I like this.

[-lynx-]

 

"Well, look at it this way", I asked the instructor. "Let's say I'm in a helicopter, and I'm hovering right over the target at 5000'....the wind varies from different directions and velocities between me and the target. Do you mean to stand there and tell me that those winds aren't going to affect the bomb in its fall?"

With all due respect Andy 5,000' or 35,000' is a massive difference.

Not sure what terminal velocity for a bomb would be but it all depends on how long a bomb will have in a particular airmass.

At the moment we are talking the bomb hitting the exact spot you looked at when you pressed release button at 35,000'. Which is, all instructors can go to hell, roadkill. It just won't happen.

I'm sure there are people reading this who could come up with all sorts of equations to prove that - I went braindead, it's Friday after all , cant figure out how to calculate speed, distance based on 1g acceleration - duh

Plus, taking into account blast area from a real 500lber, you can simply ignore the dispersion you get dropping it from 5,000' - it *will* kill your target. In AH if you didn't pretty much hit ack on the muzzle it ain't going to die! Hence all the argument about Strato17s closing fields unopposed. Add what RAM's suggested and we will get the realistic buffing environment.

p.s. Having been through military training myself (albeit not as advanced!) I've learnt not to take everything my instructor said for god's honest truth

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF

[sling322]

"In AH if you didn't pretty much hit ack on the muzzle it ain't going to die! "

This statement makes me wonder if you have ever flown a bomber in this game.  I got started in this game originally to fly bombers because it was supposed to be practice for the wonderful B17 II (we all know that didnt happen).  Every experience I have had in taking down the ack at a field pretty much involves being close with the bomb.  You dont have to score a direct hit to knock out an ack gun.  I dont know if that is what you were trying to say, but if thats the case the I would have to disagree with you there.

[Westy]

 Lazs you lost me a bit. I've never made any comment on any base distance or any other terrain issue. I like both terrains when they are available and I have no problem with this terrain or the other as far as base distance regardless of whether or not I am in a vehicle or aircraft.

 -Westy

[iculus]

Nahhhh..... I think it's fine as it is.  I don't like ultra high bombers, but buffers have a hard enough time as it is.

IC

[Andy Bush]

-lynx-

35,000 feet!! Who said anything about 35,000'?!!

What WW2 bomber could even get to such an altitude, let alone try to bomb from there? Maybe a B-29? Or a Mosquito? That's about it.

My comments are directed towards dive bombing from typical WW2 release altitudes. The assumptions remain valid for typical level bombing altitudes as well. The main assumption is that given all the other intangibles in the bombing problem, the effect on the bomb of air mass changes that it may pass through is negligible.

Andy

[bloom25]

A little off topic perhaps, but interesting:

I was talking to one of my professors in college who worked on the b-____.  (Don't know if I can say which bomber it was?  Let's just say it's big and black and very expensive.)  He told me that one of the biggest problems they had was that the bombs, when released, would get "caught" in the turbulent air beneath the bomber's wing and skip like a stone on the denser air below.  The solution:  Toss the bombs out of the bomb bay instead of letting them freefall.    I guess this was a very serious problem at one time, there was the potential for the bomb to strike the aircraft dropping it.

I would think that given the tremendous density of a bomb compared to air that wind effects would not matter much.  (Very high inertia)  I'd also imagine that as the bomb picked up speed wind would become quite insignificant.  Also, unlike AH, wind does not tend to have sudden discontinuities in its magnitude and direction.

------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Andy Bush:
-lynx-

35,000 feet!! Who said anything about 35,000'?!!

I do. 30K bombers are commonly seen in the MA and 35K bombers usually are seen too.

Maybe a B29 could do it in WWII, but in AH a B17 can do it too  

[-lazs-]

sorry westy, my post did make it look as tho you commented on field distance.   What was intended was my personal opinion that the close fields were far enough away as it was and that having bombers close or partially close them was a detrement and a cause for animosity.

I see the bombers hitting the close fields and causing everyone to fly for long distances in order to get into the fight.   Limiting fuel and radar and such is really just a pain IMO.   I find nothing realistic about high alt bombers hitting airfields and limiting things by some percentage.   Even in the PAC where bombers did hit airfields it took many raids to close an airfield sometimes months.   I just feel that either the bombing is too accurate and/or the fields too easy to damage and that the bombers need huge cities to bomb.    

If the bombers have nothing to do but ruin the fighter war there will be animosity.   If they contribute to "winning the war" by bombing out the cities so that ground forces can capture them then.... People will think they are useful and part of the game.  Or, in my case, I can just ignore them and ignore the progress of the war.  
lazs

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by Duckwing6:
Oh btw graywolf there's cities with quite a few buildiigns in AH too .. also the barracks make real nice area targets

DW6

But unlike the Warbirds cities the density is way off. The Warbirds cities were about 80% viable targets and so carpet bombings worked. The Aces High cities are less than 50% target area and it isn't quite so viable...


------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by sling322:
"In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. "

This statement confuses me.  What exactly do you mean by the above statement?  You can currently only have one gunner in your bomber so why should the guns not all track on a single threat?  I am sure it happened in real life so why is it a limitation?  

Because when you're attacked by multiple enemies you are completely toast. Why should my nose gunner go to sleep when I man the rear turret? Why should there be NO WAY to effectively attack 2 incoming fighters at 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock?

In short A bomber in real life have enough crew to attack multiple targets. It doesn't in Aces High.

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[funked]

Bloom I haven't heard about the tossing part but I do know that there are spoilers that fold down at the front of the B-2 bomb bays to prevent the problem you describe.  B-1 uses a similar system.

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:
I do admit that I would not care if I never saw another large bomber in AH tho.
lazs

I would.

Like it or not, fighter vs fighter is a pointless role, the only strategic importance it has in real life is to gain air superiority so that the friendly bomber/ground attack/ground forces can do their stuff with greater safety, and the enemy with a lot more difficulty.

It may have the glamour, but it didn't win any wars...

------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[-lazs-]

gray.. fighter vs fighter is not pointless in a prop sim.   Winning a "war" in a sim is pointless.    What is unrealistic is for bombers to have so much effect on the figher war...  It is unrealistic and the cause of animosity.   Closing fields or limiting any supplies is way too easy.   The accuracy of bombing raids is far too good against targets that shouldn't even be targets for high alt bombers.

I am not happy when bombers close the closest fields to the fight no matter if it is a red bomber or a green one.   I think that there should be no killshooter for bombers.
lazs

[AKDejaVu]

 

Bloom I haven't heard about the tossing part but I do know that there are spoilers that fold down at the front of the B-2 bomb bays to prevent the problem you describe. B-1 uses a similar system.

The skipping bombs problem in the B-1 was discovered some time after they went into service.  The B-1 was a solely nuclear strike aircraft for several years.  Later, to justify exenses, they attempted to adopt strategic conventional bombing roles.  The bomb skipping was discovered on the first test.  They thought the bombs didn't release... until they opened the weapons bays and they fell out on the ground.

AKDejaVu

[bloom25]

The plane in question that I was describing is the B2.  (Although I toured a B1 at a recent airshow.   )

Perhaps since they have devised a better way to overcome this problem since the time my source was involved with the project?



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS