Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RODBUSTR on May 04, 2018, 09:30:18 AM
-
Arado Ar234 at 9400 feet doing 397mph, scores a direct hit on a carrier while it is turning. with a plane like that the Germans should have won the war. The Mitchell was sent to hit bridges " static target" at alts from 8 to 10 feet and had a less than 10% success rate in squadron strength. Have a Blast.
-
ALT-F4 for laser guided bombs....didn't you know that?
About as amazing as any bomber in the game dropping pin-point accurate bombs from 30k.
-
Arado Ar234 at 9400 feet doing 397mph, scores a direct hit on a carrier while it is turning. with a plane like that the Germans should have won the war. The Mitchell was sent to hit bridges " static target" at alts from 8 to 10 feet and had a less than 10% success rate in squadron strength. Have a Blast.
Did he do it once or 10 times in a row?
-
Arado Ar234 at 9400 feet doing 397mph, scores a direct hit on a carrier while it is turning.
Ask him to teach you how.
-
The Mitchell was sent to hit bridges " static target" at alts from 8 to 10 feet and had a less than 10% success rate in squadron strength.
Maybe they should have tried flying over the target instead of driving. :devil
-
What is the issue? Everyone can do it. The problem you have is to predict the direction the carrier is going to turn. Level bombing is only a matter of physics. If you put the right input into the bomb sight the bombs will hit spot on. And since we know our exact Speed and altitude and are also flying in a standard atmosphere its quite simple compared to real life.
-
Not sure if this is a complaint about the plane, the pilot, the bombing in general or a case of passive-agressive "just saying"... :noid
-
Not sure if this is a complaint about the plane, the pilot, the bombing in general or a case of passive-agressive "just saying"... :noid
Passive aggressive is the OP's modus operendi....
-
Not sure if this is a complaint about the plane, the pilot, the bombing in general or a case of passive-agressive "just saying"... :noid
It’s just more drive-by idiocy from our old pal rodbuster.
-
Not sure if this is a complaint about the plane, the pilot, the bombing in general or a case of passive-agressive "just saying"... :noid
Wait until he finds out that you can drop radar and ords from 12k in an A-20...
-
See Rule #4
-
It’s just more drive-by idiocy from our old pal rodbuster.
That’s just terble. Actually... :old:
:salute
-
Arado Ar234 at 9400 feet doing 397mph, scores a direct hit on a carrier while it is turning. with a plane like that the Germans should have won the war. The Mitchell was sent to hit bridges " static target" at alts from 8 to 10 feet and had a less than 10% success rate in squadron strength. Have a Blast.
The Germans did win the war. Haven't you been paying attention?
-
Arado Ar234 at 9400 feet doing 397mph, scores a direct hit on a carrier while it is turning. with a plane like that the Germans should have won the war. The Mitchell was sent to hit bridges " static target" at alts from 8 to 10 feet and had a less than 10% success rate in squadron strength. Have a Blast.
As a bomber pilot, I think too many are getting on this post. Ya it can be done but not easy. I respect RODBUSTR for speaking up and praising another pilot which I think is being missed here. :salute ROBUSTR AND HomerS (even tho they are the enemy :joystick:)
-
As a bomber pilot, I think too many are getting on this post. Ya it can be done but not easy. I respect RODBUSTR for speaking up and praising another pilot which I think is being missed here. :salute ROBUSTR AND HomerS (even tho they are the enemy :joystick:)
You do realize...
NVM.
-
In.
-
Maybe they should have tried flying over the target instead of driving. :devil
Hahaha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://thesimpsons25yearsagotoday.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/homer7.jpg)
-
I agree with Viking
Rodbuster should be praised for his positive spin and respect for another pilot, being enemy.. even more kudos
Well done rod
-
NKL5 used to do the same thing on a regular basis.
-
After he sank your carrier, he would then fly over your lvt and blow you up with the rear guns.
-
I agree with Viking
Rodbuster should be praised for his positive spin and respect for another pilot, being enemy.. even more kudos
Well done rod
A compliment generally requires praise. "Great job." "Attaboy." "Well done." "Way to go."
Based on track record alone I don't see this as a compliment. The OP is free to clarify of course (hopfully *NOT* in all-caps mode).
-
Not sure if this is a complaint about the plane, the pilot, the bombing in general or a case of passive-agressive "just saying"... :noid
^^^^
Yes....all of the above :lol
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlWJn3QvwSaaAphkuz1ZBrFtMflyFehlnSzmbWa_CoUR5fGdD3Rw)
-
Wait until he finds out that you can drop radar and ords from 12k in an A-20...
Or acks from 12k from rockets of a Fw190F8, 12 of them, and you still got a 500kg bomb for that radar, or that #!£#@#Wirby.
-
Carriers really aren’t that difficult to sink from 10k and below. My normal attack altitude in b26s is 9k. Just high enough that the auto ack doesn’t shred me. As long as I don’t choke on my targeting I don’t miss very often and I’m terrible. If the carrier is going straight you can zap it from 30k just gotta get your lead dead on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Carriers really aren’t that difficult to sink from 10k and below. My normal attack altitude in b26s is 9k. Just high enough that the auto ack doesn’t shred me. As long as I don’t choke on my targeting I don’t miss very often and I’m terrible. If the carrier is going straight you can zap it from 30k just gotta get your lead dead on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah. On my very first bombing mission in a B-26 I sank the CV in a shallow dive from about 12K. I came back and dropped a BB the same way on the next mission. Totally doable.
-
NKL5 used to do the same thing on a regular basis.
==<—O—O—>==
-
NKL5 used to do the same thing on a regular basis.
Probably not too many avid GV'ers that didn't receive an egg or 2 from NKL5. Got to where if there was an AR234 around you scooted from cover to cover. 1STPAR nowadays is getting pretty consistent with his Spit and egg delivery. :airplane:
-
Speet!!??? Speeet??!! I speet on your Speet! ze only emotshunnowely correctish bermber fur ze game eez ze SCHTUKABATGABLOWEMZEUPP wit ze super beeg bombe.
-
I miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet.. And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense. In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway . The bomber performance and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do. I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load. I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level. Perhaps AH can include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions. A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay. Anyway Have a blast.
-
The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense. In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan
That is very interesting. I would like to read more into this, do you have a source by chance? :salute
-
I miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet.. And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense. In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway.
Like pretty much everything you've posted on the forums, your above claim is not correct. In the mid-30's the USAAC was looking for a replacement for the Martin B-10 and proposed a multi-engine bomber with the requirement for it to carry a "useful bombload" at an altitude of 10,000 ft (3,048 m) for ten hours with a top speed of at least 200 mph. The USAAC then would base its decision on a fly off between Boeing (B-17), Douglas (DB-1), Martin (Martin Model 146), with the winner getting the contract. The idea behind the proposal behind replacing the Martin B-10 was to develop a more advanced strategic bomber.
-
That is very interesting. I would like to read more into this, do you have a source by chance? :salute
He's probably confused and thinking the B-17 was designed for coastal defense because until an agreement with the US Navy in 1943, the US Army Air Force was responsible for anti-maritime operations and coastal maritime operations. It wasn't just the B-17 used in this role by the USAAF, the B-24, B-25, B-26, A-20, essentially all USAAF bombers were used in anti-maritime operations, which is why until 1943, for example, B-26 pilots were trained on dropping torpedoes. The reason for the USAAF having the primary role the USN should have had was the lack of heavy bombers for the USN. In 1943, the USN and the USAAF came to an agreement that the USAAF would surrender the anti-maritime role to the USN in return for the use of production facilities in the US to produce the B-29 and the USN got heavy bombers from the USAAF to take over the anti-maritime role.
-
Probably not too many avid GV'ers that didn't receive an egg or 2 from NKL5. Got to where if there was an AR234 around you scooted from cover to cover. 1STPAR nowadays is getting pretty consistent with his Spit and egg delivery. :airplane:
:devil AWE,shucks :rock :cheers: Havent seen you in a while...where you been? Not that I want to egg you, just really havent seen ya :rock
-
I miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet.. And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense. In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway . The bomber performance and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do. I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load. I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level. Perhaps AH can include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions. A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay. Anyway Have a blast.
Again your comparing a GAME to real life. We have the opertunaty to bomb CVs over and over and get very good at hitting them. Most pilots in real life could go through their whole career and NEVER see a CV let alone sink one.
-
NKL5 = HomerS. :D :D :D :rofl
==<—O—O—>==
:banana:
-
==<—O—O—>==
:salute
-
I miss stated the alt of the Mitchells , It was 9 to 10 thousand feet.. And ah bombers hitting ships from that alt. happens on a regular basis. The premise of the B-17 design was not strategic bombing, but coastal defense. In theory a large bomber could attack ships from 7000 to 8000 feet, but the Navy didn't like the Air Corps plan & It didn't work anyway . The bomber performance and accuracy in this game far exceeds what actual planes could do. I have known that for 5 years. I still play and knock them down when they fly 5000 feet above their service ceilings while still carrying a full bomb load. I sink a lot of ships with 2 engine bombers, but I do it the way It was really done. low level. Perhaps AH can include a Fritz X or like weapon for those who wish actually treat Ah 3 like a simulator. If You Research bomber attack on shipping You will find that if it was not low level most all were failed missions. A good place to start would be the B17 attacks on IJN ships during the Battle of Midway and The Battle of Milne Bay. Anyway Have a blast.
As always in AH people are MUCH better at gunnery, ACM, and Bombing than the troops were in real life. This is not due to poor modelling or gaminess but due to PRACTICE. AH players have thousands of hours for practice including pushing the envelope of maneuvers that no one during the war could match.
So the AH results by seasons veterans are...in a word...amazing. And it makes perfect sense. :salute
-
Night is too dark, WEP should be unlimited, and bombers shouldn't be able to drop bombs :bhead
-
Coming from the OP that his only contribution to the game is circling at 30k waiting for picks and avoiding any fight.
-
Coming from the OP that his only contribution to the game is circling at 30k waiting for picks and avoiding any fight.
He tried that with me today in his SBD. He rammed me and lost a wing. :rofl
-
Why is this post still in General Discussions?
People report bugs in the Bug Forum, but they get moved to Technical Support or Help & Training (can't actually be a problem with the game, huh?)
This should be moved elsewhere, according to the way things are run around here...
Coogan
-
Mongoose ,Homer need not teach Me, I know how to do it. I can bomb ships from 10k without using a bombsight and hit them with great frequency. I just refuse to do it. To Me that is fantasy play not a simulation. I play for the sim. not the game or map wins. So I am happier with planes that are closer to a real plane's performance and handling characteristics and that is what I stick with for the most part. I guess I'm a purist of sorts. Many who Are ignorant of WW2 airplane history and performance wouldn't care. I also understand why Ah would not want to model bombers in the same performance realm as the actual ones. Many bomber players would object do to that because it would affect the quality of their game play in as not being as successful and unmolested as they are now. My thinking is contrary to that . I think It would improve game play by enhancing the chance of opfor engagements. IE. air combat at realistic altitudes and more realistic bombing results would mean more sorties to destroy targets. Have a blast.
-
And Brooke The germans lost WW2..... The commies won. We got second place.
-
Why is this post still in General Discussions?
People report bugs in the Bug Forum, but they get moved to Technical Support or Help & Training (can't actually be a problem with the game, huh?)
This should be moved elsewhere, according to the way things are run around here...
Coogan
No way to know as you are not providing the information I have asked for, twice (here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=5214794;topic=392929.0;last_msg=5214843 and here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,392929.msg5214803.html#msg5214803). Without information there is no way to categorize anything.
Here is the sticky post in the Bug Report forum. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270056.0.html
Here is the pertinent section:
"Information is key. Remember this; The key to fixing any software issue lies in being able to reproduce the issue on our development systems. Without proper information it is a waste of time to try and duplicate the problem.
Example:
Hey, the game crashed, fix it!
Okay, this will simply be ignored as there is nothing there to help point us in the direction of the potential problem."
With no information available, the only thing that can be done is to fallback to logic. In this case, you are the only one reporting this issue, out of hundreds playing the game. Logically, it points to something being different with your configuration. What that is, is anyone's guess if you are not willing to or cannot provide the data requested.
As I explained in my post in your thread:
"I moved this to Tech Support forum as there is not enough information to qualify as a Bug Report."
-
Mongoose ,Homer need not teach Me, I know how to do it. I can bomb ships from 10k without using a bombsight and hit them with great frequency. I just refuse to do it. To Me that is fantasy play not a simulation. I play for the sim. not the game or map wins. So I am happier with planes that are closer to a real plane's performance and handling characteristics and that is what I stick with for the most part. I guess I'm a purist of sorts. Many who Are ignorant of WW2 airplane history and performance wouldn't care. I also understand why Ah would not want to model bombers in the same performance realm as the actual ones. Many bomber players would object do to that because it would affect the quality of their game play in as not being as successful and unmolested as they are now. My thinking is contrary to that . I think It would improve game play by enhancing the chance of opfor engagements. IE. air combat at realistic altitudes and more realistic bombing results would mean more sorties to destroy targets. Have a blast.
Pot accuses kettle...
-
A purist of sorts... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OK, all laughing aside, let's break some things down.
MA is relaxed reality to allow for maximum enjoyment of the maximum number of players. Things like weather and wind are not taken into account, nor is there manual calibration of bomb sights.
All of these things are available in custom arenas, FSO, Scenario and other realms of the game. In fact, you can customize just about everything in this game if you so choose to. Feel free to setup an arena and see if you can get players. If it's shows up as constantly full and people enjoy it, I'm sure HTC would look into creating an MA arena with your settings/setup.
-
This is more likely how it will go though from what I've seen of these types of posts:
OP Dies in MA
OP runs to forums to post about how horrible game is
OP make outlandish claims about personal knowledge of real WWII equipment
OP refuses to provide any source material for outlandish claims
OP gets refuted by multiple people who provide source material
OP claims everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about
OP creates a new post to a different forum such as "Wish List" and continues his gripe without providing any source material
-
This is just done.