Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Spikes on June 29, 2010, 02:44:49 PM
-
Please just do away with it.
It does nothing to threatening airplanes (bombers, bomb-laden planes)
It kills the fight and at fun CV furballs forces the fight under 3K, while the attacking planes can freely go above 3K and pick.
It fires at you while you are well out of range it should stop at.
Please just do away with it or code it so it only fires at bombers.
-
:huh
-
Please just do away with it.
It does nothing to threatening airplanes (bombers, bomb-laden planes)
It kills the fight and at fun CV furballs forces the fight under 3K, while the attacking planes can freely go above 3K and pick.
It fires at you while you are well out of range it should stop at.
Please just do away with it or code it so it only fires at bombers.
puffy ack works both ways spikes :aok be the defender who brings the fight above 3k and watch what happens to the attackers also :D puffy works differently than Manned 5"ers
-
Now I may be wrong on some of the facts, but the base of my question I hope is easy to understand.
If the new dar rings are 20mi, then the old were 10mi as they were seemingly doubled. At the 10mi mark, the 5" was a useless toy trying to hit something at such a distance. Only the 8"'s could do such. Now, when flying at 25-30k alt in a bomber, puffy ack begins to go off. The distance at that height is 4.7mi to 5.6mi. Now, while typically the 5" could hit this on the ground, how on earth can it not fire 10mi with a relatively flat trajectory, yet can fire approx 5mi+ straight up? (this also assumes puffy ack is automated 5" by the potential damage output I have seen)
-
Now I may be wrong on some of the facts, but the base of my question I hope is easy to understand.
If the new dar rings are 20mi, then the old were 10mi as they were seemingly doubled. At the 10mi mark, the 5" was a useless toy trying to hit something at such a distance. Only the 8"'s could do such. Now, when flying at 25-30k alt in a bomber, puffy ack begins to go off. The distance at that height is 4.7mi to 5.6mi. Now, while typically the 5" could hit this on the ground, how on earth can it not fire 10mi with a relatively flat trajectory, yet can fire approx 5mi+ straight up? (this also assumes puffy ack is automated 5" by the potential damage output I have seen)
Old dar ring was 12 miles.
And the trajectory for hitting a target on the ground for a 5" at 10-12 miles is not as flat as you might think.
For example, a 5"/38 gun firing a AAC mark 49 round has to shoot at a 40° angle to get a range of 17,000 yards.
-
puffy ack works both ways spikes :aok be the defender who brings the fight above 3k and watch what happens to the attackers also :D puffy works differently than Manned 5"ers
Think I know how it...works.
Fact of the matter is I've yet to see a set of bombers get killed by it while attacking a CV and it will knock fighters out of the sky all day in a furball.
-
In a way I like puffy but in another I always get killed by it lol.
Spikes just think if your the guy uping off the CV you have a big disadvantage cause you don't have a big plane set to chose from.
Basically, you don't have much of a chance unless you get above the 3k puffy limit so it can be on yoru side.
Put it this way the enemy is flying around on there crotchrockets and your sitting there on your mini bike lol :salute
-
In a way I like puffy but in another I always get killed by it lol.
Spikes just think if your the guy uping off the CV you have a big disadvantage cause you don't have a big plane set to chose from.
Basically, you don't have much of a chance unless you get above the 3k puffy limit so it can be on yoru side.
Put it this way the enemy is flying around on there crotchrockets and your sitting there on your mini bike lol :salute
You also have a wall of auto ack to fly through and mannable 5", 40mm, 20mm guns to deal with. Can the puffy ack not be coaded to only fire at bomb-laden planes first?
-
Old dar ring was 12 miles.
And the trajectory for hitting a target on the ground for a 5" at 10-12 miles is not as flat as you might think.
For example, a 5"/38 gun firing a AAC mark 49 round has to shoot at a 40° angle to get a range of 17,000 yards.
so in AH that would be the max extent of the range, as it's about 9.6mi. As the height of the barrel changes though so does the possible distance. The only way to achieve the maximum distance is to take the entire arc into account, thus giving the distance you quoted. Also, when changing angle, gravity's effects must also be considered. When one points a barrel at a 90 degree angle, the distance is cut in at least half, not only because you can't count the full arc as it's distance, but you also no longer have the kinetic energy you did during the 40 degree arc to get that distance to begin with. Most of it is used up just trying to get to that height. (It's easier to fly around the world than it is to launch straight into space which isn't all that far in relative terms.)
-
so in AH that would be the max extent of the range, as it's about 9.6mi. As the height of the barrel changes though so does the possible distance. The only way to achieve the maximum distance is to take the entire arc into account, thus giving the distance you quoted. Also, when changing angle, gravity's effects must also be considered. When one points a barrel at a 90 degree angle, the distance is cut in at least half, not only because you can't count the full arc as it's distance, but you also no longer have the kinetic energy you did during the 40 degree arc to get that distance to begin with. Most of it is used up just trying to get to that height. (It's easier to fly around the world than it is to launch straight into space which isn't all that far in relative terms.)
And the point is?
-
Here's the question...does puffy ack in the game have an altitude limit?
-
Here's the question...does puffy ack in the game have an altitude limit?
80k. i think Chalenge likes to be alone up there tho :noid
-
will say i've seen Auto Puffy kill plenty of fighters but never a set of buffs.
-
will say i've seen Auto Puffy kill plenty of fighters but never a set of buffs.
buffs roll through the ack too fast to be hit by it
-
buffs roll through the ack too fast to be hit by it
I'd take that as a good reason but I've got blasted out of the sky by puffy from a cv i never saw while in a 262 going much faster than buffs.
-
puffy is waaay overmodelled, 40mm are waaay undermodelled and CVs come in waaaay too close to shore. sort these 3 things out and planes attaching CVs will have a hard time, and planes nowhere near the CV wont be bothered too much :aok
-
puffy is waaay overmodelled, 40mm are waaay undermodelled and CVs come in waaaay too close to shore. sort these 3 things out and planes attaching CVs will have a hard time, and planes nowhere near the CV wont be bothered too much :aok
I honestly don't care if it is overmodeled or undermodeled, realistic or not. It does nothing positive for gameplay. It also does nothing positive for my frame rates. :(
-
get a decent GPU :P
-
i think puffy serves a good purpose i'd just like to see it kill a set of buffs for once, or at least stop hitting me while attacking the buffs.
-
Part of the issue with Puffy vs. Fighters vs. Bombers, is how it's generated.
Puffy ack is not actually fired by the gun positions like the manned and auto guns are. Puffy ack is generated automatically in a box around the target (this is why puffy ack can shoot through mountains at targets with no line of sight). The reason it's more effective against fighters is that the AMOUNT of puffy ack remains the same, but the size of the bounding box around the target stays smaller. Thus, fighters fly through a MUCH denser amount of ack than a bomber formation with its larger bounding box.
The solutions would be to:
1) Decrease the concentration of ack along with the size of the ack box.
2) Keep the ack box the same size regardless of the type of aircraft
3) Rather than targeting one particular aircraft or formation, make the ack box one large global blanket around the ENTIRE task group.
4) Rework puffy ack entirely so that it's actually fired by the guns, rather than generated around the plane (IMO this is the best and most realistic solution).
-
And the point is?
It shouldn't be able to puffy me at 30k plus.
-
It shouldn't be able to puffy me at 30k plus.
the 5"/38 AAC Mark 49 shell had an AA ceiling of 37200 feet.
-
Part of the issue with Puffy vs. Fighters vs. Bombers, is how it's generated.
Puffy ack is not actually fired by the gun positions like the manned and auto guns are. Puffy ack is generated automatically in a box around the target (this is why puffy ack can shoot through mountains at targets with no line of sight). The reason it's more effective against fighters is that the AMOUNT of puffy ack remains the same, but the size of the bounding box around the target stays smaller. Thus, fighters fly through a MUCH denser amount of ack than a bomber formation with its larger bounding box.
The solutions would be to:
1) Decrease the concentration of ack along with the size of the ack box.
2) Keep the ack box the same size regardless of the type of aircraft
3) Rather than targeting one particular aircraft or formation, make the ack box one large global blanket around the ENTIRE task group.
4) Rework puffy ack entirely so that it's actually fired by the guns, rather than generated around the plane (IMO this is the best and most realistic solution).
YES! +1
-
the 5"/38 AAC Mark 49 shell had an AA ceiling of 37200 feet.
And how accurate is it at that alt?
-
And how accurate is it at that alt?
aren't they proximity fuses? :headscratch:
-
aren't they proximity fuses? :headscratch:
Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.
-
Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.
Then the gunners are either really good or you can just say these gunners had charts with the mathematics showing speed, altitude, and wind direction in order to place the shells correctly.
P.S. what i really want is for the 8"ers and AA guns not to be able to fire off the same ships the way they do now. IIRC, AA guns couldn't be manned while 8" or 16" cannons were firing due to the blowback and pressure and sound of the cannons going off. People would be washed overboard from the blow alone. If i'm incorrect please correct me... no hard feelings
-
Then the gunners are either really good or you can just say these gunners had charts with the mathematics showing speed, altitude, and wind direction in order to place the shells correctly.
P.S. what i really want is for the 8"ers and AA guns not to be able to fire off the same ships the way they do now. IIRC, AA guns couldn't be manned while 8" or 16" cannons were firing due to the blowback and pressure and sound of the cannons going off. People would be washed overboard from the blow alone. If i'm incorrect please correct me... no hard feelings
Beyond this, I understand there is a box and I do think as Saxman said it should be tied to ship guns (ie kill all ships = no puffy). Might give more reason to kill the support ships...less puffy. And it won't shoot through mountains.
-
so in AH that would be the max extent of the range, as it's about 9.6mi. As the height of the barrel changes though so does the possible distance. The only way to achieve the maximum distance is to take the entire arc into account, thus giving the distance you quoted. Also, when changing angle, gravity's effects must also be considered. When one points a barrel at a 90 degree angle, the distance is cut in at least half, not only because you can't count the full arc as it's distance, but you also no longer have the kinetic energy you did during the 40 degree arc to get that distance to begin with. Most of it is used up just trying to get to that height. (It's easier to fly around the world than it is to launch straight into space which isn't all that far in relative terms.)
10 miles is 52800 feet. Half of that is 26,400 feet.
Someone who is a physics pro do the calculations that prove kinetic energy decreases by half.
Yes however you are still lobbing shells 7 miles into the air.
36,940 feet
Striving for accuracy and perspective. :angel:
wrongway
-
Kinetic energy does not increase/decrease linearly with respect to changes in velocity. When velocity has decreased in half, kinetic energy has decreased by 1/4th.
I could figure out exactly how high it would take for it to lose half/.75/etc of its energy except I don't have my big boy calculatard with me right now.
Anyone bored though, have at it:
Ek=1/2mv2
Vf2=vi2+2ad
-
10 miles is 52800 feet. Half of that is 26,400 feet.
Someone who is a physics pro do the calculations that prove kinetic energy decreases by half.
~
wrongway
Kinetic energy does not increase/decrease linearly with respect to changes in velocity. When velocity has decreased in half, kinetic energy has decreased by 1/4th.
I could figure out exactly how high it would take for it to lose half/.75/etc of its energy except I don't have my big boy calculatard with me right now.
Anyone bored though, have at it:
Ek=1/2mv2
Vf2=vi2+2ad
While I was wrong on half, using what Grizz said, by the time the shell makes it to it's maximum alt, it's going slower than Lushe in salt, there by giving it virtually no kinetic energy (0*n=0). Remember, everything that goes up, must come down and if something goes straight up, it will normally stop at some point (if it maintains the 90 degree climb the entire time) and possibly flop over depending on were the weight of the projectile is. Since the round is also unguided, we must also assume that, like a rocket launch (which is faster than said AA shell) the shell will deviate off course the higher it goes, not only from gravity but also because of basic human inaccuracy. Someone also put it quite well when they said (can't find the quote and too lazy to look) the gunners would need a chart to know the speed and alt of the enemy aircraft, the trajectory of the bomber as opposed the ship, take into account the movement of said ship, be able to lob the shell up 30,000 feet while praying the plane doesn't move slightly off the course and accurately hit the plane (or general area for the puffy). Now if they could accurately and regularly hit these planes at 30,000k or even their max 37k as you said WW, then how could they possibly ever miss at 10k? 15k? 20k?
So, why did we lose ships to enemy Aircraft in WWII? :huh
-
What is a round's initial velocity seseph?
-
What is a round's initial velocity seseph?
A AAC Mark 49 projectile has a mass of 25kg and a muzzle velocity of 762 m/s
Just for comparison: the 8,8cm FlaK 41 fired a 9.4 kg HE shell at 1000 m/s. Maximum altitude was given as 14,700m and maximum range was 19,800m
-
This thread just got really nerdy...LOL
-
A AAC Mark 49 projectile has a mass of 25kg and a muzzle velocity of 762 m/s
Just for comparison: the 8,8cm FlaK 41 fired a 9.4 kg HE shell at 1000 m/s. Maximum altitude was given as 14,700m and maximum range was 19,800m
I'll figure this out during lunch. :D
-
buffs roll through the ack too fast to be hit by it
That statement just came off wrong to me for some reason....
Temp and B24 at same alt...the B24 is too fast to be hit?
-
Don't forget this:
Generally people calculate muzzle velocity neglecting friction (v=1/2gt), as if there was no big deal - when there really is huge difference.
A man fires a rifle of muzzle velocity 500ms at a fixed target 100m away. If the gun is pointing directly at the target, the bullet misses by 1.96m
(muzzle velocity)^2 / 2(gravity)
-
Don't forget this:
Could you give a better link? I'm sure not gonna search that forum for that quote. ;)
-
Could you give a better link? I'm sure not gonna search that forum for that quote. ;)
I edited the statements so they weren't questions which was why I didn't give the exact post, but here they are:
http://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=39 (friction formulas)
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97423 (this is a long one with alot of formulas)
I'm also going to pull out my old physics books later to see if I missed some other formula on some of the movement factors I mentioned earlier.
-
I edited the statements so they weren't questions which was why I didn't give the exact post, but here they are:
That's what I thought and made me curious, because both statements in that single quote aren't really related to another ;)
On the first one "Generally people calculate muzzle velocity neglecting friction (v=1/2gt), as if there was no big deal - when there really is huge difference."
It doesn't really apply here, because it's referring to theoretical calculation of muzzle velocity. The number I gave are actually velocities at the muzzle.
-
Assumptions:
-I don't know the cross section dimensions of a Mark 49 round so exact drag is difficult to calculate, so I just assumed a 20% drag reduction in calculations, which seemed reasonable. (Although it could be higher which would lower the ceiling)
-Projectile is fired 90 degrees upward
Findings(With lusches data):
-Projectile launched with 7.26kJ energy @ 762m/s, Sea Level.
-Projectile with half impact energy (3.63kJ) @ 539m/s, 38,900 Ft.
Conclusions:
If you cross paths with the projectile up to 40k, you are going to get hit hard still :)
For comparison sake, an NS37 spud shooter launches with 0.298kJ energy.
-
That statement just came off wrong to me for some reason....
Temp and B24 at same alt...the B24 is too fast to be hit?
I believe it was meant as "irony". :D
So, why did we lose ships to enemy Aircraft in WWII? :huh
Because they weren't being bombed from 20,000 feet.
Virtually no moving, turning ships were successfully hit by heavy bombers from altitude.
From:
Although Gen. Kenney's high-altitude bombers had been able to claim a few enemy ships, he was convinced that it was too hard to hit a moving vessel from high altitude. it was estimated that only one percent of the bombs dropped from high altitude on moving ships actually hit their mark.
Of course they didn't have as much experience as we do nor did they know to lead the ships by one carrier length per 10,000 feet.
Neither did the defenders, for the most part, have proximity fused AAA shells. Imagine having to set an altitude for the shells to explode as well as aim them.
wrongway
-
Assumptions:
-I don't know the cross section dimensions of a Mark 49 round so exact drag is difficult to calculate, so I just assumed a 20% drag reduction in calculations, which seemed reasonable. (Although it could be higher which would lower the ceiling)
-Projectile is fired 90 degrees upward
Findings(With lusches data):
-Projectile launched with 7.26kJ energy @ 762m/s, Sea Level.
-Projectile with half impact energy (3.63kJ) @ 539m/s, 38,900 Ft.
Conclusions:
If you cross paths with the projectile up to 40k, you are going to get hit hard still :)
For comparison sake, an NS37 spud shooter launches with 0.298kJ energy.
Okay, I concede that they can get up that high, but still, the accuracy is a bit off.
German Flak
Unit 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Heavy Guns 2600 3164 3888 4772 8520 10,600
Light Guns 6700 8290 9020 10,700 17,500 19,360
Searchlights 2988 3450 3905 4650 5200 7500
% Under The Luftwaffe 50% 61% 54% 64% 74% 70%
Aircraft Sorties In World War 2
Campaign Allied Axis Allied Kills Per 1000 Axis Kills Per 1000 Allied Lost Per 1000 Axis Lost Per 1000
France 1940 4480 21,000 28.6 12.5 58.5 6.1
Britain 1940 31,000 42,000 21.8 29.5 29.5 9.6
Pre D-Day 1944 98,400 34,500 12.7 29.3 10.3 36.1
Post D-Day 1944 203,357 31,833 17.3 16.2 2.5 110.6
http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/
Germany and more specifically, Berlin, had massive antiaircraft abilities, even holding troops there when needed on both fronts, then acting as shelter for up to 30,000 civilians as Berlin fell. They were massive concrete towers that held their heaviest AAA guns and did only paltry damage to bomber formations. "Prior to the battle of Berlin, Berlin had been subject to a large raid on 23/24 August of 700+ aircraft. A raid half that size, losing 7% of the aircraft, had taken place in September." This number included losses to fighter aircraft. So here we have city sized AAA platforms, that are stationary barely killing bombers... why does this ship based puffy fluff kill us faster.. and we can maneuver. Once Air Command learned it was better to do a staggered box formation, the bombers couldn't maneuver independently.
-
I'm not saying our puffy is "right"...
... but keep in mind that German ack had no proximity fuses, and (almost toe the end of war) didn't even use contact fuses. It was purely based on timers.
-
Because they weren't being bombed from 20,000 feet.
Virtually no moving, turning ships were successfully hit by heavy bombers from altitude.
The point I was making about that was if you can hit me at 30k+, then you best hit me at 15k or less 90% of the time or someone should fire/shoot you. If a SBD is coming in or a TBM and they are with in 5k and they don't die immediately, then again, the person who did it should be fired/shot because remember, the same dude can hit me at 30k. That is my argument. If you say: "well 30k is unrealistic cause they didn't do that alot" then make it not hit me but one in a 1000 bursts or more because of the inaccuracy at even 5k from many many gunners. I'm not disagreeing with your points of fact, more the point of fact of there is no "fall off accuracy"I'm not saying our puffy is "right"...
... but keep in mind that German ack had no proximity fuses, and (almost toe the end of war) didn't even use contact fuses. It was purely based on timers.
lol same page, different paragraph it seems. Never realized they used soley timers at the end!
-
Germany and more specifically, Berlin, had massive antiaircraft abilities, even holding troops there when needed on both fronts, then acting as shelter for up to 30,000 civilians as Berlin fell. They were massive concrete towers that held their heaviest AAA guns and did only paltry damage to bomber formations. "Prior to the battle of Berlin, Berlin had been subject to a large raid on 23/24 August of 700+ aircraft. A raid half that size, losing 7% of the aircraft, had taken place in September." This number included losses to fighter aircraft. So here we have city sized AAA platforms, that are stationary barely killing bombers... why does this ship based puffy fluff kill us faster.. and we can maneuver. Once Air Command learned it was better to do a staggered box formation, the bombers couldn't maneuver independently.
Germany didn't have proximity fuses IIRC. How many AAA shells exploded above or below the bombers, or even passed through the formations harmlessly?
One plane in seven losses doesn't seem accurate? You can't fly through unmanned puffy seven times without getting shot down?
This reminds me of the Tater thread were it seemed like every other 30mm shell that hit failed to get a kill.
Once again, it would seem that every time anyone flies through puffy ack they die to it's laser accuracy.
Perspective.
Of course, no one would ever exaggerate.
:noid
edit:
The point I was making about that was if you can hit me at 30k+, then you best hit me at 15k or less 90% of the time or someone should fire/shoot you. If a SBD is coming in or a TBM and they are with in 5k and they don't die immediately, then again, the person who did it should be fired/shot because remember, the same dude can hit me at 30k. That is my argument. If you say: "well 30k is unrealistic cause they didn't do that alot" then make it not hit me but one in a 1000 bursts or more because of the inaccuracy at even 5k from many many gunners. I'm not disagreeing with your points of fact, more the point of fact of there is no "fall off accuracy"
lol same page, different paragraph it seems. Never realized they used soley timers at the end!
I, manned gun, can't hit you at 30,000 feet. Can I even see you at 30,000 feet?
I am also willing to bet the auto doesn't hit you every time at 30,000 feet, nor every time at 15,000 feet.
wrongway
-
Germany didn't have proximity fuses IIRC. How many AAA shells exploded above or below the bombers, or even passed through the formations harmlessly?
One plane in seven losses doesn't seem accurate? You can't fly through unmanned puffy seven times without getting shot down?
This reminds me of the Tater thread were it seemed like every other 30mm shell that hit failed to get a kill.
Once again, it would seem that every time anyone flies through puffy ack they die to it's laser accuracy.
Perspective.
Of course, no one would ever exaggerate.
:noid
edit:
I, manned gun, can't hit you at 30,000 feet. Can I even see you at 30,000 feet?
I am also willing to bet the auto doesn't hit you every time at 30,000 feet, nor every time at 15,000 feet.
wrongway
I was using the current debate for support info in favor of altering the current puffy ack because I do think it's unbalanced. Apparently thats because of the box mentioned back a couple of pages. While you can't even see me, as you said, at 30k, I've been shot down once @ 28k (fighter) and wounded/hit a handful of times @ 25-30k (fighters and bombers). You said yourself, you can't see me that high when manning a 5", let alone hit me and yet I have to fly through a cloud of puff puff clink. I don't mind getting shot down by it, but at that alt.. it's truly annoying that I have the same odds of being hit as I do at 10k... just make base ack fire up to 12k :aok
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_system
:noid
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_system
:noid
Wiki is the worst possible source you could use.
but if you must.. it says 1000 5" rounds for every 1 kill and was ONLY used on very large ships.
-
I was using the current debate for support info in favor of altering the current puffy ack because I do think it's unbalanced. Apparently thats because of the box mentioned back a couple of pages. While you can't even see me, as you said, at 30k, I've been shot down once @ 28k (fighter) and wounded/hit a handful of times @ 25-30k (fighters and bombers). You said yourself, you can't see me that high when manning a 5", let alone hit me and yet I have to fly through a cloud of puff puff clink. I don't mind getting shot down by it, but at that alt.. it's truly annoying that I have the same odds of being hit as I do at 10k... just make base ack fire up to 12k :aok
But is it unreasonable to have been shot down once and PW/hit a handful of times at 28,000 feet out of how many flights through any kind of ack at any altitude where nothing happens?
The real problem with puffy ack is it sucks to be hit and/or shot down by something essentially unseen that you cannot fight back against. I hate nothing more than being surrounded by ugly, black puffs of ack from a CV group I can't even see.
Although, it does come in handy when trying to find that hidden CV group. :rock
Otherwise it seems pretty Fair and Balanced (©Fox News).
wrongway
-
Wiki is the worst possible source you could use.
but if you must.. it says 1000 5" rounds for every 1 kill and was ONLY used on very large ships.
oh i know (and the 1000 for 1 was without proximity fuzes no?), im just saying the aiming system was considerably more complex and advanced than some people seem to think.. more so than our point & fire method
-
The point I was making about that was if you can hit me at 30k+, then you best hit me at 15k or less 90% of the time or someone should fire/shoot you. If a SBD is coming in or a TBM and they are with in 5k and they don't die immediately, then again, the person who did it should be fired/shot because remember, the same dude can hit me at 30k. That is my argument. If you say: "well 30k is unrealistic cause they didn't do that alot" then make it not hit me but one in a 1000 bursts or more because of the inaccuracy at even 5k from many many gunners. I'm not disagreeing with your points of fact, more the point of fact of there is no "fall off accuracy"
lol same page, different paragraph it seems. Never realized they used soley timers at the end!
Few of the aircraft brought down by “Puffy Ack” of WWII were actually hit by the projectile. They were hit by the medal casing of the projectile when it exploded at altitude. That exploding shell is what caused the appearance of the “Puffy” black smoke cloud.
-
I believe it was meant as "irony". :D
wrongway
somebody finally gets my irony text tone :D
other than that...i think im lost in the mathematics... :headscratch:
-
:huh do away with puffy ack??? :huh
:headscratch:
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Think I know how it...works.
Fact of the matter is I've yet to see a set of bombers get killed by it while attacking a CV and it will knock fighters out of the sky all day in a furball.
Damn right. I've had my jug blown out of the sky more times than I can remember by cv's that were so far away I couldn't even SEE them....8k formation on B24's just plows right in and sinks it every time. Mayhap a coding thing, due to the 3 planes
-
Damn right. I've had my jug blown out of the sky more times than I can remember by cv's that were so far away I couldn't even SEE them....8k formation on B24's just plows right in and sinks it every time. Mayhap a coding thing, due to the 3 planes
Could it possibly be that a bomber is more durable than a fighter?
wrongway
-
Could it possibly be that a bomber is more durable than a fighter?
wrongway
That's correct, which is why the puffy does very little to deter a bomber.
-
well the effect of a single round will be less because the buffs are tougher, but the number of hits should be waaaay higher because: theres 3 of em in tight formation, they are bigger targets, they fly slower, they dont evade ... something is not right here.
-
well the effect of a single round will be less because the buffs are tougher, but the number of hits should be waaaay higher because: theres 3 of em in tight formation, they are bigger targets, they fly slower, they dont evade ... something is not right here.
Which is my the core of my whole argument! The numbers for flak kills are largely bomber kills. Not to say fighters didn't succumb to flak, but they could move, they could avoid etc etc... At 300yd is it easier to hit a watermelon or a grape?
According to our puffy ack, the grape. :headscratch:
-
Which is my the core of my whole argument! The numbers for flak kills are largely bomber kills. Not to say fighters didn't succumb to flak, but they could move, they could avoid etc etc... At 300yd is it easier to hit a watermelon or a grape?
According to our puffy ack, the grape. :headscratch:
Japanese attacks on U.S. fleets aside, Puffy ack in the "not Pacific" :huh was fired in a Box Pattern in the path of the bomber stream.
(http://lancasterdiary.net/images/assets/flak3.jpg)
Fighters didn't evade Flak. Fighters avoided Flak.
Now, was a Japanese Zero less susceptible to American Fleet AAA than anything else that was shot at because it was moving faster or evading?
wrongway
-
will say i've seen Auto Puffy kill plenty of fighters but never a set of buffs.
true statement :aok
froger
-
can we have a special (perked) flak vest and helmet ?
-
was a Japanese Zero less susceptible to American Fleet AAA than anything else that was shot at because it was moving faster or evading?
yes.
-
Japanese attacks on U.S. fleets aside, Puffy ack in the "not Pacific" :huh was fired in a Box Pattern in the path of the bomber stream.
(http://lancasterdiary.net/images/assets/flak3.jpg)
~~
wrongway
Now, I'm sure it happened, but I tried and couldn't find any battles or major operations carried out by any CV/CV group in the European theater. (I'm sure someone will find one quick since I said this) So according to our arguments wrongway, mine from earlier about Berlin, which is more accurate for Strats than CV's, we should use the principle of ground based flak and the way it works from a totally different theater (which again, I couldn't find any major operations for) to dictate the effects of flak from a CV.
I'm sure I missed typing something in my thought line, but it's modeled wrong, or at least not well.
If flak was as good as it is in AH, we wouldn't have lost so many ships or men. RTHolmes has it right.
-
yes.
Ya really think so?
Now, I'm sure it happened, but I tried and couldn't find any battles or major operations carried out by any CV/CV group in the European theater. (I'm sure someone will find one quick since I said this) So according to our arguments wrongway, mine from earlier about Berlin, which is more accurate for Strats than CV's, we should use the principle of ground based flak and the way it works from a totally different theater (which again, I couldn't find any major operations for) to dictate the effects of flak from a CV.
I'm sure I missed typing something in my thought line, but it's modeled wrong, or at least not well.
If flak was as good as it is in AH, we wouldn't have lost so many ships or men. RTHolmes has it right.
