Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Buzzbait on September 18, 2001, 04:14:00 PM
-
S!
I was flying a P-51D the other day in the MA when I noticed a B-17 above me. I was at approximately 12,000 ft, the B17 was 5.0 distance directly above. It was obviously headed for one of our fields. There was a friendly La-7 climbing behind the B-17. It was 2.0 distance from me. I was carrying 3/4 fuel with a drop tank which was about ½ full. I jettisoned the tank. By the time I got turned around, the B-17 was out of vis range, but I could see a dot followed by another dot which was obviously the Lavochkin.
The La-7 and myself followed the B-17 towards our field, steadily climbing. After approx. 10 minutes, I got vis contact on the B-17 again. By that time I was at approx. 25,000 ft , with it at 6.0 distance. My estimation was that the B-17 was at 28,000ft. The La-7 was still behind it, but still below.
The B-17 made a run over the field which was the target, then turned to come back. I also turned, trying to climb parellel to it so I could then get above and ahead to make a front quarter attack.
The La-7 was having all kinds of problems trying to keep up with the B-17’s climb. I was gaining on it, although the B-17 seemed to be holding its own.
The B-17 made its second run over the field, then kept going in the direction of its territory. By this time I had reached 32,000 ft. The distance between myself and the B-17 had narrowed to approximately 2.5 distance. By my estimation it was at approximately 34,000 feet. The La-7 had given up, and was descending. I never saw the La-7 make an attack. I didn't see it get up to a level with the B-17.
For the next 10 minutes I continued to climb in a straight direction, with the B-17 above and to my left. By the time I reached 35,000 I was climbing very slowly. The B-17 was at 1.5 distance, by my estimation at 36,000 feet. It still was climbing. By my calculation I would gain equal altitude with the B-17 in another 5 minutes. After another few minutes I was at 36,000 with the B-17 still at 1.5.
At this point the B-17 started a turn towards me to bring his guns on me. I was too far below it to bring my guns to bear so I turned away very gently, attempting to maintain my climb. Unfortunately, as I turned I lost altitude, dropping to 35,000 which put me quite a bit below the B-17 again. The B-17 did not seem to lose any altitude whatsoever in its turns. Distance was now 3.0. The B-17 turned back towards its territory again and I followed, climbing again.
After another 10 minutes, I was at 37,000, with the B-17 at 2.0 distance. By my estimation the aircraft was at 38,000 or 39,000 ft. When I got quite close, the B-17 repeated its tactics, and despite my very careful handling of my aircraft, as soon as I started a turn to avoid letting it get too close, I lost altitude. The B-17 didn’t lose any altitude and I ended up 2.5 distance again.
By this time I was far over enemy territory and I elected to return to base instead of running out of fuel.
What I noticed was that the B-17 at higher altitudes climbed nearly as good as my P-51D, and better than the La-7. The speed difference between the two aircraft while they were in a climb was marginal. The B-17 held altitude in turns far better than my P-51D.
Historically the B-17 formations bombed from 21,000 –23,000 feet. They were originally designed to bomb from 30,000 feet but accuracy fell off considerably at that altitude, making them ineffective. Heating systems were unable to function effectively up there. Waist gunners were found to get severe frostbite and were unable to man their weapons. Ball turret gunners had frequent instances of heating systems shutting down leading to freezing and frostbite too. Additionally, there were serious problems with oxygen supply. In combat conditions, Oxygen supply was found not to be functional at all at altitudes over 30,000 feet. After less than ten missions, the operational level for the bomber formations was reduced to just over 20,000. The factory rated ceiling for a B-17G was 35,600 ft.
The P-51D’s had a rated ceiling of 41,900 feet, and they regularly operated at 35,000 feet.
Everyone knows the bombers in this game have been given much more powerful defensive guns than historically they had. The reason would seem to be to give single bombers a fighting chance, since large groups of bombers as per history don’t exist in the Arenas. Perhaps this is a good balance mechanism.
However, the high altitude performance of these aircraft, to the degree that they outperform fighter aircraft, as well as the accuracy when bombing from ahistorical heights is affecting game balance.
It should be remodelled.
-
n/m, it's metioned in your post :)
I agree about remodelling Buff task in AH.
Cheers,
Pepe
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]
-
So you spent 30 minutes chasing a buff and didn't even get a shot?
What do will you do next time in the same situation?
-
Bomber climb rates don't fall off fast enough.
A Lancaster with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 35lbs per square foot. The Lancaster's opperational ceiling was 24,000ft. It climbed too slowly above that to be worth the fuel and time.
A B-17G with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 34.85lbs per square foot.
A P-51D with about 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 36.70lbs per square foot.
Anybody what to take a guess at which of these has a better power to weight ratio at 35,000ft?
It seems to me that bombers, the big ones at least, have way, way to much lift at high altitude.
-
I'll repost my comments here (sigh).
Buffs can perform full rolls at 35k and above. I have even seen rolling circles that high. Ridiculous.
Next time. Don't climb up to him. Pursue him from a good altitude, like 27k. When he descends to land kill him.
-
Voss, I know what you mean all too well. Back in 1.04 I posted about instant buff turns; nothing was done. Hopefully they'll remodel this stupidity into something that actually fits. Right now I can get a buff up around 35,000 feet and literally spin it on one wing with minimal altitude loss. Let's see any fighter to that. Hell, at lower altitudes; 12k or so, you can park the thing on one wing and just let it spin. Then again, maybe it's something else...
I don't know if the flight models have been updated, but the B-17 has been around since BETA. I can remember not having to open the bomb bay doors, cause we didn't have 'em yet! Even then, you could pivot a B-17 on one wing regardless of altitude. If she hasn't been updated since BETA with regards to handling, it would explain this mishap completely. If it has, then I consider it a serious oversight by both HiTech and Pyro. No bomber, loaded to the hilt with bombs and gas, could pull maneuvers like this. I've been in a P-51 chasing a lone B-17 before, and twice the pilot used the "gunner rudder" control to out-maneuver me.
Either tone the gunner controls down so they can't pull stunts like this, or get rid of gunner control entirely. I'd prefer the latter, but the former would be perfectly fine by me.
This is nuts.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
The number 28,000 comes to mind when talking about operational altitude of a B-17. Robert Johnson's book, and several other first hand accounts bolster this. Any altitude near or below 20k in real life, you could expect a rough ride.
Certainly anything over 30,000 is not likely. B-17 climbrate over 20k should be looked into. Also turnrate should be reduced in gunner position. I fly the fort fairly often, and support this.
<S>IC
-
S!
As mentioned, the official factory ceiling for the B-17G was just over 35,000. The one I engaged was up around 39,000 and seemed to have plenty of power to climb higher.
-
B17s and Lancs operated at 18-21k. Accuracy fell drastically above this altitude.
The only buff to operate above 30k was the Mossie in the later part of the war. Apparently German Flak gunners crapped themselves when they figured it was a mossie coming as the mossies often targeted flak batteries with some sort of guided bomb (they called it an 'aerial mine') in the closing 6 months of the war.
This was all from interviews with Lanc pilots, navigators, gunners, and German LW and Flak guys.
Keep the uber-guns for buffs - thats a fair comprimise, but this 35k crap has got to stop. I think over 25k there needs to be something to make buffs less effective (maybe decrease the gun effectiveness, or make the dispersion bigger to reduce the gun accuracy - simulating frozen gunners).
-
It is far past time to look into the B17 FM in particular. Can remember chasing one at 29K in the old beta map last year in a P-38......just as I closed to within 1.5K, he did a split-ess and reversed course on me, and the damn buff did it better than my fighter did. Buff proponents back then said to look at the surface area of the wing, but I said then and I say now, it was and is total BS if this is still occurring. :(
-
LOL Thats a freakhow, but then whats new.......... :(
-
Buzz:
It's pretty easy to prove that the FM is giving better performance than the real plane. Get a real flight test figure, test the sim under the same conditions, and if the sim figure is higher then you have proven it.
For example:
A lot of authors quote 35,600 feet as the B-17G service ceiling. Service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the maximum sustained climb rate becomes less than 100 fpm. Widewing explained that the flight tests on US bombers were done with full fuel and no bombs.
Duplicate those test conditions (or any others you can find), and if the AH plane exceeds real life performance, then you have an argument that HTC will listen to.
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
and a b17s ceiling was 35.2k in RL,
ww2 combat ceiling was below 30k.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Karnak:
Bomber climb rates don't fall off fast enough.
A Lancaster with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 35lbs per square foot. The Lancaster's opperational ceiling was 24,000ft. It climbed too slowly above that to be worth the fuel and time.
A B-17G with bombs gone and 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 34.85lbs per square foot.
A P-51D with about 1/3 fuel has a wing loading of about 36.70lbs per square foot.
Anybody what to take a guess at which of these has a better power to weight ratio at 35,000ft?
It seems to me that bombers, the big ones at least, have way, way to much lift at high altitude.[/QUOTE]
-
Hey, need somebody to go back and correct a bunch of WW2 records!
There's a lot of obviously bad info written by the guys who were there that needs to be fixed chop-chop!
Any volunteers?
http://www.303rdbga.com/053.pdf (http://www.303rdbga.com/053.pdf)
"303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 53
25 July 1943
Target: Blohm & Voss Shipbuilding Yards, Hamburg, Ger.
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 G.P. H.E.
Crews Dispatched: 20
Crews Lost: 1 crew, Lt. Van Wie - 4 KIA, 5 POW, 1 REP;
2 crewmen wounded: Lt. Kotz & S/Sgt. C.R. Vateckas
Ammo Fired: 95,030 rounds
Aircraft Shot Down: 8 destroyed, 4 probable, 6 damaged
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 15 minutes
Bombing Altitude: 29,220 ft
The bombers flew in very excellent formation, made a good bomb run, and dropped their bombs
well in the target area. The target, however, was practically invisible due to a very effective smoke
screen. Despite this, the crews felt that the bombing, with 48 tons of 500-lb. bombs from 28,000 feet,
was good."
Lots more like that. Man your typewriters men, we've got some history to correct!
Thanks for your support.
<edit> Somebody fix this one too.
http://www.381st.org/stories_malerich.html (http://www.381st.org/stories_malerich.html)
"...The mission of January 10, 1945, was my twenty-first mission and, since GH Navigation and bombing, could be utilized on the target at Cologne, Germany, I was assigned to fly with the 381st Bomb Group stationed at Ridgewell, England. Their Tail Insignia was the Triangle L, the 303rd Bomb Group was Triangle C. The 303rd Bomb Group supplied the lead plane for the mission to Cologne, and myself as Lead GH Navigator....
On this mission, our target was the Cologne/Ostheim Airfield. We carried thirty-six l00 pound bombs at an assigned bombing altitude of 25,000 feet. The temperature at the bombing altitude was -50° Centigrade."
<edit 2> Need to get this one patched as well.
http://www.390th.org/warstories/Lamentations.htm (http://www.390th.org/warstories/Lamentations.htm)
"....Lamentations: Dusseldorf
September 9, 1944
By Robert L. Longardner
Pilot, 570th Squadron, G.I. Wonder
At the briefing on the morning of September 9, 1944, we were given a bombing altitude of 26,000 feet. The combat crews erupted in vexation, grumbling about the severity of such altitude I "happy flak valley," Surely the targeted factory could have been hit from 28,000 feet as well as from this defenseless altitude of 26,000 feet which meant that the low squadron would be flying at 25,000 feet until the initial point of the bomb run.
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
if that bomber was at 39,000 feet he would be out of gas in a few more minutes.
pop him when he becomes a glider :)
buffs with full fuel give accurate performance compared to rl counterparts.
but buffs flown on 25% fuel are doing some strange toejam.
-
S!
Ok I've checked the records, and the average height would be around 25,000, not 23,000. But that's still not 30-35,000.
Plus Bomb Groups were comprised of 3 Squadrons which flew in "box" formations which spaced the squadrons at 1,000 foot levels. The low Squadron was 3,000 feet below the top one.
Here are some sample heights:
44th Bomber Group, Dec. 20th '42, Rominy, France: 23,000.
91st BG, Jan. 27th '43, Bremen, Germany, 25,000.
44th BG, Feb. 15th '43, Dunkirk, France, 20,000.
93rd BG, Feb. 26th, Bremen, 26,000.
100th BG, Oct. 10th '43, Bremen, 24,000.
366th BG, Feb. 8th '44, Frankfurt, Germany, 24,000.
93th BG, 4th March '44, Berlin, 28,000.
96th BG, 18th June '44, Bremen, 25,000.
379th BG, 20th June '44, Munich, 25,000.
44th BG, 13th Aug. '44, Rouen, France, 18,000.
96th BG, 2nd Nov. '44, Meresberg, Germany, 24,000.
385th BG, 21st Nov. '44, Wetzer, Germany, 25,000.
The examples presented above fit into this pattern.
It seems that the very heavily defended targets like Berlin were bombed from higher altitudes. However this came with a penalty.
An anecdote on cold:
Al Greenburg, 96th BG on a mission flown at 30,000 feet on Nov. 9th '44:
"The cold at altitude was terrific... The bomb bay doors wouldn't close electrically and the pilot was having a fit. He couldn't keep his airspeed up. Finally after 15 minutes, the engineer cranked them up... The trouble was, that at 30,000 feet, half the devices which worked on the ground wouldn't function."
Accuracy:
The much vaunted Norden Bombsight was supposed to be able to drop a bomb "in a pickle barrel from 20,000". In fact it was much less accurate.
Hal Turrel, Bombardier, 445th BG;
"After dropping a few bombs, I no longer subscribed to the much advertised 'pickel barrel' theory... our practice bombing was done from 5,000 feet with 100 lb practice bombs which were filled with sand and had a smoke bomb which went off on impact so we could see where we hit. I did not think I was very good... I gave some thought to the fact that in combat we would probably bomb from 20,000 feet which would reduce our accuracy quite a bit."
The USAAF eventually trained its crews to aim to hit within a thousand foot circle.
Charles MaCauley, 385th BG on a mission over Berlin:
"At the Rally point we looked back and saw the target exploding in flames. We had scored direct hits. Nearly all our Squadron's bombs had landed in the thousand foot 'bulls-eye' circle."
Most of the time, a group's bombs did not have such accuracy.
Even when bombs hit the targets, they didn't always do as much damage as the USAAF believed.
For example on Oct 14th 1943, approx. 260 B17's hit Schweinfurt's ball bearing factory.
The USAAF Bomber commander for the mission, General Frederick Anderson, described the results as: "...entire works inactive... may be possible to recover 25% of production."
In fact the actual result was 3.5% of the machinery of the factory destroyed, and 6.5% damaged.
Overclaiming by the Bomber gunners was also very apparent on the mission. Gunners claimed 199 German Fighters shot down. Actual captured German records showed 38 Fighters destroyed.
60 bombers were lost on this, the most costly of USAAF missions.
-
So your point is that bombers in AH are not totally realistic?
Really?
When did this first occur to you?
Did you also notice that when you have been flying radial engine fighters extensively there's still no pool of oil under your computer desk?
Bombers are tweaked for gameplay. Who here does NOT know that?
You want the gameplay tweaked a different direction? Fine, make your case.
Realism, however, has little if nothing to do with gameplay. It's an old, old discussion and a zillion electronic inks have died in battle while trying to win the war... but the war rages on, doesn't it?
-
S!
The Gunnery model for the Bomber aircraft in the game is not very realistically modelled.
I am prepared to accept that, since large formations of bombers are unlikely and single aircraft would be too vulnerable.
However, the Flight models of the fighter aircraft in the game are very realistically modelled. Climb, speed, turnrate etc. are as close to historical as possible.
My point is, Bomber flight models should be equally accurate.
None of this 'uber' bomber nonsense at 30,000 + feet.
-
S!
By the way, Radial engines don't leak significant amounts of oil. You're thinking of the World War I era Rotary engines.
-
Yeah Toad and his family know nothing about radial engines. :D
-
Realism, however, has little if nothing to do with gameplay. It's an old, old discussion and a zillion electronic inks have died in battle while trying to win the war... but the war rages on, doesn't it?
I think it should be an exceptable compromise between realism and gameplay Toad. By reading all the posts on the high alt b17 performance it doesn't look like it is exceptable anymore Toad. So realism does have something do to with whether we like to fly AH, as does gameplay. I think many people already made their case more than enough to have this thing changed.
On-line simmers do strive for realism, for that same reason people choose to fly AH rather than other sims, that indicates that realism DOES have allot to do with how we experience AH. If I want gameplay more than realism I go to FA and not to AH.
S!
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]
-
Possible solutions keeping the actual gameplay level (each option excludes the others):
1 - Introduce Me163 (unperked).
2 - Introduce much earlier versions of B17 and perk B17G.
3 - Add much more hvy ack and make if much more effective against large targets and much less effective against fighters. Put at least a pair of 88 in the small fields.
4 - Hide the aiming reticle (crossair) above 20k.
5 - Reduce the max zoom limit for buffs to make impossible to aim above 25k even large targets.
6 - Eliminate external views for buffs above 25k.
-
So much confusion ... ;)
It was just a U-17 or SR-17 (*) RTBing after a recco mission :D
(*)I've just noticed a patern here : 17 reversed give 71 !
:eek: That's it !
I see the light !
The B17 share the FM of the SR71 !!
Muahahahah :D
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
OK, lets us slaughter another zillion or two electronic inks! Man the keyboards!
Bombers are the way they are in AH because without the tweaks no one will fly them. Without the tweaks they are really, really easy to shoot down, instead of just easy.
For my part, HTC could just take them out of the game. I'm here for the fighter v fighter combat.
However, HTC must feel like they need them IN the game and I know there are other players that like flying buffs. So, I have no problem with them. It's just part of the game.
Therefore, HTC tweaked them to make more survivable. This tweaking makes them less realistic.
Whatever.
I think if HTC made a truly realistic bomber, it would totally solve the buff problem. Simply because very few would fly them in the MA (and most likely CT) environment. No buffs, no problem.
Basically, though, any changes to the bombers won't affect me much. I just don't worry about that stuff.
I didn't have to make appointments with an analyst to get in touch with my true feelings on the F4U-1C. The N1K2-J's don't populate my nightmares and make me wake up screaming. I just play....and I really enjoy it.
Buzz, let me ask you a few questions, starting with why did you chase that buff for :30 minutes anyway?
-
S!
Why did I chase it for 45 minutes?
1) It was going to bomb our field.
2) After it had bombed the field, and I was unsuccessful in preventing it due to the climb rate of the B-17, I followed it as a test to see how it performed at these very high altitudes.
-
I followed a bomber from co-alt 12K D 4K in a Ki-61 (granted... not a great climber) and couldn't catch a climbing B-17. Gave up at about 25K. You really have to be able to get quite a bit above them in order to get enough speed to attack anyway, I doubt I've ever killed a buff above 25K.
-
Buzz,
As near as I can tell from your narrative, you chased the buff while he was enroute to and also in the act of bombing your field about the first 15 minutes.
I'm guessing it was probably obvious to you that you weren't going to be able to stop him from bombing your field within the first 3-5 minutes of the chase.
Then you chased him about another 20-25 minutes just trying to see if you could get up there to keel him. The answer was "no".
I assume you've played enough to know that the bomber FM's are tweaked in favor of the bomber BEFORE you started this 30-40 minute wild goosechase.
So now, my next question is... did you have fun?
-
Misinformation:
1. Lethatlity of buffs is exactly the same as in fighters. I.E. Like guns such as the 50Cals are the same.
2. There have not been any performace based flight model modification on any plane for game play consesions.
HiTech
-
Well, then I stand corrected. I had assumed the FM's were tweaked for better performance at altitude.
-
Hitech- I've showed that it took an average of 22.5 .50 cal bullets from just the twin .50s in the tail of a B17 to bring down a 190a8- if I can find someone to come back into the TA and up a P51B, that means it should only take an average of 22.5 rounds to bring down the 190a8 again, yes?
-
There goes the laser-guided uber guns on the buff conspiracy theory :(
-
Urchin, last night I blew apart a Spitfire with a short burst to a wing from a P51B.
It's all about where the bullets converge, if you half-ass shoot with the guns and the bullets land from nose to tail and wingtip to wingtip, you can bet yourself that you won't get a guaranteed kill. However if all bullets impact one area, then yes the plane will go down.
I think that's the common misconception with people, they light plane's up like a x-mas tree but they don't realise they have to light up only one area of the plane to get it to go down.
-SW
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
S! HiTech
My posting was not particularly about the lethality of the bombers weapons. Although I am very suprised to hear that bombers .50's are not tweaked. I have been regularly hit by bombers at 1.0 distance while flying parellel to the bomber in question. In that kind of situation (when aircraft are side by side) lag should not be question since range is not closing or opening, so I wouldn't expect that the bomber was seeing me as closer.
My posting was focused on the climb rates, speed and maneuverability of bombers at high altitude. It seems to me those should be looked at.
I will do some tests with the B17 and other bombers to check their ceiling. As mentioned, the bomber I was chasing was at 38,000 or 39,000 feet, which is 3500+ ft over the generally listed figure for B17 ceiling. The bomber as mentioned was also out performing my fighter in regards to maintenance of altitude during maneuvers.
-
S! Toad
I didn't have a lot of fun.
But I did learn about bombers at high alt.
-
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Hammerhead ]
-
I agree that the B17s are a little bit tooo far advanced and tweaked. A new thought occured to me today. Why not have auto guns on the bombers almost as pointless as acks. For those who like to fly as gunners (like me) we can take only one gun and stick to it (not change and jump around the lot) whilst the remaining guns could be fired on auto and leaving the pilot to man just the plane and norden bombsight with no access to guns...
And no I dont think it will reduce the bombers survivability...Most pilots will still have a tough time evading auto and perhaps one manned gun :eek:
-
In this situation, unperking the Ta-152 H-1 would do wonders: it's the plane for attacking buffs. It lacks the maneuverability to be an effective fighter vs. fighter plane, but it will do great vs. high alt buffs. And the buff drivers will have to fly in formations, as they did historically (though it's up to your discretion). And don't change the buff gun modelling.
-
Perhaps you are right here Ding, but I'm not sure. Ta-152s arent particularly good at attacking B17s at least, the glass radiator hampers their effectiveness. Also, I honestly doubt that HTC will ever unperk the Ta-152, and why bother even attempting to kill a B-17 when the odds are fairly good you will lose your perks as a result (even if you get the kill)?
-
The one thing in this game that should not be comprimised is flight model. Virtually everything about the buff's guns piss me off... their range, their zoom ability, their ability to bring all guns on target and whatever else... Those things I can accept as gameplay concessions because truthfully, not many buffs stood a chance against a fighter at any altitude.
But the flight model should be accurate. End of story.. no excuses. I too wonder if the buff's fm is spot-on at altitude. But, I'll let someone else provide exact climb rate information and provide tests to prove otherwise. Until then I'll simply sit back and accept what we have.
Really... if its so obviously wrong, it should be easy to prove. Is there really a reason why nobody has shown climb rate information for a B-17 over 25k yet? Is there a reason nobody has shown how AH B-17s compare to that data?
Time to put up or shut up.
AKDejaVu
-
OK, Buzz...
You climbed to try to stop him from bombing. No dice.
You continued to chase to examine the FM of the B-17 at high altitude. Now you know.
You didn't have fun though.
So, next and last question.. if in the exact same situation tomorrow night, what would you do?
Chase or ignore?
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
It is so enjoyable sitting in the ball gun at 25k exploding a fighter thinking a belly attack will work,heheeeeeee :)
The most fun is the guy who "sneaks" up on your 6, nice and level. Just sit in the tail till 900 or so and open up with a short burst, BOOM!!
:( then there are those that....well, I won't tell ya about the one's that know how to attack a B-17.
-
Btw A loaded b17 climbrate at 30k is aroud 750, A p51 around 1200. Wouldn't surprise me at all if a b17 with out bombs low fuel would outclimb a p51 at that alt. B17 pilot manual acctualy describes climbing as a good escape manuver at high alts.
B17's have turbo chargers,most fighters have superchargers. This makes a huge difference in performace at high alt's.
HiTech
-
I think ther real problem with em is that they can do so much damage with "can't miss" bombs. If they had realistic accuraccy then people could spend the time needed to attack them. Or... in mine and many others case.. we could just ignore them as they would still be way too gamey anyway with their slaved guns and one man crews..
As it is... If you wish to kill buffs for strat sake... you will have to make very hurried attacks due to their wildly ridiculous bombing ability or... allow them to drop their bombs and then... what strategic good is killing an empty buff? from a gameplay standpoint... Who want's to spend the time attacking a buff that is flown by one guy who is manning up to ten guns that can track you and kill from over 1000 yards out.
HT, shouldn't dispertion be way higher from flexible mounts on say fifties?? What pray tell is the dispertion of the bombers fifties in AH compared to the fiters?
lazs
-
S! Hitech
By the last stages of my chase, my P-51D had 1/3 fuel left. But I was still having the above described problems.
Wondering what the ceiling for your B-17 is?
Thanks
-
S!
I took a TA-152H the other day to see how it performed. Took a drop tank and climbed up to 32,000 and cruised over enemy territory looking for Bombers. Didn't find any unfortunately, but scared off a few climbing fighters who were coming near friendly Lancasters and B-17's.
Then I went after a P-51 at 15,000. I had the altitude advantage and found I was able to get on him and stay in a superior position. However, also found out the wingtips on the TA-152H are quite fragile. I ripped them off in a high G turn and had to RTB with no ailerons. Just barely landed it safely and saved my 30 perks.
The plane would be excellent as a high alt. interceptor, obviously since that was it was designed for. The Luftwaffe Command expected the B-29 would be added to the forces attacking Germany, and this was their response. They had reports from the Japanese on the effectiveness of the B-29.
-
WTG HT , btw I love flying in my foxhole :D
Ya I had it explaned to me , High Alt foxhole :) yep thats were u will find me , for sure .
Thanks for making such a nice game , it just gets better and better , only time I hate it is I meet up with all these other bad assed v pilots that are better than me :mad:
Please fix this for me asap :p
take care
sprocket
-
I spend 100 more times reading those "high buffs" threads than fighting high buffs. :)
Actually, lot of high buffs were the issue during beta, now they are really rare. For the last 3 tours I fought only 1 buff over 22k, and saw only few more higher than 25k. :)
At the moment taking buff very high is just unneccessary, because 20k normally does just perfectly.
Only reasonable compromise IMO is reducing zoom on buffs even more, so hitting ground targets from 30k will be much harder. It was reduced already around 1.04 I think, and it worked. Reduce it even more, not strongly, just a bit. Will do I think.
-
The basic problem is that the AH flight model is allowing bombers to be flown at full military power, at high RPM, ALL of the time - be it sea level or 39,000 feet+. That was simply not the case in the actual airplane. The engines would quickly seize due the high temps created with this kind of power output.
Saying that the FM's aren't tweaked to provide one airplane with an advantage over another has proven to be a true statement. However, the aircraft in AH are not subject to the same limitations as the airplanes that the data was taken from. Since it is unlikely that anyone ever flew a B-17 at full power for 45 minutes at 32-39,000 while maneuvering with bombs, we'll probably never know if it could outturn and outrun an attacking Mustang.
I spoke with an 8th Air Force bomb group commander last year about this topic. He said rarely did the B-17 ever go above 32,000 feet and they would only do so alone on unarmed reconnaisance missions. The highest he ever flew operationally was 29,000 feet. He said the actual altitude they reached depended on the distance they traveled. The further the target, the higher they could go as fuel was burned off. But at 29,000 he said maintaining formation was nearly impossible since they were flying in a near stalled condition in the rarified air.
MiG
-
I think putting the environmental factors into the equation would solve these types of problems. Not sure whether the coding would be diffucult or not, too tired to figure it out atm.
Damn those turbo supercharged engines, all four of em!!!!!
Chow <- Austspanglish for cya
:D
-
Didn't read all posts buy agree to what Buzzbait and some other say, leave the buff guns as they are, we'll never get enough dedicated buff drivers to have large formations so this is a good compromise.
The bombers shouldn't outperform fighters though, especially not the Big ones such as the B17 and and Lanc, the JU88 was used as a night fighter but wouldn't stand a single little chance vs a single engined fighter.
To see B17's and lanc roll and loop and split S, sometimes with bombs sometimes without is a bit anoying, they even outmanuver a TA152 at 40k (TA152 had a Max celing at 52k, best High alt fighter to see action during the war).
Mabe adding a little inaccuracy for the bombs wich makes them go off a bit, at high alts this would be off alot and force people who want to bomb things and not just ackstarr (ie making fighters turn away from their attack by outmanuvering them) to bomb at maybe 20-25k.
-
I think MigEater could just nailed it, as for FM is concerned.
If you throttle back at 30k, your buff is gonna loose alt.
Nice one, MigEater.
If this is fixed, the super-duper-laser-bombsight could be next, alongside blast radius and proper crater & field damage (I'm thinking on rnwy damage). Then, if we get rid of aircrafts/dune-buggies, able to cross-country at 80+mph, the picture would be perfect. How I miss buff times in WB! :)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
On a side note, a buff crew in WWII needed some things to be successful:
a) Some serious guts, to face their survival odds.
b) Pilot ability. Not to jink, bank and roll the plane, but to manage engines efficiently. This meant not overheating them, taking care of consumption, and, finally, able to take the bird back home.
b) Some serious navigation skills, to arrive to target in time and avoid enemy flaks and fighter concentrations, along the way, if known and possible.
c) Some seriously good bomber, to manage Norden properly.
d) Some serious luck, because targets could not be effectively pinpointed. They relied on carpet bombing, and heavy eggs.
I feel those guys must be made of some special alien material. It must have been really scary, to put it mildly, to board one of the 8th. buffs in those hard times, especially the early days.
Now, if we turn our view in current AH situation, tell me which of these points are modelled.
I would like to make it clear that I LIKE buff tasks. What I deeply dislike is the sense that, being buff driving one of the hardest tasks (both in terms of raw skill and determination) perhaps with the exception of close ground support missions in WWII, in AH buff driving is only a matter of patience and, maybe, some sort of gunner skills.
IMHO, and it's my own oppinion, no pun intended to people flying buffs in MA as of now (to each its own), buff modelling should give a flavour of what buff drivers faced in WWII. It would improve respect to buff flyers in MA, and will show more of it to RL crews. :)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
c) Some seriously good bomber, to manage Norden properly.
That mostly applied to the lead bomber, they operated in large formations where the lead bomber determined release point and rest of formation dropped on his signal. Many bomber crews had toggliers only, who knew how to prep salvo settings and to release the bombs.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]
-
HT,
That doesn't cover the realistic operating ceiling with respect to bombing accuracy and other mentioned restricting issues.
If the bombing accuracy would be adapted to realistic figures and there be a penalty on lateral movements during and just prior to bomb release that would restrict used alt of bombers and maneuvers of bombers in AH.
Now that in turn would not favour the single bomber sorties and therefore not balance gameplay with realism.
How about adapting bombing accuracy to more realistic figures and restricting the use of bombers through missions only with a minimum (say) 5 bombers. This would enable (force)the bombers to fly in formation and have better survival rate at ideal operating altitude. It would also cover the inherent lesser bombing accuracy by the need of bombing in formation. It would be more realistic and at the same time it would prolly be more fun for both bomber pilots and bomber sweeper pilots. Furthermore I think that bomber formations are more inviting to bomber escorts than a single bomber. In my opinion that would change the whole use of bomber tactics for the better and somewhat be more realistic and fun too.
Just an idea,
:cool:
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]
-
Just a couple of points that I want to get off my chest :)
Why should bombers have to use realistic engine managment when the fighters don't?
When you attack a bomber from dead six then the following may happen;
The bomber is 500yds from you so your bullets have to fly 500yds + what ever distance the bomber has moved in the meantime.
As you are 500yds behind the bomber the bombers bullets have to travel 500yds - the distance you have travled.
This obviously leads to the bombers bullets impacting the fighter with a energy advantage. Now I am not the best at maths so I will leave it as a test for the interested reader to work out exactly what the differance in hitting power would be.
As I fly a bomber about 1/3 of my online time (over months) I can say that a bandit comming directly for me from dead six seems to take less bullets to stop then someone that makes a high 2/8 attack (hit sprites BTW not my lousy shooting).
There you go, pust on flame proof flight suit :D
Grayarea.
-
Grayarea,
Totally agree on your first point. Fighters should use realistic engine management (please make me some room under your flame-proof umbrella :D)
On your second point:
I'm not into physics too, but AFAIK the only important thing regarding this point is relative speeds of objects involved (aircrafts' and bullets' i.e., rate of closure). Let's assume same speeds, same guns (both .50's) Bullet speed is 1000fts/sec. and aircraft speeds are 250 fts./sec. relative to surrounding air.
Buff fires:
Buff's bullet speed in relation to surrounding air is 1000-250 ft/s=750 ft/s
Fiter receiving speed= 250 ft/s
Net result (speed of the buff bullet relative to fiter speed)= 750 + 250=1000 ft/s
Fiter fires:
Fiter's bullet speed in relation to earth is 1000+250 ft/s=1.250 ft/s
Buff receiving speed= -250 ft/s (he's getting away)
Net result (speed of the fiter bullet relative to buff speed)= 1.250 - 250=1000 ft/s
So kinetic energy is equal, given same bullet.
If aircraft's relative speed is 0, relative distance is constant. Given equal guns and bullets, kinetic energy should be the same on each receiving end. Maybe there is a slight advangate in the fiter's side, because although its bullets are suffering more drag, the trajectory should be more tense, if you take into account different muzzle velocity with regards to surrounding air. Not sure about this last thingy. :)
Anyone physics-literate feel free to correct me. :)
Cheers,
Pepe.
-
absolutely correct, Pepe. From start to end. The myth of the "the buff hits harder than fighter because the fighter comes to the buff" is that, a myth.
The buffs in AH are screwed because the auto-converging syncronized turrets, because the "I shoot thru my fuselage and do none damage to me", because the "run at 100% power,engine, run that you'll never burn", because the "point that bomb and hit that HQ from 30K", the "no mater how much do I bank I will hit", the "look a con at 1.3 at my three. Look how I fire. Look how he falls", the "35K and my gunners still havent fingers frozen", the "3G turn with heavy bank. NO prob, I'm hitting that con at 1K"
etc etc etc
Sorry but the buff model in AH is a joke. THe only one resembling something like realistic is the Ju88. Even the lancaster can climb to 27K with 14 1000lbs and outturn a C205 (ask AcId what did I do to him the other day at 29K, and I still had 5K of bombs)
Is sad but laughable.
-
Pepe,
I agree with your evaluation assuming no drag.
However you show that the fighters bullets will enter the air at a higher speed and thus be effected more by drag.
The bombers bullets suffer less drag over the same distance because of there lower speed.
Drag is propotional to speed is it not?
Oh and RAM, lancs operationally operated upto 35k although 22-27 was the norm.
Grayarea.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Grayarea ]
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
lotsa number and physic formula I don't understand :D
But now I'm sure ... I know the truth ...I've seen the LIGHT ... I can believe !
BRING THE DEFIANT IN AH :D
rotfl ... :)
-
Originally posted by Grayarea:
Pepe,
I agree with your evaluation assuming no drag.
However you show that the fighters bullets will enter the air at a higher speed and thus be effected more by drag.
The bombers bullets suffer less drag over the same distance because of there lower speed.
Drag is propotional to speed is it not?
Oh and RAM, lancs operationally operated upto 35k although 22-27 was the norm.
Grayarea.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Grayarea ]
On the drag issue, fiter bullets will suffer more drag, but they have more kinetic energy. So they will suffer more, but will have more to spend, too ;)
On the Lanc's ceiling figure, I'm seeing ranges from 7.330 to 7.470 m. (roughly 22-25k). Where did you find that 35k limit, pls?
Cheers,
Pepe
P.S. Please, bring the Defiant to straffo...errmmm to AH :D
-
I am going to use your description to show the drag issue.
BTW I don't know what figures to use for drag, so I will only illustrate my point.
Buff fires:
Buff's bullet speed in relation to surrounding air is 1000-250 ft/s=750 ft/s
Drag effect on bullet travelling at 750 10%
Fiter receiving speed= 250 ft/s
Net result (speed of the buff bullet relative to fiter speed)= 750 + 250 - 75=925 ft/s
Fiter fires:
Fiter's bullet speed in relation to earth is 1000+250 ft/s=1.250 ft/s
Drag effect on bullet at 1,250 15% (remeber it is relative to speed)
Buff receiving speed= -250 ft/s (he's getting away)
Net result (speed of the fiter bullet relative to buff speed)= 1.250 - 250 - 187.5=812.5 ft/s
Now I know my drag is an example, but the effect is correct, a bullet travelling at a higher speed will be slowed more by drag.
Grayarea.
PS, please someone with some good physics step in and save us all!
-
The relation between drag and speed is not linear, but exponential. Drag is a function of speed, squared (sorry if my English is not good enough)and, thus, drag increases at a much greater pace than speed. Drag dissipates energy from a moving object by means of slowing it, and heat generation. It depends on the aerodynamic profile of such object. But it's all relative. Drag on a bullet, small frontal section, very massive object, often aerodynamically efficient, is relatively small, compared with it's kinetic energy. Especially when in guns range. Calculations are not as simple as with the uniform movement equations ;)
Again, I second Grayarea request: Physics help needed! :D
-
If you want realism know your bombers oper. celling and dont fly above it. When I fly B17 or others bombers I never go above 25k if I make it I make it if not will try again.
-
I've posted this before, it's from a P-51 manual and gives a good description of military power and time limits. I doubt that many people ever break rental cars, but I wouldn't ever buy a used car from a rental place.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/milpower.jpg)
-
Key, there are actual mission reports from various bomb groups bombing from 28K, some showing 29K.
Didn't say exactly what the CEP was though. Their BDA was fairly crude then. :)
I'm sorry but I just think all this ultra microscopic examination of everything for "total realism" is a little overboard.
Why go through your limited time for recreational opportunity with your shorts all twisted up in a knot?
It's a GREAT game. Play the Game. Have fun.
-
Back to the topic, oh yeah, there are some characters that in order to avoid playing without radar for two hours are so silly to chase a Lancaster or B17 flying up to 35K ... incredible ... really incredible :rolleyes:
<S> Buzzbait ;)
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: gatt ]
-
There was something else the P-51's did- they destroyed planes on the ground getting ready for takeoff. This was hard to work out. The B17's would cross the enemy coast at an altitude of 36000 feet and an indicated air speed of 160 MPH and a true air speed of about 320 MPH. Often we would pick up a jet stream of perhaps of 50 MPH, and this would give us a ground speed of 370 MPH. The P-51's flew at an altitude of 200 feet and an indicated air speed of 270 MPH with a true air and ground speed of 270mph. We were flying 100 MPH faster than the P-51's and the P-51's needed to leave before we left. They would come in to a Luftwaffe air field in France or Germany, and all the fighters would have left to attack the bombers. They did not make this but mistake but once, and later they would come in low and line abreast with all guns blazing and did tremendous damage to the parked and taxiing fighters. They would not make a second attack immediately. However on one flight, a P-51 was crippled , and the pilot landed. A second pilot landed and taxied to the damaged plane. "Get in", the pilot of the good plane shouted, and the other pilot climbed in (right foot on left wheel, left foot on wing, right foot into cockpit). Don't get your head in the big four-blade propeller. All this time the other ten pilots were strafing everything that moved, and the Germans were firing cannons at everything that flew- a real little war going on. Back at Base the two pilots tried to repeat the two in one for the newsreel cameras but this was a complete failure. One pilot said "We didn't have any trouble when the Germans were firing those cannons at us."
p51 b17 story (http://www.aafo.com/library/history/B-17/b17part5.htm)
apparently buffs operated at higher alts then I had thought and a little faster then I had thought as well.
However they seem (and again I maybe wrong) more manuverable at alt then some of the better alt fighters.
The more I look the more I prove my self wrong so I will just stick to.........
"buffs suk and their impact on gameplay is too great"
I rely on others to bail me out....... :)
-
S! Wotan
Don't know where you got that quote from, but it isn't accurate. I suspect it is by a fighter jock who doesn't know his bomber stuff.
I will say this catagorically:
B17's did NOT bomb from 36,000 feet as a stardard procedure.
Their bombing altitude was between 20,000 and 30,000. (highest I have seen for a report was 29,000) Most of the time they bombed from 25,000.
B29's are a different story. But we don't have them. When we get them, then the whines will reach a creshendo. ;)
-
the link is right there
-
Last night Rwy and myself in two P-51's flew a vector to intercept an HQ raid by six B-17's. We engaged at 32k and dispersed of 2 P-51 escorts and 4 B-17's with some help from another Bishop.
Was not hard to have success as long as you don't get hvy handed...yanking around on the stick produces trouble.
Take a look at the quote below my sig...repeat as many times as necessary to free yourselves of the obvious pain you have encountered flying this sim.
You're Welcome :rolleyes: