Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on February 26, 2012, 01:07:07 AM
-
Well, an argument in the Wishlist brought this up. Its not the first time such an issue has been brought up, and I've never seen it argued out very far, so I'm curious what the general BBS population thinks.
Background:
1) the C.205 could carry 2 small bombs on the wings, but rarely did.
2) Butcher said they were rarely used, and so shouldn't be added.
3) I raised the point that the P-51 rarely carried both bombs and rockets at the same time (as far as photo evidence shows).
4) Butcher said that since the focus was on long-ranged escort when the P-51 was brought into action, and that it had potential as a ground-attack plane, the fact that both bombs AND rockets were rarely carried at the same time is irrelevent.
Do you think he's right? Do you think I'm right? Does it not mater if combinations of loadouts were rare, as long as the individual loadout options were in wide-spread use? Are the situations completly different? Is it a bit sketchy? Is he full of crap? Am I? Are we both so full of it, that our eyes are brown?
-
My personal opinion is that loadouts that were rare should probably be perked and loadouts that were extremely rarely used should not be included in the game.
I would prefer to see the single engined fighters limited to 500lb bombs unless they are paying perks for the 1000lbers. Give the heavy fighters a distinct role (perhaps include the single engined P-47 in the heavy fighter category with the Bf110s, P-38s, Mosquito and upcoming Me410) rather than have P-51Ds, Typhoons and F4Us be so common for both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. You want 2000lbs+ of bombs? Take a heavy fighter or pay perks.
-
My personal opinion is that if a load out has documentation that it was used in combat it should be allowed in game. Additionally (again this is just my opinion) I think factory documented field modifications or kits should also be allowed. I find HTC's current position on field mods a bit unusual given what we currently have in game.
I think that a perked ordinance system like what Karnak mentioned would be a necessary addition.
-
Had the Mustang been operating closer to the target and not needed DTs to have the range I think you'd have seen more loadouts of bombs and rockets. Fast forward to Korea and they were lugging bombs and rockets or napalm and rockets all the time as they were based much closer to the action.
Obviously Mustangs operated with bombs in the ETO. Also with bombs, and rockets with the RAF in the MTO. And with rockets on the Iwo based 51Ds going to Japan.
-
It was extremely rare during the war (kind of strange argument) for allied planes to attach allied bombers, aircraft, or ground vehicles. sure it happened but it wasn't deliberate. Deliberate and malicious attacks of "same side" platforms on other same side platforms should be prohibited since it rarely occurred during actual combat. It immediately stopped once the attacker understood he was attacking an ally. We have the best IFF system ever here. When you attack an enemy (red aircraft) you know the type as well as the range. So by the logic of historical accuracy, any allied plane attacking another is in fact abomination and should not be allowed. neh?
Its a game.
Infidelz.
-
I have read books that mention how spitfires were sent to the north atlantic to shoot down lancasters who were not as committed to bombing germany as the rest.
semp
-
My opinion is let all possible loadouts be available and let your mission determine which one you use. The fact that one loadout was used more then another is simply a result of the mission requirements for that aircraft during any particular engagment, not due to any inability in the aircraft itself. Here in AH our mission requirments are far different then in real life WW2.
-
I have read books that mention how spitfires were sent to the north atlantic to shoot down lancasters who were not as committed to bombing germany as the rest.
semp
Seriously??? You think a spit pilot would shoot down lancs who were "Not as committed" even if orderd to do so? That is what a court marshal is for. You my friend have bought into a myth, and reading it in a story doesn't make it any more so.
T
-
Seriously??? You think a spit pilot would shoot down lancs who were "Not as committed" even if orderd to do so? That is what a court marshal is for. You my friend have bought into a myth, and reading it in a story doesn't make it any more so.
T
you mean to tell me that every single lanc that went up actually follow orders? that's naive.
semp
-
you mean to tell me that every single lanc that went up actually follow orders? that's naive.
semp
And they were orderd shot down for it? Not to mention they were flying at night.. sent up spitfires at night to find lancs somewhere over the north sea/ western europe?? sure semp... You wouldn't be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn would you?
-
uh oh....sounds like another "NU UH! IM RIGHT!" show down, nrshida, get the popcorn! :D
-
And they were orderd shot down for it? Not to mention they were flying at night.. sent up spitfires at night to find lancs somewhere over the north sea/ western europe?? sure semp... You wouldn't be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn would you?
Pffft they wouldn't let you in Brooklyn. If you ever go go hang out in east new York
-
My opinion is let all possible loadouts be available and let your mission determine which one you use. The fact that one loadout was used more then another is simply a result of the mission requirements for that aircraft during any particular engagment, not due to any inability in the aircraft itself. Here in AH our mission requirments are far different then in real life WW2.
+1 to this. If you can find documentation that an aircraft carried ord, or had drop tanks, or even field mod kits that were available, I would be in favor of allowing it.
-
Perhaps I should have not been so dismissive in my original post.. I called semp out.. what was he going to do but respond.
-
I am aware of one Mosquito VI crew in 418 squadron that was caught flying in circles over the north sea instead of intruding over occupied Europe at night. Nobody tried to shoot them down, but they were immediately removed from ops and from the squadron.
Think rationally, if a Lanc crew was dodging participation in ops would it be better for a night fighter to track them so they could be removed from ops and the squadron and assign a new crew to that Lancaster or to blow the very expensive Lancaster out of the sky?
-
in any combat theater if any person(s) refused to follow combat orders given to them at the time of issue and then absconded with armed military equipment then yes absolutely they would be destroyed by their own military.
one of the most destructive forces confronting any military machine is the possible cowardliness of its members. fear is a plague in any military and it must be defeated soundly and decisively immediately, and it must be done in a fashion that will teach the remaining members of the organization that failure to comply with orders, insurrection and/or cowardliness will not be tolerated and will be severely punished.
every routed army starts with the first man who cant control his fear to drop his weapon and run away, anyone watching him will likely soon follow unless a strong hand strangles the infectious fear and turns the men around. to assume that bomber crews did not face the same fears as the ground pounders would be absurd, so of course they were subject to potentially committing the same or very similar offenses.
think of it, if one bomber flies in circles and is allowed to remain out of the fight how long until his squad is spinning their wheels in circles over the arctic....it would be an amazing sight to see 1000 lancs chasing each other in circles all night long instead of facing the risk of facing German 88's and night fighters.
so would i believe that the Brits would dispatch fighters to intercept and return to base, if possible or destroy if not compliant with orders, any lancs who intentionally failed to commit to performing their mission as directed instead choosing to run away and hide.....i would easily believe this could be the case.
did it or did it not happen.....well that i do not know, but i am certain it was absolutely a possible out come should a crew have abandoned its mission.
-
In the RAF they were labelled LMF (Lacking Moral Fibre) and were given the most demeaning jobs available.
-
(http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/tnelson3_bucket/220px-Satan-job.jpg)
It's been a tough day at work...
-
It was extremely rare during the war (kind of strange argument) for allied planes to attach allied bombers, aircraft, or ground vehicles. sure it happened but it wasn't deliberate. Deliberate and malicious attacks of "same side" platforms on other same side platforms should be prohibited since it rarely occurred during actual combat. It immediately stopped once the attacker understood he was attacking an ally. We have the best IFF system ever here. When you attack an enemy (red aircraft) you know the type as well as the range. So by the logic of historical accuracy, any allied plane attacking another is in fact abomination and should not be allowed. neh?
Its a game.
Infidelz.
It was NOT extremely rare. Blue on Blue kills were sadly far more common then ever admitted. Odds are very high that Guy Gibson of Dambusters fame was killed by a Lanc Rear Gunner when he got too close in his Mossie.
Just finished reading a book on the day W/C Douglas Bader was shot down. Very detailed research on every bird that went down that day and it's 99 percent certain he was shot down by another Spit. What's scary is how many Spits were shot down by other Spits that day. In the craziness of a fight, anything can happen.
Johnny Godfrey of 4th FG fame was shot down by his Wingman
Flotsom, the term used in the RAF was "Lack of Moral Fiber" or LMF. I don't ever recall reading about planes being intercepted that refused to fly on to the target. People aborting with mechanical problems that couldn't be replicated on the ground happened, and tended to be one of the early signs. They were usually removed from the squadrons quickly. From what I can tell the RAF tended to handle it differently depending on each case too as sometimes guys who'd flown a long time hit their limit. The pilots and aircrew referred to it as getting the 'twitch'.
When I was researching the Spit XII guys there were a couple of folks mentioned. One was a guy on his second tour. He'd survived the FW190 domination flying Spit Vs in 41-42 and was on his second tour flying XIIs. When they were transitioning he actually went AWOL up into the hills in Wales. He did come back but he was sure he wasn't going to survive. And he didn't, killed in October 43. The other was brought up by a few different pilots to me. He was a squadron leader, survived the Battle of Britain and Malta as well as Sweeps over France. They were convinced he was backing out as he'd abort over the Channel often on the way across. I came across stuff from him, and he talked about constant drop tank feed trouble and the 'lemon' he had for a Spit. Whose to say what it was and I'd be hard pressed to call him a coward. He finished up the war in a few different units that taught fighter tactics etc.
-
Flotsom, the term used in the RAF was "Lack of Moral Fiber" or LMF. I don't ever recall reading about planes being intercepted that refused to fly on to the target. People aborting with mechanical problems that couldn't be replicated on the ground happened, and tended to be one of the early signs. They were usually removed from the squadrons quickly. From what I can tell the RAF tended to handle it differently depending on each case too as sometimes guys who'd flown a long time hit their limit. The pilots and aircrew referred to it as getting the 'twitch'.
as i said, im not saying it did happen as i dont know, i have never researched the issue. my post was to rebut hotards attitude of complete disbelief and condescension of semps post.
if a crew refused to continue on their assigned mission and then refused orders to land i am more than certain that the Brits would have ordered them shot down.
so for semp to say that he read of its happening then i am incline to believe that he did read it. is the author of the book being less than honest.....well that i dont know, but i would believe that semp read it if he says he did.
-
single engined P-47
As opposed the the quad engine B-47?
-
OK, this got off-topic fast.
If you wanna discuss friendly fire, mind starting another topic? I'm seriously interested in what the community has to say about Real Life vs Might Have Been.
Anyway, I agree with Realgood. Rather well put, actually. Considering all the crap we do with out equipment in AH that would be incredibly stupid, borderline-suicidal in the real world, I would say that how often something was used in war is a bit irrelevent.
It will remain pretty damn irrelevent untill someone can give an example of a single Il-2 killing a Panzer IV H with guns alone, and give sources/proof for that example.
-
My personal opinion is that if a load out has documentation that it was used in combat it should be allowed in game. Additionally (again this is just my opinion) I think factory documented field modifications or kits should also be allowed. I find HTC's current position on field mods a bit unusual given what we currently have in game.
I think that a perked ordinance system like what Karnak mentioned would be a necessary addition.
This is what TankAce doesn't understand, his view is the P51's bomb and rockets were "Rare" except they were USED in combat, where the C.205's Bomb option was not used in combat (far as much documents I can find).
What I tried to point out to help him understand is, just because the P-51's bomb/rocket combo was rare, it doesn't mean it wasn't used, the mission of the P51 was as a long range escort fighter, it had no need to carry ords as the P-47 and P-38 were religated to do the ground attacks instead of the P-51.
The C.205's carried like 300lbs of bombs/fuel - except the bombs were never used, I don't even recall if they were ever fitted - from all the books I read I surely would of came across it. And the drop tanks were available and stored, never used because they were intercepting close to the airfield, and not needed the extra fuel.
I draw the line between "used in combat" and prototype, what he's suggesting is to add a bomb to the C.205 - however none except prototypes ever carried them. Perhaps it could be added as a perk option, I would certainly be against it.
As for a perk ordnance option I certainly agree with it, if it costs me 2 perks to use DT's on a C.205 then so be it.
-
Back off topic.
Curtiss Hawks fought Curtiss Warhawks and Grumman Wildcats.
:noid
wrongway
-
OK, this got off-topic fast.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e5/Kommander_Cool/Random/THREADJACK.gif)
-
Fast forward to Korea and they were lugging bombs and rockets or napalm and rockets all the time as they were based much closer to the action.
Wouildn't they also have been relegated to the attack role because jets were taking over the fighter role (though jets were also beginning to take over the attack role, as well).? A lot of 51s and Corsairs were there to fill gaps while the jets were coming up in the world.
-
Back on the OP.
Can any one find me a single account of a La7 using 100kg bombs in a ground attack role.
Yes the La7 wing (like the L5FN before it) had bomb mounting points for 50kg & 100kg GP bombs and the bomb release lever was duly mounted on the La7 controlstick.
However I have never read a single account of the actual use of an La7 in such a role where it deployed such bombs. Much more common was its role as an interceptor/ escort.
In this light one could look at the C202/5 and the La7 similarly and argue that if the one is modelled with bombs so should the other.
-
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e5/Kommander_Cool/Random/THREADJACK.gif)
:rofl
-
The Brits used their first 51s for ground attack as they did not have good high alt performance. Depending on target distance they could carry bombs and rockets.
Later the mustang was used for ground attack in Korea. They paid dearly because of their suceptable radiators.
-
Do you think he's right? Do you think I'm right? Does it not mater if combinations of loadouts were rare, as long as the individual loadout options were in wide-spread use? Are the situations completly different? Is it a bit sketchy? Is he full of crap? Am I? Are we both so full of it, that our eyes are brown?
The Me-262 carried rockets during the war......
Does the deuce carry them in game.......?
-
i agree with Karnak that the amount of ords that P51s (as well as others) can carry is a bit excessive and that 1000 pounders should have perks attatched so that dedicated ground attack planes have a role rather then the cooky cutter P51 'look I do everything' super planes can get back to air superiority roles - which is what they did during the war for the most part.
As far as the 205 with a bomb - I don't see how it would break the game - spits can carry bombs but almost never do, as do a whole host of other planes. Of course this is about historical validity - and in the case of the Axis - there were lots of 'rare' things towards the end of the war when the industrial machine was breaking down and ground crews and pilots were improvising more and more in a desperate attempt. Easy enough to just bolt on a rack and put a bomb on it if that was needed and I am sure that sort of thing was done a lot. The criteria for making it available in-game relies very heavily on 'official', 'well documented' and 'tested' and for the axis, that means 'we' lose out on a lot of options.
my 2 p
-
In the P51's case, if the ords of Rockets/bomb combination was so entirely rare why not perk it instead? standard load could be either 6 rockets or 2x bombs the combination would be perked.
-
It was NOT extremely rare. Blue on Blue kills were sadly far more common then ever admitted. Odds are very high that Guy Gibson of Dambusters fame was killed by a Lanc Rear Gunner when he got too close in his Mossie.
Just finished reading a book on the day W/C Douglas Bader was shot down. Very detailed research on every bird that went down that day and it's 99 percent certain he was shot down by another Spit. What's scary is how many Spits were shot down by other Spits that day. In the craziness of a fight, anything can happen.
Johnny Godfrey of 4th FG fame was shot down by his Wingman
Flotsom, the term used in the RAF was "Lack of Moral Fiber" or LMF. I don't ever recall reading about planes being intercepted that refused to fly on to the target. People aborting with mechanical problems that couldn't be replicated on the ground happened, and tended to be one of the early signs. They were usually removed from the squadrons quickly. From what I can tell the RAF tended to handle it differently depending on each case too as sometimes guys who'd flown a long time hit their limit. The pilots and aircrew referred to it as getting the 'twitch'.
When I was researching the Spit XII guys there were a couple of folks mentioned. One was a guy on his second tour. He'd survived the FW190 domination flying Spit Vs in 41-42 and was on his second tour flying XIIs. When they were transitioning he actually went AWOL up into the hills in Wales. He did come back but he was sure he wasn't going to survive. And he didn't, killed in October 43. The other was brought up by a few different pilots to me. He was a squadron leader, survived the Battle of Britain and Malta as well as Sweeps over France. They were convinced he was backing out as he'd abort over the Channel often on the way across. I came across stuff from him, and he talked about constant drop tank feed trouble and the 'lemon' he had for a Spit. Whose to say what it was and I'd be hard pressed to call him a coward. He finished up the war in a few different units that taught fighter tactics etc.
Butch O'hare was also (most likely) killed by the rear turret gunner in a TBM.
Don't confuse friendly fire accidents with deliberate orderd shoot-downs of friendly aircraft. Such and order based upon "lacking moral fiber" would be in fact an illegal order, and the duty of the office being given the order to refuse.
-
Butch O'hare was also (most likely) killed by the rear turret gunner in a TBM.
Don't confuse friendly fire accidents with deliberate orderd shoot-downs of friendly aircraft. Such and order based upon "lacking moral fiber" would be in fact an illegal order, and the duty of the office being given the order to refuse.
Accidental friendly fire deaths were of common and I don't know of any cases where pilots knowingly shot at friendlies, there were cases where the ID and affiliation of a certain aircraft couldn't be confirmed and that led to it being downed by friendly forces.
Cyclone" Davis of 35th FS fame was forced to down a PBY on 12/27/43. He was patrolling and came across an A/C that he identified as a PBY but the plane refused (or couldn't) make the proper radio identification, when he closed for visual inspection the PBY fired on him. The standing policy at the time was that all aircraft had to be identified, if they couldn't be they were to be destroyed. Davis lined up and downed the PBY, he was able to damage it just enough and the PBY was able to land in the water below. When he got home he learned that it was indeed an American aircraft, one PBY crew member was wounded in the incident.
-
Later the mustang was used for ground attack in Korea. They paid dearly because of their suceptable radiators.
Why dont they pay dearly in AH2 because of their suceptable radiators ????
-
Why dont they pay dearly in AH2 because of their suceptable radiators ????
They do, but it doesn't matter much. Particularly to the bomb and auger crowd.