No. I'm agreeing with you. But the "Puffy Ack Problem" that is most prevalent in game is in regards to CV ack as I understand it.
Make puffy ack affect both friendly and enemy aircraft equally. At least the "hard" guns. After all, enemy fighters wouldn't fly into their own AAA either. If you are flying after an enemy in proximity of friendly AAA you are susceptible to being hit.
Making "soft" guns affect friendlies would introduce griefing issues.
wrongway
-
Ya really think so?
yeah the fire control computers were analogue computers using cogs and levers, they look like a bunch of big wood-fired kitchen ranges with brass knobs and dials on. not like modern multiple-CPU digital computers capable of giving accurate firing solutions on multiple cons in near-real time from sophisticated pinpoint radar system tracking data.
you had a bunch of blokes manually cranking dials to get a solution. if the con was travelling level at a constant speed for some time, a while later after some furious fiddling with levers and dials you would have a pretty good firing solution. if the con deviated during the track, or during the lead computing your shells would arrive 100s of yards off target.
bear in mind, even though the stats for late war USN proxy fused 5" look pretty promising, the majority of targets they were tracking were moving relatively slowly in a straight line directly towards the guns. theres a quote i cant find now which says something along the lines of "if the incoming aircraft changed alt by 100 yards, it was impossible to track." didnt matter much because the 40mms would get them as they got closer.
-
Ive got a bunch of manuals and specs for the Mk.37 gun director on a drive I cant get to atm, so Ive had to hit the wiki ... :)
input came from the Director:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Mk37_Director_circa1944.jpg/170px-Mk37_Director_circa1944.jpg)
... and fed into the plotting room where the computer lived. this is THE most advanced fire control computer used in WWII, the MkI (drawing is the 1A but it looks similar):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/Mk1A_Computer.jpg/220px-Mk1A_Computer.jpg)
it weighs 3500lb, operated by ?4 sailors.
because it was on a moving ship it needed input from a gyro, hence the attached Stable Element:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Mk6_Stable_Element.jpg/220px-Mk6_Stable_Element.jpg)
the computer generated control current for the servos in the gun turrets.
this very complex system could provide an accurate firing solution for 1 aerial target, and only as long as the target was maintaining a constant vector (speed and rate of climb) for 20-30s.
USS Missouri plotting room in operation:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Iowa_Class_Main_Battery_Plot.jpg/721px-Iowa_Class_Main_Battery_Plot.jpg)
-
Please just do away with it.
It does nothing to threatening airplanes (bombers, bomb-laden planes)
It kills the fight and at fun CV furballs forces the fight under 3K, while the attacking planes can freely go above 3K and pick.
It fires at you while you are well out of range it should stop at.
Please just do away with it or code it so it only fires at bombers.
A good compromise might be to make fewer auto ack of all kinds and have many more manned ack positions of all kinds. But do away with? I think I'm gonna die! :O :t :devil
p.s. I do agree that it shouldn't be able to fire at you when it can't see you. Or when you are right above the carrier group. If we can't train our 5'' flak that AI's shouldn't be able to either. That's just :t :t :t :cry :devil :devil :furious :joystick:
-
this very complex system could provide an accurate firing solution for 1 aerial target, and only as long as the target was maintaining a constant vector (speed and rate of climb) for 20-30s.
I'm going to highlight this bit. to get an accurate solution on a fighter flying at full power at 12k, say 350TAS, the fighter has to be flying in a straight line for 20-30s. there is no way the very best systems available in late WWII could maintain "lock" on a fighter doing any kind of maneuvering in the way AH puffy does. a set of buffs on a bombing run on a CV, flying straight and level setting up its bombing run however would be a relatively easy target for this system.
-
Remember, not all shipborne AAA systems were created equal.
The Japanese systems lagged behind the US systems. The best they could do in Midway, and possibly through the Guadacanal campaign, was to use their 5in guns to put up a barrage. This meant they fired into a "box" that the incoming aircraft would have to fly through. Once the attackers flew through the barrage, or flew around it, the Japanese had to fall back on their 25mm guns, and they had their own problems.
While it has its advantages, a real-world flack would make no distinction between friendly or enemy aircraft. The USS Enterprise suffered several casualties when she triggered the proximity fuzes on shells fired from another ship. :eek: