Mossie and bombing accuracies

[Toad]

awwwww...

You're not going to tell them you missed the part where I also bolded the BAD numbers and left the good numbers plain in the first post?

If you take the trouble to read it all, you see that the Norden did pretty good in peacetime test trials and then they admit everything went to sh*t in actual combat.

So, you might say the Norden "tests" well but doesn't "play" so good.

I think that observation is pretty much backed up by fact in the Bombing Survey. Notice that the only "good" accuracy came during missions just before the surrender in '45, when opposition was probably the lightest the crews ever faced (more like the "test" conditions).

If I find any more "hard" numbers, I'll post links.

[Nash]

I'd be interested to see what kinda damage say, a 500lb bomb can do at certain distances away from certain targets. Because while I think the accuracy should go down, the blast radius should be raised... but how much damage and from how far away I have no idea.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Vulchatwork]

Originally posted by Tilt:

I do not understand how one could steer a B17/Lanc/B25/Ju88 etc from the bombadiers position with unerring accuracy to drop a 100llb bomb into the centre of a gun pit from 5000 ft yet alone 10k or 15k!!
Tilt

In real life of course you cant steer a Lancaster from the Bombardiers position.  You had to pass on corrections to the pilot over the intercom (Bernie, the bolt).  Those attending the Euro convention (www.evacc2001.com) can talk to our guest speaker, who piloted Lancasters over Germany during the war and get the full SP.

Vulch  :> )

[Serapis]

Buzzbait,
I wouldn't say "never".

Lancasters destroyed the Tirpitz using 12,000lb bombs. Lancs also destroyed an underground V1 launch base in France just before it could become operational, one 12,000lb bomb actually going down the launch tunnel and blowing up inside of the installation. The bomb that blew up Arizona was dropped by a level bomber from IIRC, 7,000ft.

But in general you are correct, level bombers were very poor at destroying small or tactical targets. I know of no cases in which level bombers destroyed ships that were under way.

Karnak

 

Well, it took the RAF three missions flown at around 12,000 – 14,000 feet to score three hits out of 77 bombs dropped on a stationary, 824-foot target. Smoke partially obscured the Tirpitz on the first mission where one hit was recorded. The second was a wash because of clouds, and the third was a clear run where two hits were recorded. Here is a link for the last mission:Tirpitz fini.

As for the Arizona, again, were talking 7,000 feet and a stationary, 608-foot target. With both the Tirpitz and Arizona, the missions were flown by elite crews with extensive preparation and practice, and at altitudes under 15,000 feet..


With the V-targets, I'm sure that on many 8th AF missions a bomb from the formation actually hit the initial aiming point square on, just as many landed thousands of yards away. I fully agree that a large formation of B-17s, Lancs, or B-26s attacking a small AH airfield should be able to score direct hits on a variety of emplacements and structures and totally disrupt a field.

In AH, one Lanc or B-17 could take out most of battleship row in one pass (as has been the case with similar online games like AW, for that matter). I found it gamey in AW and still find it gamey here.

Charon

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[Naso]

So, we are again in buff bashing mode  

Bombers in AH are unrealistic, as for precision, and for defense.

Anyway, when I take a bomber and spent the time to climb at an almost safe alt (usually 20k is the patience limit for me), risking in any moment that a single fighter with a very short burst can shot down me, and dropping bombs witch effects are useful only when scoring direct hits, I prefer to have this laser guided bombs and this almost laserguns (even if they dont work for me as they seem with others, my gunnery sucks).

My dream?

To have a realistic use of bombers, with some gameplay concessions.

Tone down accuracy, make bombs dispersion higher, much highter (if there is any)

About the salvo issue, I've seen the selection panels in some bomber, so maybe that is realistic, but if dispersion get high enough, will be unusable to drop a single bomb on a target, and we will need to drop a cross salvo, hoping for some of them to fall near enough to cause damage.

Tone way up blast effect, increasing maybe the resistance of some target, aka bunkers, but decreasing other soft targets, like hangars, fuel tanks, buildings, in this way carpet bombing become more useful and we will see more bombers heading to strategic targets, and less heading for field bombing, having effect to the use of the full salvo option.

As the defensive aspect, we dont have large formation flying, so we need to give something to the defensive capacity of single buffs in a dense environment, by maintaining the actual situation, or, if toning down turrets gun, increase the toughness of bombers, meaning more hits needed to kill them.

And this will have some effect to the use of jabos, because they will become the more precise bomb platform (but with small load) with the apex in the dive bombers.

Toning down the precision of level bombers without modification of the bomb effects will relegate the bombers to the use we hate more, ackstarring and carbombing.

If dispersion and blast effect can permit "blind" carpet bombing of strat targets with some results, and at the same time, the destruction of a big fat target (say a VH) possible with 2 bombs of 1000 lbs that miss for 2 meters dropped by a jabo (how many times this happen to you?), we may have a more realistic use of the planes in their historical role.

My opinon.

[Toad]

NASH:

Here, check this one out... and YOU do the bolding.  

I gotta run, don't have time to do it justice.

Yes, it is for current USAF inventory I think, but it should give you at least an idea of what the various bombs are capable of doing.

Here's a taste... you take it from here.  


 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/a532/RDG7A-4.htm


"Weapons and Fuzes
JOINT TARGETING SCHOOL
STUDENT GUIDE

...1. Blast: caused by tremendous overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete detonation of high explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500º prior to bomb case fragmentation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to the fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). Blast is maximized by using a GP bomb with a fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated."


Here's another good one, gives crater sizes:


 http://www.soft.net.uk/entrinet/arty13d.htm

General Air Munitions Data


<EDIT> Wow! Some kind of "Blast Effects Computer" for Excel... didn't have time to read it but saw an example using a MK 82 in there. Wonder if this "computer" could be made avail to Pyro if he doesn't have it?

Take a look:
 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7W0r_w0Kaoc:www-afsc.saia.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Weapons/files/BEC%2520Version%25204.pdf+mk+82+blast+effect&hl=en


Now I GOTTA go.  

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]