Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rich46yo on March 01, 2014, 04:43:09 AM
-
Im ready to declare the TU-2S the best Bomber in the game. I realize that will cause a stir, most of all from the B-17 Lovers, but i can back up my assertions with solid fact after flying this plane enough to make this statement.
Yes the 17 has better defensive capabilities. Or does it? Does the speed and versatility of the TU make IT the better defensive airplane? I fly in Historical correct ways but to each their own. I level bomb at the TUs sweet spots in Alt where it can be very hard for fighters to catch unless they are in very good position. Pictures says 1000 words yes? (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/17tucspeed_zpse20a056d.png) And it gets to that "sweet" 8k to 12K quickly (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/17tuclimb_zps8461a444.png) As well as getting to the target quickly. Looking at K/D the two bombers are so close its almost like one can forget which is more survivable and focus on which can do more damage once it gets there.
And the TU2S wins again. The Bomb Loads, most of all 2 X 4, is more versatile, bigger, and capable of better results. One set will shut down a small bases FHs and VH, or a VH bases VHs in two passes. 2 sets will shut down that base and take out enough of a town so that only fighter mop up is needed. If a CV is threatening a TU can scramble, get to Alt, get to the CV, and hit it hard enough, to make it the best maritime strike aircraft in the game.
Maybe the only mission a heavie like the 17 or 24 is better at is a classic squadron/Box attack on a strat where a group of the bombers can make it hard on fighters to penetrate a mass of them. Even there im not so sure.
Thanks to Aces High for giving us the best Bomber ever.
-
Im ready to declare the TU-2S the best Bomber in the game. I realize that will cause a stir, most of all from the B-17 Lovers, but i can back up my assertions with solid fact after flying this plane enough to make this statement.
Yes the 17 has better defensive capabilities. Or does it? Does the speed and versatility of the TU make IT the better defensive airplane? I fly in Historical correct ways but to each their own. I level bomb at the TUs sweet spots in Alt where it can be very hard for fighters to catch unless they are in very good position. Pictures says 1000 words yes? (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/17tucspeed_zpse20a056d.png) And it gets to that "sweet" 8k to 12K quickly (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/17tuclimb_zps8461a444.png) As well as getting to the target quickly. Looking at K/D the two bombers are so close its almost like one can forget which is more survivable and focus on which can do more damage once it gets there.
And the TU2S wins again. The Bomb Loads, most of all 2 X 4, is more versatile, bigger, and capable of better results. One set will shut down a small bases FHs and VH, or a VH bases VHs in two passes. 2 sets will shut down that base and take out enough of a town so that only fighter mop up is needed. If a CV is threatening a TU can scramble, get to Alt, get to the CV, and hit it hard enough, to make it the best maritime strike aircraft in the game.
Maybe the only mission a heavie like the 17 or 24 is better at is a classic squadron/Box attack on a strat where a group of the bombers can make it hard on fighters to penetrate a mass of them. Even there im not so sure.
Thanks to Aces High for giving us the best Bomber ever.
:airplane: You make some good points, but the B-29 is the most lethal bomber in the game because of bomb load and defensive capacity. If AH ever remodels it, so that it flys a little better for the guys, you will see it used a lot more than it is now. I like the TU2 and have flown it several times lately, but to many "blind" spots which attacking aircraft can penetrate when attacking. It is very fast for a bomber and flies very well.
-
I certainly would never say anything negative about the 29. For some things it will never have an equal. By that I mean strategic missions at high Altitudes ; Its worth every bit its price perk for sure. Also its iconic status makes it special and unique.
The versatility of the TU-2S continues to amaze me however. Most of all in the kind of smash and grab we do. When minutes matter and things must be coordinated. "Speed", I believe, is everything. Along with hitting power. Call it shock and awe. This is what you get when you can deliver 6,600 lbs X 3 of ord with the climb and speed about that of a fully loaded heavy Jabo. Which comes out to about 20,000 lb of HE compared to 3,000 lb without a speed or climb penalty and probably an increase in range.
No other bomber even comes close to delivering what the TU-2S does. :salute
-
The greatest weakness of the Tu-2S is that it has no counter to flank attacks by fighters. However, the fighter must be in position before the formation arrives. A tail chase will consume many miles to get in position. A lot can occur in that time.
-
The Tu-2S looks awesome for its role as medium bomber. The only bomber I can think of that has similar abilities and saw action in numbers would be the Ju 188, and I've advocated its addition to the game several times. More than 1,200 of them were made and saw action from February 1943 onward. A top speed at medium alts of 310 mph. 6,600 lbs bomb load. Defensive armament of one 20mm cannon in a top turret and three 13mm machine guns.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1989-039-18A%2C_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_188.jpg)
-
Your title and comparison are flawed.
Now, if you said the Tu-2 is the best bomber with SPEED and PAYLOAD that has not a perk price, then you are right (IF I'm reading these charts in my half-sleep drone mode correctly). Only the Ki-67 comes close in speed, and only around 20k. The Peggy has better defensive firepower overall, but the Tu-2 does have better coverage below, if only slightly. The only thing the B-26B has over the Tu-2 is better defensive firepower and coverage. I have not taken the new B-26 out very much, so I can't really compare ability to absorb punishment. If I were to compare with the old B-26, then the old B-26 is better. Regardless, a better title would be, "Tu-2S, the best tactical bomber in the game.", or, "Tu-2S, the best medium bomber in the game.". :aok
With all that being said, I do like the Tu-2 myself. It's speed is quite nice, even at cruise settings, and it's payload is very sound. And I can't get enough of that beautiful twin tail! :x However the role I generally fly a bomber in, it is weak. Tactically, the Tu-2 is a very, very solid choice. Strategically though? No. The B-17 is far superior. Doesn't mean I won't fly a Tu-2 on a strat run. :) Hell, once in a blue moon you may run into a Betty heading for Strats. If it's Rook, then it's probably me. :lol
-
Without words.
:D :lol :rock
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=133&p2=110&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=133&p2=110&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Yeah that Mossie is a Beaut, no question about it. Definitely fits into the Raiders bag-o-tricks. I love it as an Ord buster. And its fast, very fast. But its also helpless should it run into a 190 or P47M type aircraft high up. Its bombload is limited, and it costs. But they never made a Mossie I didnt love.
I had already posted on the strengths of the heavies vs the TUs. No argument there tho the line has become a little blurred. Most of all in "most" game conditions.
I see the TU as filling a late war need. Towards the end of the war designs were coming that blurred the lines between "heavies" and "tactical" with bombers like the A-26 and TU-2S. Engines and designs had progressed to the point where "heavies" type loads could now be delivered at unheard of speeds and climb rates. The fact that both designs had long careers after the war speak volumes for the soundness of their designs and versatility of their airframes.
-
The biggest problem for the Mossie XVI when comparing it to the Tu-2S is, in my opinion, the lack of versatility in its bomb loads. It can take a cookie in the bomb bay, but that is total overkill for most targets, while the alternative is only 500lb bombs which work well on some targets, but are inadequate for many important targets.
The Tu-2S' two 1000kg bombs coupled with another 1000kg bomb or two 500kg bombs or with four 250kg bombs is a much more useful package.
-
I notice since i came back puffy ack around CVs has been strengthened against level bombers flying over head. Im losing TUs to it at 9 or 10K which NEVER happened before. No complaints. I think its a good thing. I just never noticed cause I never hunted Cvs since coming back before the TU was brought in.
Before if you got over the CV at 8K in 26s you were safe and the CV was dead. It was just to easy before.
-
I notice since i came back puffy ack around CVs has been strengthened against level bombers flying over head. Im losing TUs to it at 9 or 10K which NEVER happened before.
It hasn't been strenghtened. You just had some bad luck recently (and the Tu-2 isn't all that durable as well)
-
Fact is, the Tu-2S is very frail for a bomber... Killed one with just three 20mm hit sprites seen. In contrast, the A-20 is a flying tank. It's vulnerable in the front due to front armor not being modeled (heavy armor plate and armored glass). But, from any other angle it's stout. Along with one other guy, I took off to meet a big raid, mostly Typhoons. They shot off my landing gear, one aileron, the rudder, one elevator, the rear turret, both engines were leaking oil. I shot down three fighters, and had three assists (damned Wirbles!). As I tried to belly-in the A-20, now out of ammo, gas and oil, a Ta 152 nailed me as I was on short final. Nothing else in this game can fight off 15 fighters and absorb that much damage, while remaining flyable.
-
Fact is, the Tu-2S is very frail for a bomber... Killed one with just three 20mm hit sprites seen.
Interesting considering I pumped a dozen 30mm's into one TU2 in a formation in order to bring it down, then the second one took a half a dozen more and got a lucky single ping pilot kill.
-
Fact is, the Tu-2S is very frail for a bomber... Killed one with just three 20mm hit sprites seen. In contrast, the A-20 is a flying tank. It's vulnerable in the front due to front armor not being modeled (heavy armor plate and armored glass). But, from any other angle it's stout. Along with one other guy, I took off to meet a big raid, mostly Typhoons. They shot off my landing gear, one aileron, the rudder, one elevator, the rear turret, both engines were leaking oil. I shot down three fighters, and had three assists (damned Wirbles!). As I tried to belly-in the A-20, now out of ammo, gas and oil, a Ta 152 nailed me as I was on short final. Nothing else in this game can fight off 15 fighters and absorb that much damage, while remaining flyable.
A-20 is freakishly tough for its weight of airplane. The Tu-2S is a very light bomber, being only slightly heavier empty than an empty Mossie so its durability is about what I'd expect.
-
Pretty cool plane in that a single sortie can see you landing 14,000 damage from a single plane, chasing down a b29 near 30,000 feet and shooting it dow, and killing a fighter in an extended dogfight when you found it attacking your intended landing field.
-
B-29 has 50 mph on the Tu-2S at 30k...
-
B-29 has 50 mph on the Tu-2S at 30k...
Empty, with about 30 minutes of fuel, the B-29 is 60 mph faster than the Tu-2S at 30k.
-
Even worse... Makes interception very difficult.
-
It's only the best if sufficiently qualified. In intuitive terms, consider, though, which of the comparators requires the most preparation for an attack? I know that I spend a lot more time cup-checking and gaining position before attacking any of the heavies and also the 25 and 26 because of their defensive firepower/aspect.
-
A-20 is freakishly tough for its weight of airplane. The Tu-2S is a very light bomber, being only slightly heavier empty than an empty Mossie so its durability is about what I'd expect.
The A-20G can sure take a beating. It may shed a lot of parts, but the wings stay on and it rarely burns.
Last night during just two sorties with one re-arm, I shot down 5 Lancasters, 3 B-26, 1 B-24, 1 B-17, 1 Panzer, 1 T-34/85, sank a cruiser, and had 5 assists. No damage during the 1 st sortie, one engine leaking oil on the second sortie (ship ack). 6 guns in the nose, with plenty of ammo make it very lethal.
The A-20 I lost (mentioned in the previous post), had both engines quit and I was trying to deadstick land it, when a Ta 152 shot off my remaining elevator. Without power, the nose can't be raised and I crashed. Keep in mind, that many A-20s are lost due to losing the wings in high g maneuvers. They are also very susceptible to pilot wounds and deaths to shots from the front quadrant. I'm hoping that when the A-20/Boston gets its update, that HTC models the front pilot armor. Also, they should have enough photos to model the ventral .50 cal MG. Likewise, many of the exported G models (to the Soviets) were fitted with four 20mm Hispanos. I'd like to see that too (even as a perked option). Adding the A-20J with glazed nose would be nice (retaining 2 forward firing .50 cal MGs).
-
Even worse... Makes interception very difficult.
Yet I have chunks of b29 in my stool.
-
The B-29 is the best bomber due to bombload, defensive capabilities and range.
The TU-2 is a medium bomber at best with a shorter range than heavy buffs. As Earl pointed out, there are a few blind spots that the TU-2 cannot cover.
The B-29 is still the dominant bomber of the game, with the B-17G and the B-24J tied for second place. The TU-2 is a fragile plane. A B-29, 17, or 24 can take much more damage than a TU-2 can. I'm not going to put it against you though, because the TU-2 is a medium bomber.
As for speed, as GScholz pointed out, the B-29 has 50 mph on the TU-2 at 30k, but this would be dependent on bomb load and fuel load.
Oh and, They don't call it the Superfortress for nothing :)
-
TU-2S is a great bomber, and it is one of the greatest as everyone else has said because it is so versatile. You can use it for alot of things and it does pretty well for all of them, but when people compare it to a 17 or 29 i believe that the american heavy bombers have it beat in high altitude, formation bombing. Everything else though, it holds its own pretty well.
-
The A-20G can sure take a beating. It may shed a lot of parts, but the wings stay on and it rarely burns.
Last night during just two sorties with one re-arm, I shot down 5 Lancasters, 3 B-26, 1 B-24, 1 B-17, 1 Panzer, 1 T-34/85, sank a cruiser, and had 5 assists. No damage during the 1 st sortie, one engine leaking oil on the second sortie (ship ack). 6 guns in the nose, with plenty of ammo make it very lethal.
The A-20 I lost (mentioned in the previous post), had both engines quit and I was trying to deadstick land it, when a Ta 152 shot off my remaining elevator. Without power, the nose can't be raised and I crashed. Keep in mind, that many A-20s are lost due to losing the wings in high g maneuvers. They are also very susceptible to pilot wounds and deaths to shots from the front quadrant. I'm hoping that when the A-20/Boston gets its update, that HTC models the front pilot armor. Also, they should have enough photos to model the ventral .50 cal MG. Likewise, many of the exported G models (to the Soviets) were fitted with four 20mm Hispanos. I'd like to see that too (even as a perked option). Adding the A-20J with glazed nose would be nice (retaining 2 forward firing .50 cal MGs).
I'd be willing to bet that the armor is modeled, just as it is on the P-38s and Mossie VI which also suffer many more pilot wounds than singe engined fighters do.
The core durability of the A-20G is excessive as compared to other aircraft in its general weight category.
As to the 20mm, sure, but only if perked. If added without being perked you'd almost never see the historically common version in the game.
XxDaSTaRxx,
By usage the Lancaster is the dominant bomber in the game.
-
The bottom line is the TU-2S damage model is under modeled. I doubt this will be fixed so it is what it is. Any medium bomber with an almost 45 year service life is not going to be "fragile". This thing had a reputation for being tough! I dont think its drastically under modeled but I do believe it is. Heck run into the wrong guy in a 262 and you'll lose 3 26s in one pass also.
Many fine points made here and you have to look at the big picture. Nothing is ever going to touch the 29 at what its good at. The 17 is always going to be a tough work horse. Theres a reason the Lanc was feared and those cities burned at night. But to be honest i think if you cut out the "bomb and bailers" the Lanc would be seen used less then the TU.
But if I had to pick an "all around work horse"? The one Bomber that can "do it all". I think the TU-2S has set a new standard.
-
The B-29 is the best bomber due to bombload, defensive capabilities and range.
I agree, if we only include piston engined bombers.
-
The Tu-2S is a great all-rounder medium bomber/strike aircraft. Ideally suited for the MA environment.
-
The Tu-2 fits the present game dynamic well because it can take out 4 hangers per mission. That's closing down a small airfields fighters and vehicles or all a vehicle fields hangers.
It joins a small club of planes that can do this....
If up coming changes alter this then it's role may change also.
-
XxDaSTaRxx,
By usage the Lancaster is the dominant bomber in the game.
By usage. The B-29 is perked, which makes it an awfully rare bird to see. It outdoes the lanc in payload, range, and defense, as it will any bomber.
-
By usage. The B-29 is perked, which makes it an awfully rare bird to see. It outdoes the lanc in payload, range, and defense, as it will any bomber.
Defense is very arguable... There are two bombers in the game that don't really need guns for defense.
-
Defense is very arguable... There are two bombers in the game that don't really need guns for defense.
The two that showed the future direction for bombers to take in the post WWII world...
-
Indeed.
-
Indubitably
-
What happens to your no gun bombers when a 163 rolls around? Bow down and hope he doesn't blow your mosquito to pieces? :P
-
What happens to your no gun bombers when a 163 rolls around? Bow down and hope he doesn't blow your mosquito to pieces? :P
that is the kind of thinking that sent thousands of young men to die in big slow and useless heavy bombers. The main contribution of gunners in reality was to multiply the death toll. In the game, once the 163 is on you it matters not what you fly. In a SINGLE mossie you can at least maneuver and spoil his shot. of course the whole idea of a fast bomber is not to get intercepted at all, so the question is wrong at its starting point.
-
For a good time take a mossie and turn tracers off and loiter over strats killing everything that tries to ho you. Get them on the first pass because once they realise youre not the bomber kind they will dive away.
-
Interesting considering I pumped a dozen 30mm's into one TU2 in a formation in order to bring it down, then the second one took a half a dozen more and got a lucky single ping pilot kill.
Chack this out. Might explain a lot regarding the 30 mm issues of late.
Just finished some offline destruction testing with the 30mm and 37mm.
K4, Ta152, Yak 9T, Il2, Mossi, 262, 410, and 110 G2.
The bombers are tougher now. The B25 can sustain up to 5 hits before showing serious damage. The B17 and Lanc if I didn't aim for the pilots compartment, took up to 17 individual 30\37mm to completely dismantle them before achieving an explosion. The tail structures of the bombers I tested absorbed lots of damage. Cutting off wings at the root took up to 4. One to two would take off the wing tips. Fires took between 1 to 3 hits. That was kind of random across all of the bombers I tested shooting single shots from single gun installations.
One shot kills as always depended on a shallow bank landing the round into the side or top of the pilots compartment.
Depending on the fighter and where the round landed, it could take up to 3 hits to kill the fighter.
The best short burst kills on everything were from the IL2, Mossi, 410 30mm\20mm load out, 262, and the 110 G with 2 30mm and 4 20mm. The 2 30mm in the 110 for some reason shooting alone are easier to aim and hit with on fighters to 400 than other Mk108 packages.
-
Sounds about right. According to German tests it took an average of five 30mm rounds (concentrated in one area of a wing) to bring down a four-engined bomber. It took twenty 20mm rounds to do the same.
Raking the fuselage had little effect other than killing crew. When you see Luftwaffe gun cam footage, you see that after they've killed the tail gunner and ball turret they switch to targeting the wings and engine nacelles.
Oh, and in real life hitting a bomber was a lot more difficult than in AH. The formations of heavy bombers created so much turbulence/prop wash behind them that a small fighter would bounce around a lot. In his book Heinz Knocke wrote that on occasion it was so bad he thought his 109 was going to fall apart. In AH no turbulence or other adverse atmospheric conditions are modeled, except wind.
-
The greatest weakness of the Tu-2S is that it has no counter to flank attacks by fighters. However, the fighter must be in position before the formation arrives. A tail chase will consume many miles to get in position. A lot can occur in that time.
This has been my experience when fighting it in a bf110G. If you are in position, a slashing attack from the flank is almost guaranteed to kill at least one in the formation...if not all three if you rake it across. The big cavet is IF you are in position....the damn things are fast for bombers.
I still consider the B26 to be the tougher medium bomber to fight kill, but the TU2 can be a tough nut to crack no doubt.
-
"Best"? That is such an over used term.
It is better to evaluate aircraft based on which role you want it to fill. Likewise, it is hard to place the title of "best" on anything, even in a certain role. In terms of delivering ordnance the Tu-2 is a splendid platform. It carries well enough ordnance, it climbs well, and flies fast. However, it is limited defensively and on range respectively in comparison. No matter how you try and cut it, the Tu-2 is medium bomber. It can't bring the hurt to the strategic targets like a B17, B24, Lancaster, or B29. Or even the Ju88. Sure, it can haul triple 1000kg bombs (2200lbs), but there goes that climb and speed that was so fondly mentioned earlier. Otherwise, it can carry 4/500kg bombs which in itself is respectable.
Where the Tu-2 excels is in the short or medium range strikes in which the goal is to hit hard and get out. If it is used in conjunction with heavy fighters or other attack aircraft it works nicely. The pair of 20mm is a nice addition and can polish off any last few buildings or ack guns.
It is certainly an aircraft unique unto itself. Is it best at anything? Nah. It is good at a lot of things? Indeed it is.
-
So let me ask this? Is it the most versatile?
And is not versatility synonymous with "best"?
Also I'd like to test its range sometime with fuel management.
-
Or even the Ju88.
I'd be hard pressed to see a way in which the Ju88A-4 bests the Tu-2S. It is also short ranged, but slower, less defenses, lighter bomb load for strategic targets and so on. The only thing I can think of where the Ju88A-4 is superior is in its ability to absorb punishment.
-
that is the kind of thinking that sent thousands of young men to die in big slow and useless heavy bombers. The main contribution of gunners in reality was to multiply the death toll. In the game, once the 163 is on you it matters not what you fly. In a SINGLE mossie you can at least maneuver and spoil his shot. of course the whole idea of a fast bomber is not to get intercepted at all, so the question is wrong at its starting point.
All do respect sir, I don't think a mossie can outrun a 163. And claiming the bombers were useless? Absolutely blows my mind how anybody could think such a thing, even if the 8th AF didn't achieve all it had wanted to with the bombers. And maybe with a single mossie you can maneuver and ruin the 163's shot, but what if you had taken drones? The B-17G was an easier opponent, but may I remind you we are talking in game standards. Let's not bring up the real war. The mossie is a hard target to reach. You wouldn't have to make yourself a hard target to reach, if you were a hard target to kill. :airplane:
-
A B-17 is not a hard target to kill. Not in the game, nor in the real war. Mossie is/was far more survivable.
-
From the Hey look what I found thread.
Bomber losses mounted to such an extent in 1942-43 as to threaten the ongoing strategic bombing campaign as a whole. The RAF responded with an increasingly technological approach, emphasizing electronic warfare, radar, early warning receivers and other electronics. Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett, Commanding Officer of Bomber Command's Pathfinder Force, made a serious argument that since gunnery could not protect them, the large, heavy four-engined bombers, with their seven crew members, should be replaced by the twin-engined de Havilland Mosquito. As one report states, Bennett pointed out:
* Mosquito carries to Berlin half the bomb load carried by a Lancaster, but...
* Mosquito loss rate is just 1/10 of Lancasters' loss rate
* Mosquito costs a third of the cost of a Lancaster
* Mosquito has a crew of two, compared to a Lancaster's crew of seven
* Mosquito was a proven precision day bomber and the Lancaster was not.
Bennett added that any way you do the math with those data, "It's quite clear that the value of the Mosquito to the war effort is significantly greater than that of any other aircraft in the history of aviation". In the German side, Erhard Milch, the deputy head of the Luftwaffe, said about the Mosquito "I fear that one day the British will start attacking with masses of this aircraft". But in one of the greatest allied mistakes in World War 2, bomber command persisted with its heavy bombers, and less than 1/4 of the Mosquitoes produced were of bomber types.
