Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: FiLtH on July 15, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
-
Good fight with a 38 who wanted to fight tho <S>
-
145 got swamped with B-17s around 30K as well, our G-6s just couldnt get near them. We had a great dogfight that went right down to the deck with the escorting P-38s and 47s though. It was one of the funnest fights ive had in FSO in a long time. :aok
-
time for 10k alt caps for buffs in the last frame :devil
But seriously, what's the point? 30k buff's are untouchable. If we wanted that in FSO we could just get the CM's to destroy targets on the field without the buffs.
-
time for 10k alt caps for buffs in the last frame :devil
But seriously, what's the point? 30k buff's are untouchable. If we wanted that in FSO we could just get the CM's to destroy targets on the field without the buffs.
BoB the Axis had no problem getting the +30k buff.
-
BoB the Axis had no problem getting the +30k buff.
oakranger,
I believe in the BoB the buffs were limited to 24k and the fighters were limited to 30k.
:salute
BigRat
-
our buffs were at 22k and we had 205's diving through at warp 3.7!
-
I dont mind high alt bombers, but a cap would be nice, doesnt have to be low. Somewhere round 25 would be cool.
-
The LCA had our buffs at 23K. Don't need the CAP as the T+60 rule is going to limit how high you can get sometimes anyway.
<S> to the KN.
I dove in on what I though was three 190's that weren't paying attention. Turns out to be perdweeb and the KN.
I dive, and as that 190 rolled out of phase with my 38, my mind was screaming....damit..this wont turn out well. From there I saw it coming and still couldn't avoid it.
:salute Great times.
-
The LCA had our buffs at 23K. Don't need the CAP as the T+60 rule is going to limit how high you can get sometimes anyway.
For the close bases like 145, the buffs had plenty of time to get to 30k and they did. I'd be happy with a 25k alt limit on buffs.
:salute
BigRat
-
No the H+60 doesn't limit the altitude a bomber can climb to.
A planner can send in a "Squad sized" Main effort to meet the H+60 FSO rule to a target in any ordnance carring AC. Then task a small portion of heavy bombers to come in at 30K at any point past H+60 and conduct a second strike to the same target. Its a good technique that is nearly always successful as the fighters are rearming or low and the bombers don't need escorts.
Alt Caps aren't a bad thing and they were needed for the IJN scenario's we ran where B-29's were in use against the IJN AC. We all know the alt limitations of the IJN AC and the alt capabilities of the B-29.
In this scenario I don't think the Alt Cap is needed as the 190's can operate at 30K and the 109's at 25K. The AXIS have very few 190's and the ALLIES aren't using many bombers. Leave the rule alone and each side must plan accordingly given the resource limitations. Alt Caps rules should only be used "if" the side set ups place one AC type out of reach of the other. Just because its "hard" to get up to high alt and fight there isn't a good argument to place an alt cap in a scenario.
Lastly there are point values to consider in any alt cap restriction. "Forcing" high point value bomber into a fight against low point value fighter places the side with the bombers into a disadvantaged position which isn't fair.
-
190A5's wallow @ 30k.
We had a large formation of B17s hit our base @ T+55 at 30k, with escorts at 30k. C205's and G6's struggle at that alt. Engaging b17 boxes at 30k with them would be suicide. The gun packages are limit, and require multiple passes. Plus there was escort up there.
Maybe if we had K4's, or D9's, and 262's, and 152's.
So yeah, it wasn't much fun. Not to mention the perfect weather conditions that allowed bombing from the alt (no cloud, no wind).
My suggestion to the axis commander would be forget defending for frame 3, just circle the allied fields waiting for vulch oppotunities.
-
A 30k B17 at speed is pretty much immune to a G6 (definitly can't take gondies that high) and I doubt the A5's are in a much better predicament for any sort of intercept. You might get one head on pass, and then they are off to the races.
:salute
BigRat
-
No the H+60 doesn't limit the altitude a bomber can climb to.
A planner can send in a "Squad sized" Main effort to meet the H+60 FSO rule to a target in any ordnance carring AC. Then task a small portion of heavy bombers to come in at 30K at any point past H+60 and conduct a second strike to the same target. Its a good technique that is nearly always successful as the fighters are rearming or low and the bombers don't need escorts.
Alt Caps aren't a bad thing and they were needed for the IJN scenario's we ran where B-29's were in use against the IJN AC. We all know the alt limitations of the IJN AC and the alt capabilities of the B-29.
In this scenario I don't think the Alt Cap is needed as the 190's can operate at 30K and the 109's at 25K. The AXIS have very few 190's and the ALLIES aren't using many bombers. Leave the rule alone and each side must plan accordingly given the resource limitations. Alt Caps rules should only be used "if" the side set ups place one AC type out of reach of the other. Just because its "hard" to get up to high alt and fight there isn't a good argument to place an alt cap in a scenario.
Lastly there are point values to consider in any alt cap restriction. "Forcing" high point value bomber into a fight against low point value fighter places the side with the bombers into a disadvantaged position which isn't fair.
I thought any squad had to hit their target by T+60. Not just that THE target had to be hit by someone by T+60. Thats extremely cheezy if thats the case.
-
<S> to the KN.
I dove in on what I though was three 190's that weren't paying attention. Turns out to be perdweeb and the KN.
I dive, and as that 190 rolled out of phase with my 38, my mind was screaming....damit..this wont turn out well. From there I saw it coming and still couldn't avoid it.
:salute Great times.
Happened to alot of 38's last night :devil Was fun.
-
I thought any squad had to hit their target by T+60. Not just that THE target had to be hit by someone by T+60. Thats extremely cheezy if thats the case.
Not every FSO has the credible force rule, it only appears from time to time. The T+60 rule applies to the mission, not individual squadrons. Sometimes multiple squads make up a mission and even if the credible force rule is in effect, a mission may also include a delayed strike if a medium sized squad applies ordnance to the target before T+60.
-
Not every FSO has the credible force rule, it only appears from time to time. The T+60 rule applies to the mission, not individual squadrons. Sometimes multiple squads make up a mission and even if the credible force rule is in effect, a mission may also include a delayed strike if a medium sized squad applies ordnance to the target before T+60.
As far as I know... every FSO has the credible force rule in effect. But you are totally correct about how it works. Lets say a strike package has 20 pilots in bombers. You send in 15 timed to hit prior to T+60... and the second wave of 5 can hit at any time after that as long as they dont plan a suicide mission (intentionally planning on not making it back by end of frame).
This is the rule as quoted from the AH Events FSO Rules Page... located here: http://ahevents.org/fso-rules.html
- 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.
By the letter of this rule, as long as the target is hit by the MAIN FORCE first, and not a smaller force first... then the T+60 rule is satisfied. The creative CiC or squadron commander can use this to his or her advantage when planning a strike mission. And from what I have seen... this type of attack is becoming more commonplace than it used to... on both sides.
-
Bost B-17s flew between 15k and 22k-ish (rough estimation). Some up to 25k yes, but those above this were very rare. The majority of massive bomber missions were LOW alt [EDIT: I use this only as compared to 30K, I don't mean on the deck], where the Germans had alt and position on the bomber stream. They often left the highest bombers because, simply enough, there were lower targets to hit and most of a staggered box formation was lower than the highest corner of the "box"...
You want to curb this in FSO? Make all 4-engine bombers take 100% gas, awlays. Every time. That will solve your alt cap problem. If they want to hit before T+60 they level out sooner. Otherwise they fly at 30K but arrive at T+120, and lose all the points they would get.
-
Yep we (VF-17) were stretched out over a pretty good area and all of us were between 27-24k and the bomber formations were scooting along like super dots on speed and were at least another 5-6k above the highest members of our group. We were right up there with a few others.
The fatal flaw the 38's and 47's made was coming down in small numbers. When they dropped out of the escort role to attack us we weren't trying to get to the bombers since it would have been suicide and wouldn't have helped anything other than the Allied kill rate. As a result I never saw more than 4 allied aircraft come down into the fray as a cohesive unit. When they did come down they got jumped by several of us and didn't last that long.
-
AKP
The rule you presented only states that the target must be attacked by a full Squadron. No where in the present rules is the size of that squadron defined. One or two CM's have defined credible force in their objectives as at least a medium sized squad. Most of us assume that this is the case for each event, when in reality until its universally defined or specifically announced; an attacking or defending force can be any size.
-
AKP
The rule you presented only states that the target must be attacked by a full Squadron. No where in the present rules is the size of that squadron defined. One or two CM's have defined credible force in their objectives as at least a medium sized squad. Most of us assume that this is the case for each event, when in reality until its universally defined or specifically announced; an attacking or defending force can be any size.
-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 portions of that rule are what I was referring to. It implies (at least in my opinion) that it must be attacked by a credible force by T+60. In other words, I would think that sending in 3 or 4 bombers to hit a target by T+60, followed by a group of 15 or 20 at T+90 would be a violation... in any scenario.
And you are correct... the actual size of a "credible force" is not defined in the general rules. I have only seen it in specific scenarios.
This section of the rules probably does need clarification and an update though.
-
The word of the rule (if sufficiently laid out already and not overly vague) only needs clarification when the spirit of it is broken. If you have to start thinking dishonest thoughts to sneak around and avoid combat, chances are you are breaking the spirit of the rules.
If you're searching for loopholes, or ways to "game the game" or milk your score or some such method, you are breaking the spirit of the rules. If that happens you should go back and ask yourself what you want out of FSO, because to steal a phrase, "You're doing it wrong."
-
Krusty,
I think as long as the intent of the credible force rule is followed, no one is trying to "game the game"... or perhaps I should say... I havent seen anyone trying to do that. I have seen, and been a part of several "dual wave" missions, and the planners (including myself) are always careful to make sure we hit the target with the majority of our forces by T+60, and in most cases much sooner. A second, and much smaller wave coming in a few minutes later just seems prudent... to ensure all of the targets we are assigned are taken down... or at least an attempt to ensure that.
In many cases... the primary wave gets jumped and butchered... as it so happened to us in Frame 1. We had a second "wave" of 2 bomber formations and 2 escort fighters following about 5 minutes behind the primary wave of 8 formations and a full squadron of escorts. Even the second wave only made it home with half its forces, and the primary got ripped apart before reaching the target... leaving most of its objectives untouched.
From a defense standpoint... our squad now assumes that every strike mission we defend against is going to have a second, or follow up wave hit shortly after the first strike, and most likely from a different direction. Sometimes they come in high... sometimes NOE. I dont see that as breaking the spirit of the rules at all... rather I see it as a CiC or CO making the most of the resources at his disposal.
Unfortunately, I am sure there are those that would see the omission of the "credible force" statement in the general rules, as a loophole. And as such, it should be closed by defining it more clearly and completely... and making sure everyone knows it applies to ALL FSO scenarios and frames.
EDIT: However I think that this is probably a discussion for another thread. The OP intent I believe was to argue the point of B-17's outperforming the Axis aircraft at 30,000ft... giving them little or no chance at engaging them.
-
I have personally seen and brought to the forums attempts to game the game and avoid all fight for as much points gain as possible. So I know it exists, and hence why I brought it up. Often those doing it have many vocal defenders.
You are right the main point was 30K buffs, but it was tied into a discussion about the rules so I digressed.
-
I have personally seen and brought to the forums attempts to game the game and avoid all fight for as much points gain as possible. So I know it exists, and hence why I brought it up. Often those doing it have many vocal defenders.
You are right the main point was 30K buffs, but it was tied into a discussion about the rules so I digressed.
We all digressed :)
-
oakranger,
I believe in the BoB the buffs were limited to 24k and the fighters were limited to 30k.
:salute
BigRat
You,sir, are correct. My mistake.
-
Third frame my opinion of the 30k buffs hasnt changed.
-
Third frame my opinion of the 30k buffs hasnt changed.
Something needs to be done to limit the heavy bombers to a certian altitude when the Axis have nothing that has any hope at all of even engaging them. Either an ALT cap, wind, clouds, something.
-
ALt cap is the easiest and less hassle for both sides. Few like chasing 30k buffs and I hate it when in buffs and the manual bombsight and wind is engaged.
-
the manual bombsight and wind is engaged.
Maybe that is your alt cap right there. Engage an EASY-zone and a HARD-zone. If you go above 20K the Jet stream engages and at every 2000 feet you go above it the wind blows at an unbelievable speed and variance. It is a little more work for the setup CM's but it is one solution to having an alt cap. Gotta make sure the sides are warned though :rock
Anyway, while a very viable tactic to take bombers to 30K, I think next time it happens to the Axis(just like this 3rd frame) we will probably still do our best to get our sorry, underpowered, cruddy pigs up there and try to stop them.
Like I said this time,,,,Sometimes the Matador wins, Sometimes the Bull, HE wins :x
-
Third frame my opinion of the 30k buffs hasnt changed.
This frame you happened to be attacking (And shot down by Claim Jumpers B17s). We were never (Other than one rogue player during a hard turn back onto target) higher than 23k. You may have went on to later see other bombers, but this is the alt that you attacked B17s, with our P47 and P38 escorts.
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t138/toadflak/ALT.png)
I DO agree 30k 17s in an early war environment is the crapper for Axis, as their rides really suck at that alt. But I do want to point out that exaggeration doesn't help.
-
The 17's I saw came into 142 @ 23k (I was the 205 that was shadowing you guys on and off)
-
This frame you happened to be attacking (And shot down by Claim Jumpers B17s). We were never (Other than one rogue player during a hard turn back onto target) higher than 23k. You may have went on to later see other bombers, but this is the alt that you attacked B17s, with our P47 and P38 escorts.
I DO agree 30k 17s in an early war environment is the crapper for Axis, as their rides really suck at that alt. But I do want to point out that exaggeration doesn't help.
I dont recall anybody specifically calling out the Claim Jumpers as the 30K buffs, it was simply stated that buffs up that high are untouchable with the current Axis plane set. On the other hand, a late war setup with 152s/190-D9s/109-K4s/and 262s would be a different story.
-
I dont recall anybody specifically calling out the Claim Jumpers as the 30K buffs, it was simply stated that buffs up that high are untouchable with the current Axis plane set. On the other hand, a late war setup with 152s/190-D9s/109-K4s/and 262s would be a different story.
Nope, no one did. But Filth spoke as if he had ran into the same thing as frame 2, and I knew we had met with him in the air.
-
Guess I should just say high buffs escorted and attacking with 205s sucked. Thanks for pointing that out Toad it is very important to get it right. Great reseach.
-
Slightly OT but there's a squad in the MA (AAC I think?) who bombs strats with 17s at 37k? Even a 262 can't get up there.... kinda wondering what the point is :headscratch: it's kind of like playing ping pong with no opponent.
-
Easy solution for uber-alt BUFFs:
realistic bombing results, i.e., increasingly inaccurate bombing from increasingly high altitudes.
IMHO, of course. :salute
-
That doesn't make them less of a threat at all.
Currently they are too fast, climb too fast (making 20k in very short time because they take off with 25% gas), accelerate too fast once they level, and cruise too fast (less drag because less weight, with 60,000lbs less gas the AoA is less and the drag less, thus enabling the plane to fly faster and better).
It's not an issue of the bombs or the aim. It's the speed and performance. It's totally unhistorical in all regards. Making them take 100% gas EVERY time (75% in special circumstances if you want to be kind to overly loaded planes) will slow them down both when in level flight AND when climbing out to the target. That makes them take longer to get to the target (auto speed is slow by default) and if they level out for speed instead it puts them lower, thus placing them as targets of diving fighters (again returning to historically accurate setting, slower and/or lower than the fighters hitting them).
Most B-17s flew 20k (many flew LOWER) and at 180mph to and from the target. These bombers cruised to and from the target. Gas was life. They conserved it. ALWAYS. The only times they flew full power was emergencies or takeoff -- and that does NOT include climbout. They used cruise power to climb.
What we have in-game needs some limitations placed on it to even remotely reflect the situations in WW2. Unfortunately we can't do that, so we have to compromise.
The easiest, best, and already-in-game, compromise is forcing all buffs to take full fuel. It's not perfect but it really evens the playing field a lot more than doing nothing.
-
Bombers did not arrive over target with 90 percent fuel either which is what would happen in a T+60 strike time line in FSO if they rolled with 100 fuel at burn 1.0. It also takes @ 30 minutes to climb to 20,000 feet with a 100 fuel B-17G and a bombload (@ 650 fpm) so in FSO they would have only 30 minutes to get to the target unless you had air starts which many terrains do not have. Playability becomes a problem when your bombers have to RTB after flying only 5 sectors.
The bombers flew at 150-180 Indicated. Not True Airspeed. Thats @ 210-240 TAS at 20k. It would vary per mission requirements of course. Flying to Berlin was not the same as flying to Le Havre. They didnt always need absolutely every gallon of fuel and land on vapors.
20k was far from an upper limit and USAAF heavy bombers flew 20k+ usually. Each mission was different. The higher they flew the better off they would be usually as AAA was less accurate and fighters had to climb higher to make passes. Flying below 20k over Occupied Europe and especially Germany was not something they liked to do. B-17 Flying Fortress Units of the 8th AF (Martin Bowman) page 88: "Bombs Away, at 29,000 feet", on page 92: "at 27,500 feet climbing to attain bombing altitude". Just to illustrate there was variety in alts.
Most SEA squads that fly bombers do not fly at max throttle for the same reasons they could not in real life; you cant hold formation like that. As a result most formations are not doing max speed. That being said they usually do fly faster than they did historically and im not trying to say they don't.
All that said the bombers in SEA setups are not perfect and do what we can with what we have. One of the tools we have for alt limits is to ensure that it takes an hour to get to the target from T.O but thats not always practical in every design.
-
Bombers did not arrive over target with 90 percent fuel either which is what would happen in a T+60
Ahhhh... BUT they would arrive over target less than 200mph. As I said this is merely the best compromise. A performance limiter. Depending on fuel states a light B-25 can outclimb a heavy P-47. Not very historical, no? So in light of keeping all the planning and mission profiles as "up to the CO" as possible, the best compromise would be make the bombers fly at 100% and the results will much much much more closely match the effective combat state of the plane when the enemy engaged them.
As for the rest of your post, we've been over this before. I've been mocked but resources were produced to back up my comments. Funny how they get ignored.
And no, max cruise was not in indicated speed. These bombers were SLOW. Within a number of minutes a headon attack could be made, the fighters could turn around, overtake, line up well ahead and do multiple head-on attacks in short order. Even the older slower Italian rides had NO problems overtaking bombers (B17s but also the slightly faster B-24s) for repeated attacks at whim.
In this game you can NOT catch a bomber stream 99% of the time. You get one chance. Then it's over. Many's the time my squad has sat in 109s topping out at 30K while HEAVY JUGS flew over us at 36-38K and proceeded to bomb the target. Unstoppable. Many's the time the FSO has had bombers that flew FASTER than the planes intended to stop them. Prolonged tail chases ended because bombers passed the "no fly zone" or the disengage point before chasing fighters could catch up.
There's far too much unhistorical stuff regarding attacking and bombing in the FSO. It's become a game of which CO can game the game the most. The pilots suffer because of it.
Simply taking off with 100% fuel won't stop the bombers from climbing. It will only make them decide if they want alt or if they want time to manuver. Top speed will still be very fast but it will keep them lower. Or they climb and risk getting jumped at auto climb speed. You can still cover a sector in 5 minutes at 300mph TAS. That's plain math. So a target 5 sectors away only needs 25-30 minutes when you are at full speed. That's half a map and back and plenty of time to spare for additional climbing.
My suggestion doesn't limit anybody except the folks that like getting bombers to and from the target unescorted and having them survive and often get the highest kill streaks of the frame. It's happened before. My suggestion merely seeks to curb such events.
So why do you want to defend bombers flying 30k+ in FSOs at over 300mph TAS, higher than they historically could fly and faster than they historically could fly?
-
PS, from a guy that flies them in real life, and talks to people that flew them in the war.
Even the light B-17 I flew for Collings didn't indicate 180...closer to 160-165. A WWII B-17 guy said it "was a 150 mph airplane -- climbed at 150, cruised at 150 and descended at 150".
Light, he says, in a discussion about weights and speeds. Heavier it would have cruised slower still.
There's a reason they couldn't fly at 30k+ without a LOT of effort. Same problem with flying a Komet at 50k... You're stalling out as your TAS goes higher. You still cover ground fast but you can't stay up.
-
Good exchanges above especially on real world vs cartoonland.
Personally I don't think we need any changes. The 325th VFG runs our fair share of Strike Package Lead's for missions and more than often that means your level bombing with a period/scenario bomber AC.
We very seldom ever drop bombs from above 22K for a couple of reasons:
Need time to get into position, in formation (entire Strike Package) - this means reduced throttle climbing / speed
Bombing accuracy drops off above that altitude to the the point that your risking to many "points" (your entire point value of the Strike Package)for the possible "return in points" (Distruction on the ground in points).
The only time I would ever climb above 22K to level bomb would be if I were attacking a city target where accuracy doesn't matter. And that doesn't happen very often in any of the FSO scenario's.
The key to separating real world from the FSO is that our targets are normally always individual buildings "Hangers" which are not the city quadrents that our grandfathers attacked. To be more accurate you'd have to evaluate what we do in the FSO with the tactical bombing of key targets done by the medium bomber units. Which to my understanding was generally from 8-12K.
Also as a defender for many missions over the years I don't ever recall encountering enemy bombers coming in much above 25K either.
I recommend that we not institute changes which force a fight between the bombers and the fighters. The FSO is as much about the better plan as it is above "forcing a fight". Leave it alone it works just fine 95% of the time :salute
-
Good exchanges above especially on real world vs cartoonland.
Yes indeed.
The best guideline I can see for keeping bombers to reasonable alts is the T+60 time limit in FSO especially when we use ground starts. Also when the Admins think its required we have in the past done designs with alt restrictions and as memory serves they are usually abided by (I recall the B-29 FSO had them). As has been stated above there are other issues in the SEA that are a challenge to make game play more realistic and "bomber issues" are not the only thing. The entire fact that we have to wrap up in 2hrs and are flying our PC planes on terrains that are often not 1:1 scale poses all kinds of challenges. Thats been true in SEA events from Air Warrior to present day sims including our beloved Aces High. We do what we can and despite some seams showing I think we get close to a real feel for actual operations more often than not. In any case it's good to thrash things out and it shows we have a player base that cares and thats a good thing. I will really worry when we stop debating. :salute
-
Just read through the thread and thought I'd comment. I've got a fair number of bomber group histories. I grabbed the 447th off the shelf and it lists the missions and bombing alts. The majority of their bombing alts were 22-26K. Keep in mind that this was made up of boxes of 17s at different alts up and down. Anything flown below 20K was missions to France where they came over the coast lower.
The 24s tended to be a bit lower, but even those got up there. The 24 crew I researched for a long time from the 454th of the 15th AF got taken down by Flak at 24K.
I'm a fighter driver in AH, but I do tend to believe we too often worry about making it easier for the fighters to get the bombers. Keeping it within the range of history seems reasonable.
BTW the 477th history indicates that 170 or so was cruising for them
Edited to add: Found this where a guy has posted the actual "Flimsy" from a mission in March of 45, when the bombers had more escort then they knew what to do with. Still at 24.5K
Did some more digging in the group histories. It appears the alts were higher in 44. 351st BG was 29K on the first raid to Berlin in March 44. 91st was 30K+ in May over Berlin. I think the deeper they went the higher they went. I also think when the escort numbers increased, alt was less of an issue although it was still 20K +
-
OK I knew I had it somewhere. From the 1945 447th BG history that was sent home with the vets. It's the list of all their missions and includes bombing alts. This was the first page I looked at and it's October-November 44. I knew the 17s were up there higher.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/447th.jpg)
-
Guppy I've also read a number that indicate even lower alts. Stacked bomber boxes means only a small fraction is at the top. Many are in the middle, and many are lower. I read an entire B-17 pilot's mission diary and he went through some thick stuff. Only once did he get above 22k, often being 18k.
For every pilot that flew at 26K (generally the higher end of the spectrum) there were far more that flew below that pilot to fill out the formation. For all the tens of THOUSANDS of bomber pilots flying in huge formations, those that spent their time up at 26k, like you show, were in the minority.
When the Luftwaffe encountered them, they did not have to struggle up to higher alts to chase down the highest of the high. They could simply engage those below that level using diving attacks with great efficiency.
In the FSOs now with high alt bombers, you are replicating the worst case scenario for the LW and best case for the bombers. It just didn't happen that way all that much. Here we have every bomber at the same alt (no tail end charlies, no low boxes, no staggered boxes, all hugging the same alt in a flat formation/gaggle).
I almost wish HTC would develop AI bomber formations for FSO so that we could have the AI follow historic setups. Players never will. You have to do things like enforce 100% fuel to reign the players in.
-
Krusty, I don't have any problem with your concerns regarding the bombers in game. I just saw the comment that suggested the bombers weren't flying at those alts and suggesting it was lower and it didn't sound right. It fit more for 24 ops then 17s so I decided to see what I could find.
You made the following comment that isn't accurate and it was a broad generalization about B17s:
"Most B-17s flew 20k (many flew LOWER) and at 180mph to and from the target. These bombers cruised to and from the target. Gas was life. They conserved it. ALWAYS. The only times they flew full power was emergencies or takeoff -- and that does NOT include climbout. They used cruise power to climb."
Were there missions flown at lower alts? Sure. But not the majority. Alt was also life for those guys and you can see by the wartime documentation More were flown towards the 30K end of things then the 20K. There are 24 missions listed on that page I posted. 2/3rds are 25K or above. All are above 20K suggesting fairly strongly that "Most B17s flew 20K(many flew lower)" is inaccurate.
BTW there were never tens of thousands of bombers in the air at one time. 1000 would be the top end. keep in mind a thousand bomber raid may include 2-3 Bomb Divisions going to different targets as well.
-
My argument in this thread was more for the sake of playability, and for the axis to have a chance of intercepting. If i were in command of an allied bomber strike you can bet your bottom dollar I would fly as high as i could get. Theres no such thing as a fair war.
-
Were there missions flown at lower alts? Sure. But not the majority. Alt was also life for those guys and you can see by the wartime documentation More were flown towards the 30K end of things then the 20K. There are 24 missions listed on that page I posted. 2/3rds are 25K or above. All are above 20K suggesting fairly strongly that "Most B17s flew 20K(many flew lower)" is inaccurate.
Never let facts get in the way of conjecture. :confused:
-
- to do so would remove an extraordinary amount of entertainment.
(170 KIAS at F240 approx 250 TAS = 287mph approx. Gotta laugh)