signature really sums up how you have ended up looking in my thread. Shipmate..... :rofl
-
Your defense is that the ships were of thick metal, so bullets couldn't penetrate?
Not getting into the issue with the frame itself, folks seem to underestimate the hitting power of .50 caliber API (armor-piercing-incendiary) rounds.
You'd think a cast iron 100-ton (or whatever) locomotive engine with armor plating plastered all over it would be nigh invulnerable to "mere" bullets, right?
Well the USAAF made good sport of shooting at trains and exploding their boilers by the dozens.
The guns were very powerful. In real life, I mean.
-
Krusty,
50 cal is a powerful round for sure. But against anything thicker than .87 armor plate its not. If its 1 inch thick armor, nothing will penetrate, if you put several rounds in that exact spot maybe. Ships were in the range of 1.5 to 4 inch thick depending on location, you could imagine all you heard was the pinging and see scratched paint.
I quoted the ballistic characteristics to penetrate armor up to .87 using .50 cal (AP) (API) (APIT) ammo of that time in WWII.
Cast iron has a very poor ballistic proof quality and will shatter or crack upon impact according to its thickness due to the casting process.
If a train covered in armor was to be hit with a 50 cal round, anything penetrating the armor which probably was nowhere near the thickness needed to stop this round would cause instant catstrophic failure of the cast iron boiler under enormous amount of pressure.
Some trains were attempted to be covered with ballistic armor, most was not. It was too expensive and added much more weight.
The enemy also did not have the capability of manufacturing hardened AR steel plate back then so the steel was much softer by standards today, so everything had to be much thicker for it to be effective, thicker meant heavier.
US ships back then had no choice but to add thicker, but milder steel for ballistic protection than todays AR steel.
AR500 is pretty much the industry standard in ballistic steel at shooting ranges, military ranges, portable steel targets etc including ships constructed today.
-
(Spots an unused soapbox lying in the corner)
If the CV could be sunk by some planes staffing it, as has been said before, that ship was already dead. No amount of debate, discussion, "facts" on hull thickness or what have you is going to change it. The CV was hammered so much that all it took was some planes to strafe it down. Some of you seem to want a technicality to explain your lack of defensive capabilities. Tough, get over it, you lost a CV. Blaming the attack instead of learning from a lack of defense is unfortunate. Some, in the past, would have shrugged off the loss with nothing more than this. "Whoa, didn't see that one coming, let's make sure we don't let those buggers in again, k?" Now, it's an endless rant on the laws of physics and text book examples of some hull thicknesses! :cry
Your intelligence is measured by those around you
SIM is a very good friend of mine. Consider who he has around him. I'd prefer it if ideas were discussed instead of personalities. But hey, that's just me.
I could have, but up to this point had opted not to, contribute further in this so called "debate". But the fact of the matter is this. The CV sunk, had it been defended, it wouldn't have fallen to some fighters, so MOVE ON. You don't even have to have flown to grasp that so very basic of concepts. Argue hull thickness all you want, the plain and simple fact is this. Not a foul, no harm, not a problem at all, but had those planes not gotten to the fleet, this conversation would not have occured. (This is where a lightbulb smiley would come in handy) This response is not about who Did or Didn't defend, who Did or Didn't attack, it's simply a comment on the dumming down of events.
Far too many of you insist on arguing the "facts" of an event after the fact. That's simply a waste of time, and quite easy to do after the hard work and on the spot decision making has been done by someone else. The admins put plenty of time into designing these, and then it's up to the players to live or die by their actions. There isn't a perfect scenario. There is an event that is designed so that one side had one type of advantage, and another has a different type. Both sides have an opportunity to win. Here's the ugly truth, some are simply going to lose, it's a 2 sided event and it's going to happen. Get over it, get used to it. Arguing the specifics of a fantasy situation after the fact of an actual event will do Squat, Diddly and Nada for the next event, because the conditions will be absolutely and completely different.
At some point some of you might actually get a clue and realize that historical reality plays NO PART of these events. You don't have anyone below deck. You don't have anyone in the thick of battle. You have to get your head on straight and deal with the reality of the GAME CONDITIONS and prevail, no amount of text book footnotes and facts will accomplish a thing in here. When you log in with no A/C, no snacks by your side, no ipod playing tunes in the background, and DIE when you are shot, Then you can start quoting scripture on what was and should be.
Until then, deal with the game conditions and quit spoiling these events.
Everything that I have stated about hull thickness of ships is common knowledge. You debate that?
I debate that. It's PIXELS and irrelevant information. Deal with reality, not your grandstanding about how smart you are pulling details from a spec book. The scenario can be most improved by knocking off the endless prattle and irrelevant arguments over trivial details that have nothing to do with the reality of the conditions in the game. Imagine, if you will, our leaders during WW2 arguing over what some book said should happen, instead of dealing with the reality of the actual conditions! Stow It for crying out loud! There is not a manufacturer manual or spec book that wasn't used for TP during the war. Trying to stuff those figures into a Video Game, Generations later, is ludicrous beyond belief.
I swear, I am dying to get back into the game, but the more I read, the more I hesitate. These fact checkers need to be replaced by simple "Can Do" players again. At some point, we lost the players that didn't care what the conditions were, we did what we could, with what we had, and usually won. These events are not going to improve while the arm chair googlers reign supreme. It's the mentality of the players that make these a success. It isn't the design, it isn't the rules, it's nothing more than a simple mindset of "we can win with what we are given". I don't see a change on the horizon.
Now, for the PC crowd, here is the little disclaimer. If I struck a nerve, tough. If you think I'm talking about you, look behind you, there is someone in the shadows. If you agree, fine but I don't care. If you disagree, why would that matter to me more than those who agree with me? Everyone logs in to enjoy the game for their own reasons. Truth be told, actions speak louder than words, and what you say is far far less relevant that what you do. Hope you find something enjoyable out of this game. For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone could take something as pleasurable as a social game like this, and try to turn it into some pissing contest over who can google irrelevant facts faster than someone else.
(Discards soapbox)
-
Its silly to keep going over this stuff. What happens in real life and what happens here is moot. If people dont want the ships to be sunk by gunfire then make them indestructible and add up the bomb hits to decide. This one would have sunk in real life(and if hits were tallied) so it doesnt matter. The way it was hit it probably would have blown up rather than just sink. And if we are truly playing the real life card then it being an IJN ship any 1 of those bombs could have caused catastrophic damage.
You have to leave options open to players in FSO, especially towards the end.
Also the ALL or Nothing thing you mention goes both ways as I tried to explain earlier. If we hadnt strafed it, it would have been considered 100% healthy. Not on our watch.
The ship sunk...lets move on the frame 2.
( loads P40 with +5 magic missiles)
see sig
-
In real life, a .50cal sniper round at 1000 yards can punch through 1/2 inch HARDENED steel (not just soft ship steel) with enough force to punch all the way through ANOTHER 1/2 hardened steel 1 yard behind that and keep going!
your "1 inch" comment is false. Even "soft skinned" vehicles in WW2 had "1 inch" of protective steel, and small arms fire could and did knock them out throughout the war. 1 inch of steel only stopped .30 cal and similar rounds.
-
I have read this thread with a great deal of amusement.
One individual is working tirelessly to salvage a damaged ego, while others work just as hard to explain the circumstances and conditions that needed to be and were met for the actions to happen in the FSO.
I did NOT fly the FSO nor have I flown in one in some time.
But I can understand the rules quiet easily, and no where to date has there been a portion that I could see as being "gamed" or abused.
Please Dadsguns, tell us your background in ship building and structural support. I would really find that interesting.
As a veteran sailor, if I knew that an aircraft with .50cal weapons was about to strafe my ship, I for one would be praying for a miss on the attackers part. His weapons may not penetrate the hull, but they would certainly penetrate all spaces above the waterline. The damage caused would be tremendous!
While I did NOT serve during the war, I know enough about the systems of those ships to say that Dadsgun, please stop. Your notes are biased at the very least by your attempt at saving face. They are NOT wholly supported by the facts that you state.
At any point that you desire to further debate what could and would likely happen aboard a ship being strafed, please send me a PM. If your current line of thought is what you intend to follow, be prepared to have your ego crushed.
After reading all your posts, I think my signature really sums up how you have ended up looking in this thread.
After reading your post sir I think you are the one that needs to post your credentials if you continue to discredit someone.
I on the other hand have developed armor piercing tungsten rounds (SLAP and SLAP-T variants) for the military to provide them with a second source.
I have fired AP (and a lot of other) rounds and have seen first hand what they can do to steel and Dadsgun is 100% correct.
<S> Dadsguns....you arent alone in your opinion.
Strip
-
Sheez ROC don't hold back tell us what you really think, hell we are all waiting with baited breath :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :rofl
-
Wow...interesting thread. Started with "attacking with a credible force before T+60", went to "you cannot attack after T+60", and then to "they didn't kill capital ships with bullets in real life", and now "you aren't qualified to speak about real life"...where will it go next?
Someone please pass the popcorn...
-
People have put together missions to gun down cv's in the MA when no ordinance was available.
-
In real life, a .50cal sniper round at 1000 yards can punch through 1/2 inch HARDENED steel (not just soft ship steel) with enough force to punch all the way through ANOTHER 1/2 hardened steel 1 yard behind that and keep going!
your "1 inch" comment is false. Even "soft skinned" vehicles in WW2 had "1 inch" of protective steel, and small arms fire could and did knock them out throughout the war. 1 inch of steel only stopped .30 cal and similar rounds.
:rofl Just a date check here, but 50cal "sniper" rounds were not developed until much later after WWII. WWII ammo as the discussion pertains.
And yes they are capable of much more damage than the 50cal rounds used in WWII with the development of penetrators and such.
-
Dads, it's the same old M2 50cal round, just in a sniper rifle.
-
Dads, it's the same old M2 50cal round, just in a sniper rifle.
You believe that?
-
You believe that?
They arent that dissimilar performance wise, they are however made to much more refined level.
Strip
-
Two very different muzzle velocities, and surely ballistics and kinetics.
-
...where will it go next?
"If you dont know where your going, go back to the beginning" :rofl :rofl :rofl
Im sure we'll circle back to the original thought anytime now. :aok
-
Baumer said,
Let me be absolutely clear on this.
I am the designer of this FSO.
I have reviewed the orders TracerX created, and the attack on the CV was well within the rules of FSO.
The initial attack force as intercepted but did moderate damage. The P-40E's (which were initially assigned to defend a target and did) were a follow on attack that the CiC asked for later in the frame, again this is completely within the rules of FSO.
And M36 just to put your mind at ease, I am flying axis in this FSO so I have no bias.
That should have ended this thread which is titled, Frame 1 Rules Clarification I think some forgot that. ;)
The rest of it which ROC pointed out is moot to no end The CV was hammered so much that all it took was some planes to strafe it down. Some of you seem to want a technicality to explain your lack of defensive capabilities. Tough, get over it, you lost a CV. Blaming the attack instead of learning from a lack of defense is unfortunate. Some, in the past, would have shrugged off the loss with nothing more than this. "Whoa, didn't see that one coming, let's make sure we don't let those buggers in again, k?" Now, it's an endless rant on the laws of physics and text book examples of some hull thicknesses!
If some of you want to continue to debate decks, hulls, ballistics, personalities, et cetera, feel free, but please start your own thread. :salute
Lastly be nice and polite or Skuzzy will get involved. ;)
-
I decided to do some testing of this issue so I did the following:
1) I loaded up a terrain offline.
2) I moved to a CV
3) I changed the AA lethality to 0.001
4) I spawned in M16
5) I changed the ownership if the CV so that I was non friendly GV sitting on its deck.
6) I used my quad .50s (total 4000 rounds) to first destroy the radar, then a soft gun, then a hard gun, and the rest into the armored turret. All were destroyed except the armored turret.
7) Changed CV nationality back to what my GV was, exited and then respawned. Damage was still there.
8) Changed the nationality of the CV and then fired on a destroyer. Kill the destroyer with little more than 1500 rds of .50 caliber ammunition concentrated on spot. Pumped the rest into the armor turret of the CV I fired on earlier to no avail.
9) Changed the nationality of the CV to match what my GV, exited, respawned, changed CV nationality to an enemy country.
10) Pumped 4000 rounds of into the deck of the cv by the base of the conning tower. The bullets bounced so I had hit sprites on the deck and then on the tower from where they ricocheted off the deck and into the conning tower.
11) I repeated step 10 13 times .. meaning I pumped 52,000 rounds of .50 caliber bullets into the deck with no result.
So first off the deck does seemed to be armored to some extent since rounds were ricocheting off of it. Second 52,000 rounds into the deck and the CV did not sink. Roughly 6500 separate rounds into the armored turret and it did not blow.
To me this says the armor model is more nuanced than I thought and either:
1) Damage from bombs reduce the armor values effectiveness. Possibly as you destroy turrets, gun, and radar the code models greater and greater structural damage. From the logs it looks like all the guns were taken out before the Nightmares started strafing.
or
2) The CV was damaged to the point from bombs that somebody on board sneezing violently several times would kill it. The CV did take a hits from a B17 dropping on it and then multiple P40Es. It took 1257 .50 caliber rounds from the Nightmares.
So to reiterate 52,000 rounds into the flight deck and ricocheting the rounds into the conning tower did not sink a CV that had taken no bomb damage. I sort of gave up that point.
-
FYI...
One 50 caliber round is worth 1lb of ordnance......
Strip
-
So basically I put 52,000 lbs of ordinance into the flight deck. A CV takes 8000 lbs of ordinance from bombs to sink. Therefore I say that is a pretty strong argument that a CVs armoring (at least the flight deck and the conning tower .. just did a test and pumped 12,000 rounds directly into the conning tower to no avail in case ricochets don't do anything) basically does shrug off .50s.
I also would hazard that after a certain damage thresh hold is passed that HTC has modeled in structural failure or degradation of the armor do to damage but just doesn't show any visual indication of this to us in the game (would be nice to see a holed deck, twisted metal, chewed up conning tower, etc .. only affect now is the a flame at the conning tower which I found out is actually caused by the killing the radar).
Again 8000 lbs of bombs on the deck of a CV sinks it. 52,000 rounds of .50 fire in my test did nothing. I was able to kill DDs (took around 1500 rounds) and kill the radar, hard and soft guns on the CV with .50 cal fire. The armored turrets, deck, and conning tower ignored my fire.
-
Thats funny I just sank mine in less than 6,000 rounds.....directly to conning tower.
What hardness level?
-
Default hardness level. Only things I touched were the AA lethality.
Although I fired on the conning tower at a angle and not straight on. So possibly the angle of the bullet striking also has some factor in the damage model of a ship.
Did you fire at an angle or straight on?
-
Straight on....
If it ricochets it does no damage at the impact point, if it hits something else after a ricochet the damage is reduced.
Strip
-
Okay just tried moving up parallel to the conning tower and then fired at it point blank and my with fire not angled in anyway. Doing this I was able to sink the CV with just a little over 6000 rounds.
Just checked a few things and I was able to sink a DD with direct non angled fire with 1500 rounds. When I had a angle on it .. about 20 degrees took me like 2500 rounds. On the CA direct non angled fire took 4200.
Checked the ship hardness and a DD is 1500+ lbs per that setting. So looks like a DD takes 1500+ lbs to kill, a CA takes 4000+ and a CV takes 6000. I assumed it was 2000 and 8000 but haven't tested what the default is for a while.
So ricochets basically have no affect.
Also if the angle of your shots have effect their results. 52,000 rounds pointing my gun down into the flight deck nada. 12,000 rounds fire at mabye a 45 degree angle on the conning tower nada. 6000 rounds fire into the conning tower (basically at the base of the smoke stack) point blank and no angle of deflection and the CV goes down.
So I don't know how many of those hits actually did damage since by their very nature planes come in at an angle. Logs show about that the CV about 5900 lbs from the combined B17 and P40E bomb attacks. Meaning about 100 of the bullet strikes out of the 1257 did any damage to a the ship. Or 8% of the rounds they fired had any effect. At that rate to kill a fresh CV they would have needed 76,000 rounds.
So you can look at this way the ship was 98% destroyed via bombs. So a ship in real life that took that much bomb damage would basically be a floating hulk with the flight deck destroyed and gaping holes in the side armor, conning tower damage and holes in it, ablaze, and surviving crew (and they most likely took a lot of casualties) would be fighting flooding and fire. Most likely it would be abandoned and then sunk by its own side because it was non salvageable. Strafing a ship at this point could definitely contribute to its demise whether from setting something off and causing additional explosions or stopping the surviving crews damage repairs. Remember at this time both on the US side and the Japanese side you had dedicated fire control teams and other personnel did not fire fighting training. So realistically after taking 98% bomb damage the ship was lost .. HTC just doesn't have animation showing a ship as a burning listing hulk and HTC also does degrade the ships ability to have aircraft spawn (with full fuel and bombs) or land and rearm on a ship this heavily damaged.
-
More than 100 probably hit the carrier causing damage, this is due to the range and velocity drop.
To be truthful thats splitting hairs but shows how well somethings are modeled....you did have me curious when you posted your test tho.
:salute
-
The B17 and P40E bomb hits occurred before the strafing. Not after so from what I can reconstruct from the logs you have 5900 lbs of damage done. But for arguments sake lets say 5700 lbs of damage. Now instead of 100 .50 rounds doing damage you have 300.
Now the damage done to the ship by bombs was 95% and 5% by guns (instead of 98% and 2%).
The strafing damage rate jumps from 8% of the rounds fire to 24%. So to kill a fresh CV it would take 25000 rounds with only 24% hitting and the others bouncing off do the angle they were fired at.
The thing that I find interesting here is that this reinforces that CiCs should always have their ships maneuvering erratically when under attack. Not only does it help to throw off the enemy's bomb drop but it also is changing the angle at which any bullet hits the ship which impacts if the bullet will do damage or simply ricochet off.
-
To be blunt, this is one of the reasons I don't attend FSO. People take it WAY too seriously... lighten up, the pixel death of a carrier in AH on one Friday night isn't the end of the world.
-
I never thought for a second that the strafe run was all or nothing tactic we had to go by that way again and figured it was so close to dead we could plink it down as we left we weren't going to come back if it didn't sink and I very well almost lost my left wing and rightwing and left elevator to carrier ack I was crying from dmg but no broke parts except for a gun all my plane was bruised and battered though.
-
To be blunt, this is one of the reasons I don't attend FSO. People take it WAY too seriously... lighten up, the pixel death of a carrier in AH on one Friday night isn't the end of the world.
Your right.
The issue raised was: Is it practical? Gamey? In the spirit of FSO to re create an exchange to the best ability? Authentic? MA'ish?
I understand the intent of considering damage from a Bombs and how close it was to being pixel dead, had it been downed by another bomb or two we would not be having this discussion.
However, a P40B armament consists of 4/30cal and 2/50 cal, a P40E consists of 6/50cal guns. Even if we are talking about just the P40E's damage capability in the game, the damage that killed the CV was from (11 P40's)66/50cal guns firing from their max distance till they had to pull up directly into the side of the CV.
I don't think the CV was as damaged as some have pointed out since I saw no bomb hits from the 17's, I could be wrong and that can be debated to the infinity.
Rather, this is much more to do about the ACT instead of the science behind it. IMO
-
I don't think the CV was as damaged as some have pointed out, I could be wrong and that can be debated to the infinity.
Dadguns I am a CM and I have access to the raw CM logs.
It was damaged per those logs to that extent. It was hit by one B17 unloading its bomb load on it and it was hit by bombs from 7 P40Es. The raw logs have several filter options such as objects damaged, objects destroyed, etc.
Others have already addressed the act. You have a smoking burning hulk of a ship. The players know it is a smoking burning hulk because they know a B17 unloaded on it. They know they have struck it with 7 bombs (although the squad in question thought they hit with more than that out of the 10 dropped). They have received multiple kill credits for destroying the soft guns, hard guns, and armored batteries on the CV. The rate of fire coming off the CV is visibly weak to non-existent. So they all this information to go on that the ship basically is a burning gutted hulk.
In real life face with an enemy ship that damaged the pilots basically would have had two choice to make:
1) The ship is basically dead. It hasn't sunk yet but for all purposes it is no longer operational and if it can be salvaged is out of the war for months and months. Worst it might be captured by the enemy. Many ships in this state, including CVs were sunk by their own forces. So don't strafe it trying to kill the crew doing damage control or whatever and don't gamble that a higher enemy fighter force will show up an bounce you while you are low and have expended a lot of your ammo.
Quote From Wikipedia article on the Battle of the Coral Sea
On the morning of the 8th, a Lexington plane located the Shōkaku group; a strike was immediately launched from the American carriers, and the Japanese carrier was heavily damaged. However, Japanese planes penetrated the American defenses at 1100, and 20 minutes later Lexington was struck by a torpedo to port. Seconds later, a second torpedo hit her portside directly abeam the bridge. At the same time, she took three bomb hits from enemy dive bombers, producing a 7 degree list to port and several raging fires. By 1300, skilled damage control had brought the fires under control and restored her to an even keel; making 25 kn (28.8 mph, 46.3 km/h), she was ready to recover her air group. Lexington was suddenly shaken by a tremendous explosion, caused by the ignition of gasoline vapors below, and again fire raged out of control. At 1558, Captain Frederick Carl Sherman, fearing for the safety of men working below, halted salvage operations, and ordered all hands to the flight deck. At 1701, he ordered "abandon ship" and the orderly disembarkation began. Men going over the side into the warm water were almost immediately picked up by nearby cruisers and destroyers. Admiral Aubrey Wray Fitch and his staff transferred to Minneapolis; Captain Sherman and his executive officer, Commander Morton T. Seligman ensured all their men were safe, then were the last to leave.
Lexington blazed on, flames shooting hundreds of feet into the air. To prevent enemy capture, the destroyer Phelps closed to 1500 yd (1371.6 m) and fired two torpedoes into her hull; with one last heavy explosion, Lexington sank
or
2) Strafe a ship in that condition and hope that you will kill the crew doing damage control, that you get lucky and set off surviving bombs, pockets of gasoline vapor that is not already burning, etc.
The second is an act of desperation and real gamble. If higher alt planes showed up you are caught low on the deck and are in serious trouble. However, the CV is a big prize. Suicidal? Definitely running the risk of that. But remember in the battle of Midway that the Devastators of VT-8 decided to attack the enemy carriers without fighter cover. Suicidal but they did it anyway and were all shot down.
So pilot do make judgement calls out of desperation and do or have valued killing a target over the risk of themselves being killed. The Lexington took 3 bombs from dive bombers and 2 torp hits. The CV in question in frame 1 got hit by a B17 unloading on it and then took another 7 bombs from dive bombers. I would say that it was much, much worse shape than Lexington.
-
Dadguns
As the Admin CM for this event I went over EVERY SINGLE BULLET AND BOMB STRIKE (roughly 14,000 lines of log entries) on the CV. I can assure you that;
1.) 100lbs Bombs from the B-17's did hit the CV
2.) 500lbs Bombs from the P-40E's did hit the CV
As I stated with the first response in this thread, this attack was within the rules and intent of FSO.
-
Thank you. Got it. Strafing cv's is legit. Its not MA'ish. Its authentic and historically accurate. Roger that.
-
This has really gotten out of hand. Maybe it WAS gamey. TOO BAD. Gamey things happen in games. Stop crying. This game is obviously very serious to you. I suggest therapy. Someone please lock this thread.
-
Now that we are back to square one, what is the interpretation of the rule in the first post Baumer or anyone else in the position to decide? Strafing is allowed or not so I can pass it on to the squadies?
Stop crying. This game is obviously very serious to you. I suggest therapy. Someone please lock this thread.
Very constructive remark BigR!!!! Does that make you feel good inside and satisfy the superiority above all complex you feel over others that post here? :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
There is no confusion about this rule, nor has there ever been, amongst more experienced players. The people responding in the thread are probably feeling frustrated by what seem to be attempts to select pieces out of a single rule rather than take it as a whole. That's the feeling I get, but it's for them to say.
If you are briefing your squad about conventions normally in use here's a bunch:
You can use the ride you were issued with to shoot with at any target, but you cannot use a ground, ship gun or chute pistol (on the ground) unless specifically stated that you can do so in the frame rules.
You can "join" another player and gun for him or just travel with him as a lookout and criticise his flying as you will.
You can vulch people on the rearm pad.
Killshooter is usually off. Shooting friendly forces or objects deliberately is forbidden.
Using channel 200 is forbidden.
If you want to speak to a CM they lurk on Ch202.
If you disco or crash in the first 15 minutes, before contacting the enemy, you can reup without asking.
If you have more players than you are supposed to have (more than 2 over) they can be "farmed" out to a squad that is short without prior arrangement, or they can simply "join" another player.
If CICs agree to end a frame early and it is so announced, then that's it, game over. No chasing down somebody returning home or trying to disengage.
If you get the opposition game plan by accident, just delete it without reading it. This stuff happens, no big deal.
If you suspect that something has happened that is not quite "according to Hoyle" then use the private channels to take it up with an appropriate CM in the first instance.
There's probably more but they are the topics I see most queried by the young and restless.
In FSO, it is attitude that is the big difference from the MA, not gameplay. As it is a squad event, discipline and education are necessary at the squad level for the FSO attitude to prevail. If you want a rule clarified and a CM has clarified it then it's usually best to take it off the boards and harass them privately until you understand it.
-
Now that we are back to square one, what is the interpretation of the rule in the first post Baumer or anyone else in the position to decide? Strafing is allowed or not so I can pass it on to the squadies?
Very constructive remark BigR!!!! Does that make you feel good inside and satisfy the superiority above all complex you feel over others that post here? :rofl :rofl :rofl
No, its just absolutely pathetic that this thread has gone so far. Then again i know how much this community likes to beat dead horses, so by all means keep trying to come up with excuses why they lost the CV. If it wouldn't have sunk, they wouldn't have complained about people strafing it. The game is what it is. Strafing has to be legit because there is no way you can stop it from doing damage. What if we had strafed it, and THEN dropped a bomb that killed it. Would it be legit to you then?? People never complain about strafing down a VH. Why is this any different? Do you mean that bullets can make a whole building blow up and disappear all together?? It can certainly make the hanger unusable, which is what is modeled in the game when it blows up. The CV is the same thing. If you want something more realistic, i suggest you start up your own game company and make it.
-
No, its just absolutely pathetic that this thread has gone so far. Then again i know how much this community likes to beat dead horses, so by all means keep trying to come up with excuses why they lost the CV. If it wouldn't have sunk, they wouldn't have complained about people strafing it. The game is what it is. Strafing has to be legit because there is no way you can stop it from doing damage. What if we had strafed it, and THEN dropped a bomb that killed it. Would it be legit to you then?? People never complain about strafing down a VH. Why is this any different? Do you mean that bullets can make a whole building blow up and disappear all together?? It can certainly make the hanger unusable, which is what is modeled in the game when it blows up. The CV is the same thing. If you want something more realistic, i suggest you start up your own game company and make it.
Wrong again.
Now I have said my piece as well as others that openly said they misunderstood the rule as it is written. Dont jump in here with some attitude.
Yes to your second remark, as was previously stated since you chose to read into what you wanted instead of reading the entire post.
Act like you got some respect, you will be treated with respect.
Maybe it WAS gamey. TOO BAD. Gamey things happen in games. Stop crying. This game is obviously very serious to you. I suggest therapy. Someone please lock this thread.
So actions that are gamey, everyone must just suck it up and take it. Stop crying as you put it. :rofl Not bring it here for discussion... hmm what else cant we talk about to maybe make things better?
Your perception is off the mark, I would probably suggest therapy to you.
-
Wrong again.
Now I have said my piece as well as others that openly said they misunderstood the rule as it is written. Dont jump in here with some attitude.
Yes to your second remark, as was previously stated since you chose to read into what you wanted instead of reading the entire post.
Act like you got some respect, you will be treated with respect.
The misunderstanding of the rule isn't the problem. It is your inability to accept what the CMs have told you again and again in this thread.
Your willingness to accept that strafing does any sort of damage at all to the CV negates your entire argument. Saying that you wouldn't mind if we staffed first and then bombed it doesn't make any sense. No matter what order it is done in, the damage is the same. This is like trying to explain how the collision model works. Some people will never accept what you tell them. And yes, I did read your posts, i just wanted you to say it again because its pretty funny.
Im done with this stupid thread.
-
The misunderstanding of the rule isn't the problem. It is your inability to accept what the CMs have told you again and again in this thread.
Your willingness to accept that strafing does any sort of damage at all to the CV negates your entire argument. Saying that you wouldn't mind if we staffed first and then bombed it doesn't make any sense. No matter what order it is done in, the damage is the same. This is like trying to explain how the collision model works. Some people will never accept what you tell them. And yes, I did read your posts, i just wanted you to say it again because its pretty funny.
Wrong again. My willingness to accept it does not negate anything. I simply have to move on. My point was made and the CM's have spoken to say that it wont change, and that its legit. Case closed.
I completely accept that this game selects what it wants to identify with in history and what it chooses not to.
Not only with strafing cv's, but other things. I will save those for a rainy day.
Not sure what staffed is, but if you meant strafed first, then bombed. Since the belief that 50cal can kill a cv it would not matter which way it was proposed. Strafing inflicts damage in this model.
-
Man...get some Sand-B-Gon, its seriously inflamed. Wow.
-
No, its just absolutely pathetic that this thread has gone so far. Then again i know how much this community likes to beat dead horses, so by all means keep trying to come up with excuses why they lost the CV. If it wouldn't have sunk, they wouldn't have complained about people strafing it. The game is what it is. Strafing has to be legit because there is no way you can stop it from doing damage. What if we had strafed it, and THEN dropped a bomb that killed it. Would it be legit to you then?? People never complain about strafing down a VH. Why is this any different? Do you mean that bullets can make a whole building blow up and disappear all together?? It can certainly make the hanger unusable, which is what is modeled in the game when it blows up. The CV is the same thing. If you want something more realistic, i suggest you start up your own game company and make it.
Well Mr. BigR, I was looking for an interpretation of a poorly written rule after it was brought up, and apparently so was the original post. And, I was debating it as I read it. To you thats whining? Being my first time in FSO as a CO, and have not been in here for several years, I have a lot to learn. I know you are far above the rest and you know every thing there is know about anything the moment you walk into the door. Had you done some reading and comprehending you would have gotten that out of my posts.
So, when I have a question about a rule for my understanding, so I can let my squad know about it for further frames, you are telling me to "start my own game company and make it"?
I think I am finished with you. But as a parting note if you dont mind my frankness since you dont mind typing yours. I think you should try to get into some activity to help build your self confindence and work on your insecurities which seems to be your issue since you have come into a thread and make a weak attempt to bash and belittle others which you obviously get pleasure from doing. Im sure your well liked in the office.
BTW, to all the others, I did get a clarification and I will pass it on to the squad. I thinks thats all this thread was about in the first place.
Thanks, out.
-
This is the rule in questions:
All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule.
Was the enemy TF attacked by T+60? Answer is Yes --> B17s attacked the TF before T+60 and one B17 hit the CV with its bomb load and another B17 hit another ship with some bombs.
Was a full squadron tasked to hit the CV with ordinance? Answer is Yes --> ~364TH C-HAWKS FG~ were tasked to hit the CV. It was their primary mission. One of the their B17s hit the CV and another hit another ship.
Was the enemy TF attacked with explosive ordinance? Answer is Yes --> 1 B17 hit the CV with its bomb load and 1 B17 had several bombs hit another ship.
Was the target simply strafed? Answer is No --> 1 B17 hit the CV with its bomb load and a 2nd B17 hit another ship with some bombs. This occurred before the strafing.
The conditions are clearly stated and were fulfilled by the B17 attack of the ~364TH C-HAWKS FG~ on TF73. They carried 42,000 lbs of ordinance and let loose on the TF73 hitting two ships within T+60.
The Nightmares P40 attack happened after T+60 when they were re-tasked from defense to offense to hit TF73 because ~364TH C-HAWKS FG~ attack did not sink the CV or other ships. It was not their primary mission. They also hit the CV first with 7 x 500 lbs bombs before they started strafing.
-
In short drop your ordanance on your assigned target first then you can straf the target, within the corrct time line set by the CM.