The Mosquito, of course, carried no defensive armament at all, relying on its speed to evade attack. This foreshadowed the way in which modern jet bomber and strike aircraft seek to avoid enemy attack.
-
A B-17 is not a hard target to kill. Not in the game, nor in the real war. Mossie is/was far more survivable.
"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But to curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes." Hans Philipp in a letter to Hannes Trautloft, 4 October 1943.
That's closer to my opinion.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/015-goForIt-Image-0024.jpg)
-
From the Hey look what I found thread.
This data may be accurate, but for the scenario that actually occurred - one in which the vast bulk of sorties, loads delivered, and Luftwaffe focus was all 4-engined heavy. Change it up to mass formations of Mosquitos and all that data would also change. I'll grant that the interception is more difficult. However, I don't think attacking those formations was Anything like trivial. Indeed, just for an anecdote, guy sajer's book cites a raid on tempelhof in which, of the 30 190's scrambled, not a one came back without damage.
-
Mossies didn't fly in formation on the way to Berlin for a reason. It would only make them more vulnerable.
In AH I think theTu-2S is a more useful type than the Mossie XVI though.
-
Attacking a formation of heavy bombers may have been frightening, but without fighter escort the bombers were sitting ducks. Even with fighter escort the Luftwaffe lost only one fighter for every three bombers they shot down. In 1943 the 8th AF's losses became unsustainable and they were withdrawn from Germany until the P-51 arrived in numbers in early 1944.
A nice machinima of Heinz Knocke's diaries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWoh67V-C4
-
A-20 is freakishly tough for its weight of airplane. The Tu-2S is a very light bomber, being only slightly heavier empty than an empty Mossie so its durability is about what I'd expect.
I went offline and set up my drones as follows...
Ju 88
He 111
Ki-67
A-20G
Mossy 16
Tu-2S
I took a P-38J and attacked each several times, from various angles.
The weakest appears to be the Mossy, followed by the Tu-2S. Next I found the Ki-67, He 111, Ju 88 and A-20G very equal, and all were very similar in absorbing damage. I think, perhaps, that the A-20G is less likely to burn....
-
the mossy is very prone to fire and pilots wounds. In the XVI I can understand it because it had no armor, though the VI that has armor still take PW from small calibers fired from dead 6.
It is difficult so estimate the durability of the B.XVI in game because I so rarely take hits in it. The VI is unimpressive for a twin - many single engine fighters are more durable.
-
I don't think the AH Mosquito's damage model is very faithfully reflecting it's real world construction. Losing one wing seems a little absurd to me for a start off. I assumed the Yak's extreme toughness was partially attributable to its wooden construction (although I know very little about Yaks).
-
A nice machinima of Heinz Knocke's diaries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWoh67V-C4
Wow, that is well done!
-
Yeah, I though it was an impressive feat for a gang of sim enthusiasts.
-
A B-17 is not a hard target to kill. Not in the game, nor in the real war. Mossie is/was far more survivable.
Unless the B17s are 999000, or Shawk, or one of the other B17 "experten". Those guys end up changing the anticipation of three quick kills into a personal tragedy. :frown:
Aimbot bastages. :D
-
Either unperk mosquito or perk tu2s as well...
-
:lol
-
Either unperk mosquito or perk tu2s as well...
No. Survivability and range are massively on the Mossie's side.
-
Yeah, I though it was an impressive feat for a gang of sim enthusiasts.
Knoke was a very interesting guy. His biography is an excellent read. On August 25th, 1944, Knoke's leading his unit, joined a number of other Luftwaffe fighters scrambled in response to huge numbers of Allied fighters inbound. Knoke had recently returned to flight status after suffering a head injury when shot down in April. They ended up in a big fight with the 354th FG. Knoke shot down a P-51, while being shot down by another P-51 himself.
No one knows which Mustang Knoke clobbered. However, one P-51 returned to field A-31 badly shot-up (I forget the pilot's name). In the middle 1990s, during a review of the group's records, it was discovered that some German pilot may have deserved one more kill. How so, when it returned to base? A Bf 109 had shot out the Mustang's hydraulic system. When the pilot limped back to A-31, he attempted to lower his gear without hydraulic pressure. When the landing gear emergency release handle is pulled, the gear unlocks and will drop down partially under its own weight. The pilot shook the Mustang vigorously with the ailerons. The right gear locked. The left did not. After several failed attempts to lock it down, the pilot was ordered to bail out, rather than risk landing with one down, which he did. The P-51 was destroyed. Ironically, it was later discovered that the low time P-51 pilot had not actually followed emergency procedures. When shaking the gear down, one should do so while holding the emergency handle full back. This pilot failed to do so, and the one gear didn't lock. A pilot could also "crab" the aircraft to get some aerodynamic force to assist getting the recalcitrant gear to lock. The P-51, however, lacks the aileron force to maintain a "crabbed" attitude very long. Anyway, for this reason, a historian argued at the time that the P-51 was lost due to pilot error rather than being shot down. Naturally, there is much disagreement on this. I think some undetermined German pilot deserved the victory credit. I wonder how many of these types of losses never get reported as being due to enemy action?
It is also interesting to note that by late 1944, emergency policy evolved somewhat. When showing no hydraulic pressure due to damage resulting from enemy fire, a P-51 pilot was sometimes advised NOT to attempt to lower the gear, but perform a belly landing. The reason for this was that the hydraulic failure resulting from damage may be accompanied by other damage to structure and/or systems. Attempting to lower the gear may create a greater problem. Once a P-51 is on the ground and the engine shut off, the flaps and landing gear doors will gradually lower. Landing gear is retained up by mechanical locks, which can be manually unlocked with the emergency handle.
That said, August 25th was not a good day for the Luftwaffe in France. The 355th FG squadron of the 354th FG, was credited with 25 kills (Knoke being one of them), against three losses (including the one lost over field A-31). One 367th FG (flying P-38Ls and late J models) pilot, Capt. L. E. Blumer, shot down 5 Fw 190s in 7 minutes over St.-Quentin in his P-38L. All confirmed via gun camera and witnesses. The 367th claimed another 4 air to air, and 27 on the ground (some were bomber and transport types). That day, in France, a total of 77 Luftwaffe fighters were claimed as destroyed in air to air combat, and 27 on the ground that day by TAC pilots. 11 USAAF fighter losses were credited to all causes. Another 20 German fighters were claimed as destroyed on the ground by 20th FG Mustangs flying airdrome fighter sweeps. August 25th effectively ended the Luftwaffe's fighter presence in France.
Claims for August 25th by 8th AF and 9th AF fighters over France amounted to 77 claimed shot down, 7 damaged, plus 47 (all types) claimed destroyed on the ground. The primary goal of August 25th air ops was to destroy what remained of the Luftwaffe in France. It largely succeeded.
-
Luv the TU-2S. Good bomb load, good speed, but defence is a little weak on the sides.
-
No. Survivability and range are massively on the Mossie's side.
True. 162 Mossie 16s were lost in tour 169. Of these, only 49 were lost to aircraft fast enough to chase them down at 25,000 feet. Based upon what shot down the rest, and what the Mossies killed, I'd wager that most were lost at low to medium altitude, where the Mossie 16's speed is not as much of a factor.
Up at or above 25k, and the Mossie 16 is very hard to intercept. If you're not in an Me 163, or already at altitude, the Mossie 16 is almost untouchable. Fly it how it was supposed to be flown and you'll have great success. Take them in low, and you'll be unhappy.
-
Since a properly flown tu2 sortie usually has enemy climbing up to get you, drop your bombs and rope the enemy fighter.
He won't expect you to suddenly whip around and attack him and you can often catch them at very slow speeds
A tu2 coming down with energy advantage will result in you shooting the fighter down or him diving away so you land, rearm, and give it another go.
-
"According to German tests it took an average of five 30mm rounds (concentrated in one area of a wing) to bring down a four-engined bomber. It took twenty 20mm rounds to do the same. "
I have never seen such definition which you put in parenthesis and the amount was actually four for 30mm. I have only seen it claimed that on average it took 4 rounds of 30mm and about 25 rounds of 20mm to bring down a "Flying Fortress" without further definition of the exact type meant or where they had to be hit. This leads me to think that one of those four hits would likely (or statistically) produce fatal damage that would bring the bomber down, either by a fuel fire or fatal structural damage.
Considering that on same statistics it was included that on average only 4% of rounds fired generally hit the target, I find it hard to believe they could concentrate their fire on a particular area of the plane.
-C+
-
I may be mistaken, but I remember it being 5 rounds and concentrated. The 4% statistic is irrelevant since it represents all air combat, not just attacking large aircraft flying straight and level. In Vietnam the US expended 50,000 rounds of ammunition for every NVA/VC killed. That doesn't mean a rifleman had to shoot 50,000 rounds to hit someone. If you have ever watched Luftwaffe gun cam footage you can clearly see they aim for specific parts of the bomber when they get close enough. When they saddled up on a bomber they went for the gunners first, then the wings. In head-on attacks they tried to get the cockpit.
-
I'd be hard pressed to see a way in which the Ju88A-4 bests the Tu-2S. It is also short ranged, but slower, less defenses, lighter bomb load for strategic targets and so on. The only thing I can think of where the Ju88A-4 is superior is in its ability to absorb punishment.
I agree with most of your assessment of the Ju88 vs Tu-2, but in terms able to damage the strats the Ju88 is superior.
The Ju88 can spread damage out with the 4/500kg and the 20/50kg bombs. The no matter which bomb load taken on the Tu-2 the total area destroyed will be less.
-
The only thing 50kg bombs can destroy at strats are gun emplacements. The Tu-2S' two 1000kg bomb and two 500kg/four 250kg loadout is functionally as good at strat smashing as anything the Ju88A-4 can take.
-
Luv the TU-2S. Good bomb load, good speed, but defence is a little weak on the sides.
Getting a little better defensive performance going to side aircraft, I have a mini control pad that allows me to switch aircraft, and rolling to get the attackers into my sight. Im at the point now where Im damaging every single that attacks me, most of all 262s. But I just cant seem to put most of them down. Im not even starting to think about shooting until they are 600 away and often wait until 400. With my gunnery improving I think I'll be able to defend against a single or a double, but yeah, its no B26. Funny tho it has a far better K/D then the 26, "GV killing no doubt".
Since I level bomb in Historical correct ways I depend on speed and avoid the conga line into the targets, 2 pass and haul az$.
-
Funny tho it has a far better K/D then the 26, "GV killing no doubt".
A2A K/D Tour 169:
Tu-2 0.26
B-26 0.41
A-20 0.56
-
A2A K/D Tour 169:
Tu-2 0.26
B-26 0.41
A-20 0.56
WAPOW
Just guessing Rich ? That don't work too well here homey.
-
:headscratch:
-
WAPOW
Just guessing Rich ? That don't work too well here homey.
Funny slick, Im showing a 0.36 for the TU2.A 0.30 for the B26. And a 1.18 for the A20. Thats for tour 169.
What part of this but yeah, its no B26. Funny tho it has a far better K/D then the 26, "GV killing no doubt".
did you fail to understand?
-
As bomber or "attack"?
-
Knoke was a very interesting guy. His biography is an excellent read. On August 25th, 1944, Knoke's leading his unit, joined a number of other Luftwaffe fighters scrambled in response to huge numbers of Allied fighters inbound. Knoke had recently returned to flight status after suffering a head injury when shot down in April. They ended up in a big fight with the 354th FG. Knoke shot down a P-51, while being shot down by another P-51 himself.
No one knows which Mustang Knoke clobbered. However, one P-51 returned to field A-31 badly shot-up (I forget the pilot's name). In the middle 1990s, during a review of the group's records, it was discovered that some German pilot may have deserved one more kill. How so, when it returned to base? A Bf 109 had shot out the Mustang's hydraulic system. When the pilot limped back to A-31, he attempted to lower his gear without hydraulic pressure. When the landing gear emergency release handle is pulled, the gear unlocks and will drop down partially under its own weight. The pilot shook the Mustang vigorously with the ailerons. The right gear locked. The left did not. After several failed attempts to lock it down, the pilot was ordered to bail out, rather than risk landing with one down, which he did. The P-51 was destroyed. Ironically, it was later discovered that the low time P-51 pilot had not actually followed emergency procedures. When shaking the gear down, one should do so while holding the emergency handle full back. This pilot failed to do so, and the one gear didn't lock. A pilot could also "crab" the aircraft to get some aerodynamic force to assist getting the recalcitrant gear to lock. The P-51, however, lacks the aileron force to maintain a "crabbed" attitude very long. Anyway, for this reason, a historian argued at the time that the P-51 was lost due to pilot error rather than being shot down. Naturally, there is much disagreement on this. I think some undetermined German pilot deserved the victory credit. I wonder how many of these types of losses never get reported as being due to enemy action?
It is also interesting to note that by late 1944, emergency policy evolved somewhat. When showing no hydraulic pressure due to damage resulting from enemy fire, a P-51 pilot was sometimes advised NOT to attempt to lower the gear, but perform a belly landing. The reason for this was that the hydraulic failure resulting from damage may be accompanied by other damage to structure and/or systems. Attempting to lower the gear may create a greater problem. Once a P-51 is on the ground and the engine shut off, the flaps and landing gear doors will gradually lower. Landing gear is retained up by mechanical locks, which can be manually unlocked with the emergency handle.
That said, August 25th was not a good day for the Luftwaffe in France. The 355th FG squadron of the 354th FG, was credited with 25 kills (Knoke being one of them), against three losses (including the one lost over field A-31). One 367th FG (flying P-38Ls and late J models) pilot, Capt. L. E. Blumer, shot down 5 Fw 190s in 7 minutes over St.-Quentin in his P-38L. All confirmed via gun camera and witnesses. The 367th claimed another 4 air to air, and 27 on the ground (some were bomber and transport types). That day, in France, a total of 77 Luftwaffe fighters were claimed as destroyed in air to air combat, and 27 on the ground that day by TAC pilots. 11 USAAF fighter losses were credited to all causes. Another 20 German fighters were claimed as destroyed on the ground by 20th FG Mustangs flying airdrome fighter sweeps. August 25th effectively ended the Luftwaffe's fighter presence in France.
Claims for August 25th by 8th AF and 9th AF fighters over France amounted to 77 claimed shot down, 7 damaged, plus 47 (all types) claimed destroyed on the ground. The primary goal of August 25th air ops was to destroy what remained of the Luftwaffe in France. It largely succeeded.
I missed this post... Yes. As soon as the Luftwaffe was forced into a war of attrition, fighter-to-fighter, the game was up. Against unescorted bombers the Luftwaffe could inflict unsustainable losses on the Allied air forces, but when sufficient long range escorts became available the tables were turned. Knoke was an interesting guy for sure, but he was also a devote national socialist, even after the war. He became a politician for the Sozialistische Reichspartei, an openly neo-Nazi party that was banned in the early '50s. He mellowed in the '60s and continued his political career in the center-right of German politics.
-
As bomber or "attack"?
Its a Bomber. To me its a "Bomber". Check out the title of the thread for reference.
-
I missed this post... Yes. As soon as the Luftwaffe was forced into a war of attrition, fighter-to-fighter, the game was up. Against unescorted bombers the Luftwaffe could inflict unsustainable losses on the Allied air forces, but when sufficient long range escorts became available the tables were turned. Knoke was an interesting guy for sure, but he was also a devote national socialist, even after the war. He became a politician for the Sozialistische Reichspartei, an openly neo-Nazi party that was banned in the early '50s. He mellowed in the '60s and continued his political career in the center-right of German politics.
This is counterintuitive to me - the unclaimed p-51 -in that, I thought that, generally, claims exceeded kills. Apparently not always...
As for his postwar life, I believe the following phrase applies: "who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I suspect such was even more widespread on the eastern side, although latent.
-
Getting a little better defensive performance going to side aircraft, I have a mini control pad that allows me to switch aircraft, and rolling to get the attackers into my sight. Im at the point now where Im damaging every single that attacks me, most of all 262s. But I just cant seem to put most of them down. Im not even starting to think about shooting until they are 600 away and often wait until 400. With my gunnery improving I think I'll be able to defend against a single or a double, but yeah, its no B26. Funny tho it has a far better K/D then the 26, "GV killing no doubt".
Since I level bomb in Historical correct ways I depend on speed and avoid the conga line into the targets, 2 pass and haul az$.
How do you switch bombers? I thought the only way to switch planes was to bail, and then end up in another.
-
How do you switch bombers?
You can jump planes in gunner position only, ctrl-1,2,3
-
I would say Tu-2S isn't the Best bomber... it is the most efficient as long as you are willing to return to the base and not having a fast ride home when 10 fighters rip you apart at 10K over an enemy town.
I'll explain.
When you fly a bomber one of the most important factors is how many targets you can destroy/drop bombs at important target for a given amount of time.
To fly B-17/B-24/Lancaster efficiently (with good chance to return home) you need to climb high enough, accelerate in a friendly environment, setup your course to relevant targets, i.e. get information about what is still needed to be destroyed - which hangars/town and hope that the data would be still relevant when you over a filed), pass over your target destroy what needed make sure you look around, escape safely and land to go for the next target.
For correct B-17/B-24/Lancaster bomber flying each turn around would take at least 30-40 min. Because, climb takes time, acceleration etc. In many cases the information wouldn't be up to date because: hangars were rebuild or already destroyed, the base captured so you need to turn to another field hoping that the bombs would actually be useful (i.e. there is an attack on the field)
Now when I look on Tu-2... in comparison to the all the bombers I mentioned above:
1. It climbs much faster
2. It cruises much faster
3. It has similar bomb load
It significantly shortens turn around time. In the time B-17 runs one sorties I'll complete two. Having higher speed is much better defense than having better weapons (Ar-234/Mosquito XVI). If you navigate correctly have enough altitude and speed the chances of being intercepted are much lower. And even if somebody gets to intercept you, most likely he would be in your rear zone.
So it becomes very efficient plane for pilots who wants to live.
BTW my favorite bombers are (not in particular order):
Tu-2S, Ki-67, Boston, Mosquito XVI, Ar-234.
If you take a look on Boston vs Tu-2S performance charts you'll how similar they are in their performance, but Tu-2S has better bomb load and better defense armament.
They are all great in getting to the target without being intercepted, make a damage and escape (and to it without get bored)
-
You can jump planes in gunner position only, ctrl-1,2,3
Thanks Lusche! That's what I love about this game; still learning things about it after several years.
-
It is of course, hilarious to kill 190's hoing you with those deadly nose 20's
-
And hopefully not a Bf-410 with a 50mm HOing that B-29
-
TAKE THIS TU-2 DWEEBS!
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359920.0.html
Let's see your TU-2 do that!
:ahand
-
The only thing 50kg bombs can destroy at strats are gun emplacements. The Tu-2S' two 1000kg bomb and two 500kg/four 250kg loadout is functionally as good at strat smashing as anything the Ju88A-4 can take.
wanna bet?
If I can get to the strats in a fully loaded and fueled formation of Ju88's, not only can I bring the ordnance factory down to to 70%-ish, I can also destroy 10 city blocks. I'd make three passes total, 2 on the ordnance factory and 1 on the city.
The Tu-2 can't do that. While the weight may be there it is too concentrated. The larger splash area of the 2/1000kg bombs and 2/500kg bombs do not make up for the 4/500kg bombs and 20/50kg bombs. With all that being said, the Tu-2 has a much higher probability of getting home, and equally important is getting the job done faster.
There is a reason I like the Ar234, Mossi B Mk 16, and other such fast movers and it isn't for survivability: the job gets done faster. I can get there, get the job done, and RTB faster than chuggin' along in a behemoth 4 engine bomber, B29 included.
-
The only thing 50kg bombs can destroy at strats are gun emplacements. The Tu-2S' two 1000kg bomb and two 500kg/four 250kg loadout is functionally as good at strat smashing as anything the Ju88A-4 can take.
Not true. The 50kg's are more than capable of doing the job. How you salvo them out is the problem. The Tu-2s is a poor choice for strat runs vs the Ju-88.
-
wanna bet?
If I can get to the strats in a fully loaded and fueled formation of Ju88's, not only can I bring the ordnance factory down to to 70%-ish, I can also destroy 10 city blocks. I'd make three passes total, 2 on the ordnance factory and 1 on the city.
The Tu-2 can't do that. While the weight may be there it is too concentrated. The larger splash area of the 2/1000kg bombs and 2/500kg bombs do not make up for the 4/500kg bombs and 20/50kg bombs. With all that being said, the Tu-2 has a much higher probability of getting home, and equally important is getting the job done faster.
There is a reason I like the Ar234, Mossi B Mk 16, and other such fast movers and it isn't for survivability: the job gets done faster. I can get there, get the job done, and RTB faster than chuggin' along in a behemoth 4 engine bomber, B29 included.
I wouldn't take the two 1000kg and two 500kg load on the Tu-2S to strats. I'd take the two 1000kg bombs and the four 250kg bombs. That gives six city structures at least, more if you place the 1000kg bombs well.
-
I wouldn't take the two 1000kg and two 500kg load on the Tu-2S to strats. I'd take the two 1000kg bombs and the four 250kg bombs. That gives six city structures at least, more if you place the 1000kg bombs well.
Not a problem. Any way you compare the two bombers in terms of spread out damage (remember, you only need 312 lbs dmg for factory buildings and 832 lbs [?] for city blocks), the Ju88 wins. It is much the same as comparing the Mossi B Mk 16's single cookie to a B26's 4/1000 bombs. You're going to get a larger damage area with the 4/1000 lb bombs than the 1/4000lb cookie.
Again, obviously there are many more traits to look at when comparing the two bombers that brings merit to what each have to offer. With exception to the bomb load comparison while attacking the strats, the Tu-2 is superior to the Ju88 in most measurable attributes. In terms of attacking a field for the purposes of taking out hangers, they are equal (4 hangers down in 2 passes, etc). Bombing a town? I'd give the edge to the Ju88 just like I would the strats.
-
Not a problem. Any way you compare the two bombers in terms of spread out damage (remember, you only need 312 lbs dmg for factory buildings and 832 lbs [?] for city blocks), the Ju88 wins. It is much the same as comparing the Mossi B Mk 16's single cookie to a B26's 4/1000 bombs. You're going to get a larger damage area with the 4/1000 lb bombs than the 1/4000lb cookie.
Again, obviously there are many more traits to look at when comparing the two bombers that brings merit to what each have to offer. With exception to the bomb load comparison while attacking the strats, the Tu-2 is superior to the Ju88 in most measurable attributes. In terms of attacking a field for the purposes of taking out hangers, they are equal (4 hangers down in 2 passes, etc). Bombing a town? I'd give the edge to the Ju88 just like I would the strats.
If HTC models bombs based upon the percentage of explosives to weight ratio, the 4,000 pound bomb will have a much greater total weight of explosives than four 1,000 pound bombs combined. This is due to the 4,000 lb Cookie actually having 3,040 lb of explosives. Four 1,000 lb bombs will have just over 1,300 lbs of explosives combined. This is because the Cookie has a total weight to explosives ratio of 76%. In other words, 76% of the Cookie's weight in explosives. A typical 1,000 pound general purpose bomb has a total weight to explosives ratio of 33% (333 lb of explosive material, usually Amatol 60/40 or RDX/TNT 60/40).
So, if modeled correctly, the Cookie will do far greater damage than four 1,000 lb bombs, regardless of how distributed.
-
So, if modeled correctly, the Cookie will do far greater damage than four 1,000 lb bombs, regardless of how distributed.
In AH, the 4k cookie does about 2350lb of max damage, but at a significantly increased blast radius. Which in turn makes it very effective against large are targets - towns and factories. Maximum damage value doesn't matter that much, as those objects only take 313lbs to be destroyed.
-
If HTC models bombs based upon the percentage of explosives to weight ratio, the 4,000 pound bomb will have a much greater total weight of explosives than four 1,000 pound bombs combined. This is due to the 4,000 lb Cookie actually having 3,040 lb of explosives. Four 1,000 lb bombs will have just over 1,300 lbs of explosives combined. This is because the Cookie has a total weight to explosives ratio of 76%. In other words, 76% of the Cookie's weight in explosives. A typical 1,000 pound general purpose bomb has a total weight to explosives ratio of 33% (333 lb of explosive material, usually Amatol 60/40 or RDX/TNT 60/40).
So, if modeled correctly, the Cookie will do far greater damage than four 1,000 lb bombs, regardless of how distributed.
And that is the kicker, isn't it. HTC takes certain liberties in the name of game play and rightfully so. The cookie and GP bombs are two different monsters, ultimately. I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone that the amount of TNT/explosives does not actually relate to the amount of destruction it can cause. Meaning, the cookie didn't really have anything to disperse in terms of shrapnel in itself, it fully relied upon the target it hit to be fragile enough to be its own shrapnel or not withstand the force of the explosion. General purpose bombs provided their own means of destroying its target. So, it isn't as black and white as your last statement says, it isn't about the weight of the explosives as much as it is the role of the ordnance and the target in which it is dropped on. All one has to do is look at how the British used the 4000 lb cookie and how they used the GP bombs.
Thankfully, HTC has recognized the differences in the hard cased, GP, and SAP/AP ordnance. I sometimes wonder if the bonus/penalty is enough for each category. I would like to think that the HC bombs would be even less effective vs hardened OBJ than they are, and AP bombs would be even more devastating than they are. But, HTC has their damage scales for a reason.
-
In AH, the 4k cookie does about 2350lb of max damage, but at a significantly increased blast radius. Which in turn makes it very effective against large are targets - towns and factories. Maximum damage value doesn't matter that much, as those objects only take 313lbs to be destroyed.
Have you tested bombing accuracy with the HC bombs, namely the British cookie? I'm not so sure the cookie is as "accurate" as say a typical finned bomb. Though I have not actually tested this I wonder if HTC has modeled a larger variable in the flight path of the 4000 lb cookie. Just paying attention while I do drops vs factories I have not noticed any difference.
Also, I'm curious how you came up with 2350 lb of damage for the 4000lb cookie. I have max damage at 2343 lbs. Prior damage was 3125lbs, but with 75% damage of GP bombs it is now 2343 lbs, but with a 125% splash area of what a "normal" GP 4000 lb blast area would be.
-
Also, I'm curious how you came up with 2350 lb of damage for the 4000lb cookie. I have max damage at 2343 lbs..
I wrote "about 2350" ;)
Have you tested bombing accuracy with the HC bombs, namely the British cookie?
No, never had any reaso to do so as my practical experience mirrors yours - Accuracy is no issue in AH.
-
I wrote "about 2350" ;)
No, never had any reaso to do so as my practical experience mirrors yours - Accuracy is no issue in AH.
Meaning: it was an estimate, as opposed to an exactamate. We have similar problems teaching vehicle programs how to do their planning. Engineer types ( I'm not criticizing from the outside but rather as one who practiced for a couple of decades) don't like anything fuzzy.
-
Have you tested bombing accuracy with the HC bombs, namely the British cookie? I'm not so sure the cookie is as "accurate" as say a typical finned bomb. Though I have not actually tested this I wonder if HTC has modeled a larger variable in the flight path of the 4000 lb cookie. Just paying attention while I do drops vs factories I have not noticed any difference.
The answer to this question as it pertains to the real world "Cookie" can be found here...
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60 (http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60)
-
The B17 is a great Bomber but I personally believe the TU-2 is more capable of performing the mission. And that mission is putting a lot of ords on target quickly and getting the hell out of there. The exception is when you have a box of 17s that can defend themselves better. Even there I'd like to get 6 or 7 good Bomber Pilots in TU2S, in a box, and let that 50 mph speed advantage do the talking and defending. Together their lesser gun packages will cover themselves fine and their speed will make it much harder to fighters to set up good passes on them. A few Yaks and LAs will give plenty of cover It worked in '44 and it will work now. We need more imagination with our Bomber missions.
Fighters find it easy to hover over a 17, or a Ronson Lighter, until right before the drop. And then you have to chose whether to fight or drop. THAT is much harder against TUs. IF they can even get into position at all.
Even At 8k your talking like a 70mph speed advantage over 17s and almost double the rate of climb. Taking off from a nearby base your just not giving the enemy time to react. 6 TUs will shut down any base and take down any town with the 2X4 package. A few Yaks and LAs will provide plenty of escort. After the bombs drop the TUs can use their cannon. We need more imagination with Bomber missions. With TUs imagine the speed and climb of a heavy Jabo but with 7 times the ords delivered.
Yes Im a TU2S Dweeb. Proudly so. :D
-
The B17 is a great Bomber but I personally believe the TU-2 is more capable of performing the mission. And that mission is putting a lot of ords on target quickly and getting the hell out of there. The exception is when you have a box of 17s that can defend themselves better. Even there I'd like to get 6 or 7 good Bomber Pilots in TU2S, in a box, and let that 50 mph speed advantage do the talking and defending. Together their lesser gun packages will cover themselves fine and their speed will make it much harder to fighters to set up good passes on them. A few Yaks and LAs will give plenty of cover It worked in '44 and it will work now. We need more imagination with our Bomber missions.
Fighters find it easy to hover over a 17, or a Ronson Lighter, until right before the drop. And then you have to chose whether to fight or drop. THAT is much harder against TUs. IF they can even get into position at all.
Even At 8k your talking like a 70mph speed advantage over 17s and almost double the rate of climb. Taking off from a nearby base your just not giving the enemy time to react. 6 TUs will shut down any base and take down any town with the 2X4 package. A few Yaks and LAs will provide plenty of escort. After the bombs drop the TUs can use their cannon. We need more imagination with Bomber missions. With TUs imagine the speed and climb of a heavy Jabo but with 7 times the ords delivered.
Yes Im a TU2S Dweeb. Proudly so. :D
I'm glad you enjoy the Tu-2, it is indeed a good bomber/attack aircraft without a doubt. However, you're still comparing an apple to an orange to a banana. Pick your bomber based on what you what to accomplish and what time frame you want it accomplished in. There are bombers that are faster. There are bombers that carry more ord. There are bombers that are better defensively. There are bombers that have a name that don't sound like a little girl's dance costume. In any case, enjoy and remember only the Sith deal in absolutes. :aok
-
well since b17s can dive at 525 mph in AH in formation I would say i rather meet tu2s doing stunts than 525mph B17s with blazing gun
-
Last evening, I took a single Tu-2S loaded with three 1,000 kilo bombs to kill a Knit airfield VH that was flooding our Port with tanks. The Knits kept dropping the VH at the port, giving them a big edge. Time to feed them their own medicine. I climbed to 18,500 feet. Arriving at the Knit field, I found one ordnance bunker and the VH up. I dropped the VH on the first pass, and the ordnance on the second pass. I nosed over and dropped to 16,500 feet to take advantage of the tail wind. A P-38 was on a reciprocal heading at about 12k. I was doing about 361 mph ground speed. The P-38 climbed up, but fell hopelessly behind quickly. Later, a Bf 110G was a bit higher (about 14k) and he tried to climb up and gain on me, but the 110G is only marginally faster at that height. He fell well behind too. If not, I was prepared to do a high reverse and shoot it down. But, the 110 was unable to keep up. I made it home without incident. That little single bomber raid reversed the fight for the port.
-
well since b17s can dive at 525 mph in AH in formation I would say i rather meet tu2s doing stunts than 525mph B17s with blazing gun
:headscratch:
I've never pushed my B-17G past 380 in a dive. I've tried too.
I've put her into really steep dives before.
-
Im not a bomber guy, it was a thread about this recently.
:headscratch:
I've never pushed my B-17G past 380 in a dive. I've tried too.
I've put her into really steep dives before.
-
Last evening, I took a single Tu-2S loaded with three 1,000 kilo bombs to kill a Knit airfield VH that was flooding our Port with tanks. The Knits kept dropping the VH at the port, giving them a big edge. Time to feed them their own medicine. I climbed to 18,500 feet. Arriving at the Knit field, I found one ordnance bunker and the VH up. I dropped the VH on the first pass, and the ordnance on the second pass
I made it home without incident. That little single bomber raid reversed the fight for the port.
And that is exactly my point. The TU2S is a game changer whatever its faults may be. For me its one fault is shooting out its rear end. I cripple almost everything that comes at me, often fighting them off, but also often dieing. The thing is it happens almost every time AFTER I accomplish my mission due to the speed of the airplane and the routes i take to the target.
Last night in TU2S I stayed ahead of our offensive, which was a mix of NOE, GV, and standard base grabs. With the 2 X 4 bombload I was given different assignments at both target and peripheral enemy bases to attack VHs, ords, hangars, or towns. With such a fast climb to 10k and delivering such a powerful punch at 310 mph my Bombers were able to support the offensive and get to assignments quickly. RTB'ing quickly. Getting back into the fight quickly.
I suppose I could sum the airplane up, and in doing so I am NOT putting down the faves of others, as a system that has an inordinately large impact on the game when used correctly. One guy in 3 TUs can make a big difference.
-
Im not a bomber guy, it was a thread about this recently.
Was it The one where the B-17s were pushing 525, posted by snailman? Must have been a bug. The b-17s top speed in game is around 400 mph.
-
He111s are prettier :old:
-
He111s are prettier :old:
Yep. And far far easier to kill....they look even prettier when they burn. :D
-
Was it The one where the B-17s were pushing 525, posted by snailman? Must have been a bug. The b-17s top speed in game is around 400 mph.
It's not a bug. At high altitude, B-17s in a shallow dive can get up to over 500mph TAS. They can go so fast that Me-163s have trouble keeping up with them without compressing.
-
It's not a bug. At high altitude, B-17s in a shallow dive can get up to over 500mph TAS. They can go so fast that Me-163s have trouble keeping up with them without compressing.
That sounds like a bug.
Why do you think B-17s had that capability?
-
Whatever a buff formation can do, they can't do it at 500mph+
-
That sounds like a bug.
Why do you think B-17s had that capability?
My understanding was that he was using bug in the sense of the word that it was a one-off, or not something that could be replicated. To me, if B17s were not structurally capable of that, I would categorize it as a (minor) design flaw of the game engine.
-
It's not a bug. At high altitude, B-17s in a shallow dive can get up to over 500mph TAS. They can go so fast that Me-163s have trouble keeping up with them without compressing.
Certainly not. Like I said, the B-17 starts loosing parts at 400, while in real life somewhere in the 300 range.
-
Maybe in AH failure of the airframe is calculated from indicated airspeed and true airspeed does not have an effect?
-
Did it again yesterday. I think it was 131. We were heavily pressed by a CV at a base and I was able to upp TUs, get them to 9k, and make it to the undamaged CV before we lost the base. The CV was being driven by a pro and he did a left turn "most turn right" but i was able to dump the 9 2,000 kg bombs well enough to sink it. After I sunk it we lost the base, theres only so much one set of bombers can do.
No other airplane could have reached a safe height, gotten there so quickly, and delivered such a punch, then the TU2S.
-
No other airplane could have reached a safe height, gotten there so quickly, and delivered such a punch, then the TU2S.
Mossie XVI could, I think, do it functionally as well if formation was used. After you deliver enough to sink the CV, the rest of the damage doesn't matter.
-
Certainly not. Like I said, the B-17 starts loosing parts at 400, while in real life somewhere in the 300 range.
:airplane: If memory serves, and Columbo could answer this better than me, I think the VNE speed is 354MPH, IAS.
-
Maybe in AH failure of the airframe is calculated from indicated airspeed and true airspeed does not have an effect?
:airplane: All restrictions on aircraft are base on indicated airspeeds! True airspeed is something that is of no use, except for navigational purposes.
-
Certainly not. Like I said, the B-17 starts loosing parts at 400, while in real life somewhere in the 300 range.
I have tested it myself after encountering several B-17s which went so fast them even my Me 163 was entering compression while simply trying to keep up. At altitude I was indeed able to approach 500mph TAS without shedding parts and without losing my formation
-
:airplane: All restrictions on aircraft are base on indicated airspeeds! True airspeed is something that is of no use, except for navigational purposes.
I'm not sure about military planes, but there have been several break-ups of experimental airplanes because of people installing a turbocharged engine on an airplane that wasn't designed for it. The true airspeed gets too high at altitude and they get into buffeting and eventually in-flight separation. Vans RV is a good example - they recommend not installing a turbocharged engine for precisely that reason.
-
Mossie XVI could, I think, do it functionally as well if formation was used. After you deliver enough to sink the CV, the rest of the damage doesn't matter.
Whats it take again to sink a CV? The problem isnt hitting it, its hitting a turning CV with enough ord to dump it. The more you throw at it the better the chances of dumping it. Last night I clobbered one with 6 2 KG'ers and then turned around and took out the cruiser with the remaining 3. 20+ perkers.
Then I flew a Mossie bomber after ords at 22K. Dang thing is fast as all Hell. A great airplane to keep ords down along a front.
-
:airplane: If memory serves, and Columbo could answer this better than me, I think the VNE speed is 354MPH, IAS.
Thanks earl :aok
-
I have tested it myself after encountering several B-17s which went so fast them even my Me 163 was entering compression while simply trying to keep up. At altitude I was indeed able to approach 500mph TAS without shedding parts and without losing my formation
:airplane: As you know, I fly 17's 90% of the time in the game! Unless you have a different account than I do, anytime I exceed about 355IAS, I lose rudder first, then elevator, then ailerons. Been that way for past four years. You might have been doing 500 true, which has nothing to do with VNE, but at higher altitudes, big spread in IAS and True! The aircraft only reacts to IAS, not true. True airspeed is just a calculation used in navigational computations.
-
I'm not sure about military planes, but there have been several break-ups of experimental airplanes because of people installing a turbocharged engine on an airplane that wasn't designed for it. The true airspeed gets too high at altitude and they get into buffeting and eventually in-flight separation. Vans RV is a good example - they recommend not installing a turbocharged engine for precisely that reason.
:airplane: Not trying to start an argument, but the difference in turbo charged, super charged and normally aspirated engines is one of loads, climb rates, fuel burn, true airspeed by virtue of being able to operate at higher altitudes. The RV's are lightly constructed aircraft and I don't know much about those aircraft, but I am sure the "G" limits on airframes are smaller than for normally constructed aircraft such as general aviation aircraft.
-
:airplane: Not trying to start an argument, but the difference in turbo charged, super charged and normally aspirated engines is one of loads, climb rates, fuel burn, true airspeed by virtue of being able to operate at higher altitudes. The RV's are lightly constructed aircraft and I don't know much about those aircraft, but I am sure the "G" limits on airframes are smaller than for normally constructed aircraft such as general aviation aircraft.
Here's a good article that explains what I am trying to say much better than I can.
https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf
-
Do we know what the real outcome of the claims 25 of august 1944 where in terms of pilots killed?
Over-claiming over enemy territory from both sides where almost mandatory, and did all US planes have gun cameras on in ETO at this time ?
You can also read how some US pilots treated bailing German pilots in Knoke's book
Knoke was a very interesting guy. His biography is an excellent read. On August 25th, 1944, Knoke's leading his unit, joined a number of other Luftwaffe fighters scrambled in response to huge numbers of Allied fighters inbound. Knoke had recently returned to flight status after suffering a head injury when shot down in April. They ended up in a big fight with the 354th FG. Knoke shot down a P-51, while being shot down by another P-51 himself.
No one knows which Mustang Knoke clobbered. However, one P-51 returned to field A-31 badly shot-up (I forget the pilot's name). In the middle 1990s, during a review of the group's records, it was discovered that some German pilot may have deserved one more kill. How so, when it returned to base? A Bf 109 had shot out the Mustang's hydraulic system. When the pilot limped back to A-31, he attempted to lower his gear without hydraulic pressure. When the landing gear emergency release handle is pulled, the gear unlocks and will drop down partially under its own weight. The pilot shook the Mustang vigorously with the ailerons. The right gear locked. The left did not. After several failed attempts to lock it down, the pilot was ordered to bail out, rather than risk landing with one down, which he did. The P-51 was destroyed. Ironically, it was later discovered that the low time P-51 pilot had not actually followed emergency procedures. When shaking the gear down, one should do so while holding the emergency handle full back. This pilot failed to do so, and the one gear didn't lock. A pilot could also "crab" the aircraft to get some aerodynamic force to assist getting the recalcitrant gear to lock. The P-51, however, lacks the aileron force to maintain a "crabbed" attitude very long. Anyway, for this reason, a historian argued at the time that the P-51 was lost due to pilot error rather than being shot down. Naturally, there is much disagreement on this. I think some undetermined German pilot deserved the victory credit. I wonder how many of these types of losses never get reported as being due to enemy action?
It is also interesting to note that by late 1944, emergency policy evolved somewhat. When showing no hydraulic pressure due to damage resulting from enemy fire, a P-51 pilot was sometimes advised NOT to attempt to lower the gear, but perform a belly landing. The reason for this was that the hydraulic failure resulting from damage may be accompanied by other damage to structure and/or systems. Attempting to lower the gear may create a greater problem. Once a P-51 is on the ground and the engine shut off, the flaps and landing gear doors will gradually lower. Landing gear is retained up by mechanical locks, which can be manually unlocked with the emergency handle.
That said, August 25th was not a good day for the Luftwaffe in France. The 355th FG squadron of the 354th FG, was credited with 25 kills (Knoke being one of them), against three losses (including the one lost over field A-31). One 367th FG (flying P-38Ls and late J models) pilot, Capt. L. E. Blumer, shot down 5 Fw 190s in 7 minutes over St.-Quentin in his P-38L. All confirmed via gun camera and witnesses. The 367th claimed another 4 air to air, and 27 on the ground (some were bomber and transport types). That day, in France, a total of 77 Luftwaffe fighters were claimed as destroyed in air to air combat, and 27 on the ground that day by TAC pilots. 11 USAAF fighter losses were credited to all causes. Another 20 German fighters were claimed as destroyed on the ground by 20th FG Mustangs flying airdrome fighter sweeps. August 25th effectively ended the Luftwaffe's fighter presence in France.
Claims for August 25th by 8th AF and 9th AF fighters over France amounted to 77 claimed shot down, 7 damaged, plus 47 (all types) claimed destroyed on the ground. The primary goal of August 25th air ops was to destroy what remained of the Luftwaffe in France. It largely succeeded.
-
It hasn't been strenghtened. You just had some bad luck recently (and the Tu-2 isn't all that durable as well)
I may be mistaken but i thought if there are enemy bombers and fighters, the bombers would be targeted over the fighters :headscratch:
-
Some of the commenters on the b17s ability to show 500mph at high altitude being impossible have never flown at that altitude nor can be bothered to........yet they comment.
-
A set of B17s diving in formation at 500 TAS, and the ME163 compress so it can't follow :rofl
At the same time the 163 compress following that set of buff the gunners can damage that 163 at 1.5k yards out.
Reality check please.
-
Some of the commenters on the b17s ability to show 500mph at high altitude being impossible have never flown at that altitude nor can be bothered to........yet they comment.
Which commentators would those be?
-
Do we know what the real outcome of the claims 25 of august 1944 where in terms of pilots killed?
Over-claiming over enemy territory from both sides where almost mandatory, and did all US planes have gun cameras on in ETO at this time ?
You can also read how some US pilots treated bailing German pilots in Knoke's book
Short answer is, for total LW losses in France that day you'd have to ask Matti Salonen or Andreas Brekken or Remi T on the 12 O'Clock High forum. Matti especially is quite responsive - he appears to have a database compiled from research on the various Verlustmeldung quartermaster documents.
Knokke's book is an interesting yarn, but accurate historical detail it ain't.
Edit - Rather better history here, most discussions of 1944 LW losses in France seem to refer to it:
http://www.amazon.com/LUFTWAFFE-FACE-DEBARQUEMENT-ALLIE-Historique/dp/284048126X
Heheh, only $200 via these booksellers:
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/isbn/9782840481263?cm_mmc=sws-_-sws-_-bd-_-serp&clickid=UO2RwHyuqxA5WxfSPhR851NyUkTW51zttW1E240&cm_mmc=aff-_-ir-_-64682-_-77798&afn_sr=impact
(Easier just to ask Matti Andreas or Remi)
-
I find myself starting to get kills in the TU2's as my gunner skills are starting to improve, and almost always damage the attacker. Your best bet is to use a lot of rudder and roll the plane to get looks out of the front top gun the fighter isnt expecting. Then a few very short bursts at 600 to range and at 400 aim for the wings of the attacker. If its a cannon bird you might as well start shooting at 600.
Anyway Im starting to use the KI-67 tricks I used to and am starting to survive with at least one plane to land. Years ago when I had a positive K/D with KI-67s I used a lot of these tactics, and they were days when we had real lethal Bomber killers. Ive noticed they arent as good nowdays. Thing is Im far from the bomber gunner I used to be, hopefully that will return. While the TU doesn,t have the KIs guns it is much faster and over triple the bombload. It has two speed sweet spots, one at 6 to 8k and another at 16k.
Funny but Im starting to see Knit and Bish CVs with a high cap a lot more often. Has the TU changed the game with its lethality against CVs? I believe so.
-
I think the frequency of high CV cap you're seeing is just local statistical variation. It's kind of a good place to hang, if you're in a fighter. If there's no traffic, you can just meander and climb a bit. You've always got the friendly puffy as a heads-up warning - and as a place to run if you get damaged, You've got the radar, and you've got the bait. Usually, the bombers come in low but the fighters often have some alt, especially if they're covering for fighters that are heavy down on the deck. The main reason I'll climb over a CV is for them - intercepting bombers is of secondary import since they're usually thrown into the meat grinder a bit more hurriedly.
Regardless, I think you give too much credit to the typical CV barnacle. THere's no telling what's coming in. I frequently see heavies down low. Besides, G4M is listed in wikipedia as having over 1800 ft/min - TU2 only 1600... I recognize that we've been arguing a bit over the weight and that this last will affect the induced drag (thus affecting climb) but these two should be in the same ballpark. Thus, if Betty didn't change it, why would the Tupolev? Granted, I see the latter a little more, but neither are as common as, eg, an F4U. That's what I'm spiralling up for...
-
Im glad the Betty was modeled, dont get me wrong. I play this game for the primary reason of being a WW2 flight enthusiast and the Betty belongs here. But its a POS compared to the TU2S. For the first 4 or 5 K the TU climbs at over 2100 fps while carrying 6600 lbs of ords, using its generous WEP. That slows some past about 5 K but still I'd be willing to bet that the TU2S climbs with a full ord load about as well as a heavy Jabo like the P47N with a full bomb load. The Sweet spot for the TU2S is 8k and its WEP will get you to that Alt and up to full speed, with a full Load, before it runs out of WEP. Or close to it.
So now your at 8K at about 315 mph with 6600 lbs X 3. Thats a big problem for a CV if it doesnt have a high Cap, and even a high cap might not save the CV. The Betty on the other Hand is much, much slower and while it has a bit better defensive guns its also a Ronson lighter and easy to flame. The other sweet spot speed-wise for the TU is 16K but its much harder to hit a turning CV from that height. You have to guesstimate two boat lengths and try to figure where it will be in the turn by the time the bombs hit.
I forget the Bettys load since i dont like flying it. I think its 4,000, which is respectable. But does it have a 1,000 lb option? I prefer the big bombs to the 500 lb bombs for CVs. The TU's 2200 lb bombs, x9, is devastating. Ive often taken out the CV with 6, and then the cruiser with 3, in one pass.
Of course the other Heavies are very lethal too. Most of all the Lancs. But when you factor in the speed of climb, the speed/time to the target, and the punch when you get there...When you take all this into account then i think the TU2S is the Premier CV killer in the game. The B26 used to own that crown but now it belongs to the Red Star. :salute
I think the frequency of high CV cap you're seeing is just local statistical variation. It's kind of a good place to hang, if you're in a fighter. If there's no traffic, you can just meander and climb a bit. You've always got the friendly puffy as a heads-up warning - and as a place to run if you get damaged, You've got the radar, and you've got the bait. Usually, the bombers come in low but the fighters often have some alt, especially if they're covering for fighters that are heavy down on the deck. The main reason I'll climb over a CV is for them - intercepting bombers is of secondary import since they're usually thrown into the meat grinder a bit more hurriedly.
Regardless, I think you give too much credit to the typical CV barnacle. THere's no telling what's coming in. I frequently see heavies down low. Besides, G4M is listed in wikipedia as having over 1800 ft/min - TU2 only 1600... I recognize that we've been arguing a bit over the weight and that this last will affect the induced drag (thus affecting climb) but these two should be in the same ballpark. Thus, if Betty didn't change it, why would the Tupolev? Granted, I see the latter a little more, but neither are as common as, eg, an F4U. That's what I'm spiralling up for...
-
A set of B17s diving in formation at 500 TAS, and the ME163 compress so it can't follow :rofl
At the same time the 163 compress following that set of buff the gunners can damage that 163 at 1.5k yards out.
Reality check please.
I think you need to take a look at the B-17G's top speed.
It can go nowhere near 500 with wings still intact.
-
I forget the Bettys load since i dont like flying it. I think its 4,000, which is respectable
4x250kg.
I fly them quite a lot, especially for small field porking. Very nice bomber for that particular role with an even nicer perk return :D
-
The Betty is often over looked. I'd like to see some players use it more often. No, it doesn't carry a major punch but AH doesn't always have to be about winning the "warz".
Fuel up a Ki61 Tony or Ki-84 Frank for some long range escort duty and have some fun. :aok
-
Its not the punch as much as it is the speed and the way it flames.
The KI-67 has the same punch and I couldnt count all the sorties Ive spent in it. Its a great bomber.
The Betty WAS needed. Its a personal thing I dont much like it.
-
The Betty wasn't very robust to gunfire, but it had amazing range, and that was a very important feature in war for Japan.
-
Its not the punch as much as it is the speed and the way it flames.
No doubt about the flames...
.. but the speed is actually quite good if you don't look at just the plain top level speed. The operational speed (yes, I just made that term up) is actually quite good in the mission profile I'm using the Betty for - a very quick climb to 18-20k, crossing the front and porking dropping the base.
The Betty darts to 20k in less than 15 minutes and can turn very well after the drop for the second approach. Such a run rarely takes more than 30-35 minutes total.
-
Betty or Peggy. I think some of you are meaning the Peggy.
-
Betty or Peggy. I think some of you are meaning the Peggy.
I don't think so :)
-
rgr, had to read Rich's first two comments on the previous page to see how his third made sense, didn't do that at first. See that reading comprehension thing works when I try ;)
-
Read through this thread, Lusche tested it to 500mph TAS at altitude, in formation, guns blazing, a speed 163 have a hard time following without compressing.
Sorry, I believe him more than you.
I think you need to take a look at the B-17G's top speed.
It can go nowhere near 500 with wings still intact.
-
Read through this thread, Lusche tested it to 500mph TAS at altitude, in formation, guns blazing, a speed 163 have a hard time following without compressing.
Sorry, I believe him more than you.
Please excuse me for a moment while I go take some 17s to 30k and try this.
Be back with some answers. :)
-
That's the good thing with testing. Nobody has to believe anything from anyone, you can simply test the stuff yourself :old:
From the original thread where I brought up this topic:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/b-17max_zps8983fc83.jpg)
Me (Komet) severely fighting with compression issues while trying to catch up with a B-17
Tests are still running, but I just got the B-17 up to 400mph indicated / 525 mph true airspeed at ~17k without breaking up and without losing formation!
No wonder I could'nt really catch up at one time in a severely compressing Me 163 :lol
-
rgr, had to read Rich's first two comments on the previous page to see how his third made sense, didn't do that at first. See that reading comprehension thing works when I try ;)
And heres another thing. The TU2 is maneuverable enough to also be used as a dive bomber. It can sustain dive speeds higher then any other 2 engined bomber while dropping more ords and it can be done with precision. All I need is one straight pass to drop a few hangars, and usually its the VH. Now if thing are to hot I'll roll out one bomber and take out the ords in a dive mode, letting my two drones become WTG fodder for the stat crowd.
I did it quite a few times yesterday. Totally stalling the Knit offensive by killing their ords and VHs. The JU-88 is a fine dive bomber but its to slow. The A-20 just doesnt have the punch. I prefer to keep my 3 bombers together and fight it out but if things are desperate enough I'll do what I have to do.
-
That's the good thing with testing. Nobody has to believe anything from anyone, you can simply test the stuff yourself :old:
From the original thread where I brought up this topic:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/b-17max_zps8983fc83.jpg)
Me (Komet) severely fighting with compression issues while trying to catch up with a B-17
They were probably also capable of shooting with all turrets at no loss of accuracy :)
And heres another thing. The TU2 is maneuverable enough to also be used as a dive bomber. It can sustain dive speeds higher then any other 2 engined bomber while dropping more ords and it can be done with precision. All I need is one straight pass to drop a few hangars, and usually its the VH. Now if thing are to hot I'll roll out one bomber and take out the ords in a dive mode, letting my two drones become WTG fodder for the stat crowd.
and this is why formation drones should be perked.
-
and this is why formation drones should be perked.
Which is why exactly?
-
yep, i just love shooting them down :airplane:
-
and this is why formation drones should be perked.
(http://euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=118717&d=1365089653)
-
Ive been causing all kinds of Holy Hell in the bomber. Maybe its not appreciated, maybe its not even being noticed. But I pick important targets at important front line bases, upp to 8 k, and roll in killing the most critical tactical targets. Against CVs Ive been their worst nightmare, tho a few cunning CV drivers do know exactly when to turn on a speed bombing TU set coming in flat at 8K, "curse them" :mad:
I come in fast and off the conga line. I fond the worst non-perked fighters to be the P-51s that build up speed before coming in. Or the 190s. Even experienced players are finding out its a bad idea to come in flat to the rear of 6 to 9 Berzin 0.50s. Roll the plane right, aim for the wings, wait until they are closer then 600, and you can give them an ugly surprise. Many of my deaths are due to dumping two drones to go after a very important target in a single. Sorry but the Motherland must always come first.
I expected more use from this bomber. Most of all from the speed bomber crowd and the heavy jabo crowd.
Almost 20,000 lb of ords coming in at 8K at well over 300 mph and no deer gun caliber guns on board. Whats not to love? :cheers:
-
It truly makes CV killing a joy. WEP climb to 8k, go to target, watch boat sink. I see the occasional set of them in the air over airfields. I think for ground bombing there are better choices either for speed or for payload, but for ships the Tu-2 is just the right combination of attributes to make it the best tool for the job IMO.
Wiley.
-
It truly makes CV killing a joy. WEP climb to 8k, go to target, watch boat sink. I see the occasional set of them in the air over airfields. I think for ground bombing there are better choices either for speed or for payload, but for ships the Tu-2 is just the right combination of attributes to make it the best tool for the nob IMO.
Wiley.
Not to pick on your spelling because after all your a cannukian but I fixed your error bud
-
Not to pick on your spelling because after all your a cannukian but I fixed your error bud
Mu-uu-ust ref-f-frain...
-
LOL, ok ok........"You're" :)
-
LOL, ok ok........"You're" :)
You had that right the first time.
"You're" is the abbreviation for "you are". So:
"but I fixed you are error bud" vs "but I fixed your error bud".
"Your" is clearly correct.
-
No, that wasn't the issue. Perhaps it's slang but I thought it should be knob or noob. That was his correction.
-
Not to pick on your spelling because after all your a cannukian but I fixed your error bud
It should've been like this, perhaps, but I wasn't sure it would pick up Zoney's box and subsequent correction... (testing this now)...
-
You had that right the first time.
"You're" is the abbreviation for "you are". So:
"but I fixed you are error bud" vs "but I fixed your error bud".
"Your" is clearly correct.
"You're" is a contraction.... ;)
Here's a list of common standard contractions commonly used....
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/EnglishContractions.htm (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/EnglishContractions.htm)
-
Fo’c’s’le is my favourite contraction :old:
-
"You're" is a contraction.... ;)
Here's a list of common standard contractions commonly used....
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/EnglishContractions.htm (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/EnglishContractions.htm)
Yes, but he's right that it's for "You are", and, again, my beef was with "nob", which, afaik, isn't a word.
The strange one is the usage of its and it's... Your and you're is child's play.
-
Since a properly flown tu2 sortie usually has enemy climbing up to get you, drop your bombs and rope the enemy fighter.
He won't expect you to suddenly whip around and attack him and you can often catch them at very slow speeds
A tu2 coming down with energy advantage will result in you shooting the fighter down or him diving away so you land, rearm, and give it another go.
Killed a spit16 like this last night, the whines on 200 made me smile :D
-
1 set of TU-2's can not only kill all the hangers at a v base and but also de-ack. IMHO the TU-2 is the best tactical bomber in the game and one of the most versatile planes period
-
1 set of TU-2's can not only kill all the hangers at a v base and but also de-ack. IMHO the TU-2 is the best tactical bomber in the game and one of the most versatile planes period
Yeah its not exactly helpless but K/Ds dont mean nothing when it comes to describing the mayhem one set of TU2's can do. Ive often shut down the VH and FHs at a small base, slaughtered many a CV, leveled towns. The speed of the bomber almost garuntees one free pass at a base if you come in at an off angle, often you can get two. It gets to 8k, its sweet spot for speed, and up to top speed on its WEP. The climb and speed of a heavy Jug with 6X's the payload.
Whats not to love?
-
It was just last week that I flew the TU several times. Much impressed.
-
I really must say the TU needs a small perk, or a perk on the largest ords. The dang thing is really a ubber ride, only downside is the weak guns, but if you have a good aim its doable. The fact it has x2 .20mm cannons forward firing makes it a effective ground straffer also.
Not a huge perk, but something. "Then again i think 8/10ths of the A/C's in this game should require SOME kind of perk, just to change things up from time to time. Get more people out of them 44-45 ubber rides and into something more..vintage. :rock
-
Not a huge perk, but something. "Then again i think 8/10ths of the A/C's in this game should require SOME kind of perk, just to change things up from time to time. Get more people out of them 44-45 ubber rides and into something more..vintage. :rock
Problem is that makes the already very steep learning curve for new players much, much steeper.
Not saying the Tu-2S doesn't deserve a perk cost though. I haven't played with it about enough to be able to comment on that.
-
Weakest gun protection of the Lot. Its fast for a Bomber but its speed is nothing compared to fighters of its era. You really have to be bad to get whacked by the guns of the thing. Come into a set of 3 with any kind of energy and your thru them before their weak guns can do much damage to you. The fighters Ive shot down have mostly done something incredibly stupid, like hang up high after the attack within gun range or come in dead 6 with very little "E" advantage. Cannon birds with a little bit of skill down TUs easily. What the TU normally does is cripple singles attacking, and even then mostly MG armed birds.
2 20mms are really a rather modest strafing package. The ROF seems slow and its not like you can strafe with 3 at a time effectively. Also it handles rather woodenly. Not even close to the Mossie.
And its only fast low. 7 to 8 k is its sweet spot. Its not even in the Mossies class. The only thing the TU is good at is getting 6600 lb of HE to Alt, and then to target, quicker then any other prop bomber/attacker. Its a good tool but not anything uber. Like any other non-perked plane you have to develop tactics that increase success rates. The biggest of which is DO NOT attack in the conga line and come it at off angles.
The A26 I'd have to say "would" deserve a perk. Faster and almost twice the bombload along with an incredible package of forward 0.50s. It was also more agile and responsive. When all that is put in a package that could go 350 mph I'd call it "uber" and perkable. But the TU? No way.
-
Problem is that makes the already very steep learning curve for new players much, much steeper.
Not saying the Tu-2S doesn't deserve a perk cost though. I haven't played with it about enough to be able to comment on that.
Yet another reason for a pilot rating level - much like a USTA rating in tennis. Imagine: the higher your rating, the more your ride costs. Note that the unintended consequences might be hilarious. Imagine a 5.0 pilot trying to get to 4.0 level by repeatedly allowing himself to be killed...
Otherwise, most will likely take pride in their rating and enjoy working toward the next one.
-
Yet another reason for a pilot rating level - much like a USTA rating in tennis. Imagine: the higher your rating, the more your ride costs. Note that the unintended consequences might be hilarious. Imagine a 5.0 pilot trying to get to 4.0 level by repeatedly allowing himself to be killed...
Otherwise, most will likely take pride in their rating and enjoy working toward the next one.
I'll be able to fly 262's and b-29's exclusively :banana:
-
Yet another reason for a pilot rating level - much like a USTA rating in tennis. Imagine: the higher your rating, the more your ride costs. Note that the unintended consequences might be hilarious. Imagine a 5.0 pilot trying to get to 4.0 level by repeatedly allowing himself to be killed...
Otherwise, most will likely take pride in their rating and enjoy working toward the next one.
Doesn't matter how much higher the costs are. Putting the better pilots in Spit XVIs, La-7s and P-51Ds while newbies are stuck in P-40s, Ki-61s, ect will produce nothing less than a turkey shoot and then discouraged players who don't subscribe.
-
Doesn't matter how much higher the costs are. Putting the better pilots in Spit XVIs, La-7s and P-51Ds while newbies are stuck in P-40s, Ki-61s, ect will produce nothing less than a turkey shoot and then discouraged players who don't subscribe.
Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?
-
Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?
The original suggestion in the chain was that most aircraft should be perked. That would leave the newbies stuck in the more difficult rides while those of us with lots of perks and decent or better skill would have our skill advantage amplified by also being in much more potent fighters.
-
Wasn't he suggested quite the opposite?
Indeed, I was. Karnak is, I think, talking about something quite different.
-
I would say that the Tu-2 should not be perked. simply because it isnt fast enough. Of course are there many situation when u can zoom in an bomb w/o anyone upping in time to catch u but that happens in other bombers too. Most fighters will catch u and when they do will have a hard time shoot u out of the situation.
But as many others here i prefer the "Bat" when i need a smaller and faster bomber and i dont expect too much crap flying around. For strat runs etc is a 4-engine bomber my choise, simply because i like the sight of a fighter jockey dwindling down back to earth whit a trail of smoke behind.
-
Which should have a better turn rate on the deck, p47dII or a TU?
Say both are at 50% fuel and no bombs
-
I still prefer the ki67, it's tougher and it's faster. So fighters don't have many options except a rear attack, where it's twin 50s and it's 20mm are. Also it carries pedos.
-
Which should have a better turn rate on the deck, p47dII or a TU?
Say both are at 50% fuel and no bombs
I would like to add on to that, should an A-20 outturn a 51?
-
I would like to add on to that, should an A-20 outturn a 51?
At low speed absolutely.
-
Empty, the two have wing loadings of around 32 psf. I'd expect the corner speed of the 20 to be lower - and so think Floob is probably correct.
While it may seem counterintuitve that any twin could turn with "the best fighter of the war" :rofl, it isn't, at least unladen, any surprise to me.
Wait 'til we get the Beauwy... It's got an even lower wingloading and lower speed. That one will be a bear at low alts and speeds - and will likely soak up snapshots like a fat girl soaks up... anything you'd care to mention.
-
So the A20 has a lower wing loading than the 51? Hey, I'm all ears here, honestly I'm not an aeronautical engineer (yet) and am interested in this stuff. As PJ said, it is extremely counterintuitive that a twin engine light bomber like the A20 could outturn a 51.
-
So the A20 has a lower wing loading than the 51? Hey, I'm all ears here, honestly I'm not an aeronautical engineer (yet) and am interested in this stuff. As PJ said, it is extremely counterintuitive that a twin engine light bomber like the A20 could outturn a 51.
Not really. Many bombers have low wing loading. A-20 couples that with decent power loading. Just because a plane is heavy doesn't mean it has high wing loading. The thing that hold the B-17G and Lancaster back is power loading and stick forces. Even then they probably turn tighter than many fighters, just slower so fewer degrees per second.
-
Not really. Many bombers have low wing loading.
When empty. This is of course because they are designed to load up a few thousand lbs of bombs and still be able to fly. an empty bomber is just an empty shell with lots of wings (and lots of drag for its weight too). In addition, bombers tend to have thicker wings that are better at slow speeds and high AoA.
-
When empty. This is of course because they are designed to load up a few thousand lbs of bombs and still be able to fly. an empty bomber is just an empty shell with lots of wings (and lots of drag for its weight too). In addition, bombers tend to have thicker wings that are better at slow speeds and high AoA.
Yes, but empty is the state in question for A-20Gs in AH when flown as fighters.
-
So the A20 has a lower wing loading than the 51? Hey, I'm all ears here, honestly I'm not an aeronautical engineer (yet) and am interested in this stuff. As PJ said, it is extremely counterintuitive that a twin engine light bomber like the A20 could outturn a 51.
And also, as I said, unsurprising to me.
Karnak and Bozon also mention the powerloading. I don't want to make as if the wing loading alone is determinant. Recall the equation R = (2Ws/rho CL s(theta))- max bank (theta) figures in and max bank is dependent, in turn, on powerloading and CLMax, IIRC.
However, an empty A-20 should have good Ws and decent powerloading, given the absence of the bomb load.
One question I've always had about the Radius equation... it assumes no alt loss; a flat turn. As bank increases, your lift vector available to offset weight decreases and you end up having to increase CL and Cd(induced) as well.
What if you're willing to give up alt? Intuitively, I'd expect that your max rate of turn is actually going to be realized with the lift vector horizontal toward the center of the turn circle and the a/c dropping like a stone. Of course, while doing this might put you inside the SPitty's turn, it's also going to leave you looking skyward at him, probably. But it, especially combined with some judicious rudder, might well lead to your disappearnce under the nose of an enemy seeking a lead shot.
-
I have to give the Tu-2 its due - it has now become my ride of choice for slaughtering CVs. The ability to run in with a heavy bomb load at 300mph, coupled with at least a modest ability to make somebody think twice about diving down on your six. For anything tactical down low needing speed - take a Tu-2.
At 11-12K though - I find the ability to get the job done on on 4 out of 4 hangers is better done with B-17s. That 3 x 500lb spread is a little more sure than the 1 x 500Kg shot on the last two hangers, although the first 2 1 x 1000Kg shots are hard to miss. If you want to get home, take the 17s - probably only 1 player in 5 really knows how to attack them.
Up high take a B-29 or a Mossie. The speed up high makes interception a huge chore, and anyone climbing up the tail of B-29s is not likely to enjoy it.
-
I easily take 4 hangars with the 2 and 2 Load. The secret is to take the first two, of course, with the BFBs. I line up for bomb runs in top gun F3 mode flying while using rear view so I can look forward as I fly. I use the rudder pedals to turn and line up on the other two hangars in this top gun/f3/rear look mode because turning with rudders does not mess up your level speed as much as manual turning.
OK so now your on your second run without much time to calibrate and only having the smaller, 500 kg, bombs. First thing to do when going to bomb sight, and you should be roughly lined up as it is, is to line up EXACTLY on your first hangar. Then start calibrating and keep calibrating while watching your map.... Now the tough part. You have to figure out as close as possible when to quit calibrating and pop back into bomb sight. If you time it right you should have a second or two to release.
Because you are not AS level as you were on your first run Ive often found it better to release exactly when the cross hairs are on the hangar, where'as the first release I let go a split second before. 3 500 kg bombs will take out any hangar. Most of all at 8K where I do most of my tactical bombing. Then hit WEP, cut a shallow dive if you have to, and get the hell out of there.
If over water OTW home, and being pursued, I'll often dive to 30 to 50' and just invite an enemy to come into the guns. Its hard to find the blind spot of the guns when that low and 6+ 12.7mm MGs means your not exactly helpless.