Major complaint....

[SmokinLoon]

I really like the idea of slowing bombers down for their bomber run.  I dont mind the high alt buffs (20-25k), but I do mind the grossly inaccurate 280mph boomb runs.

One must be allowed to believe that if HTC can limit torpedo runs to 200mph/200ft for German and Jap torps and 250mph/200ft for US/UK torps that they could do *****something***** to slow those buffs down to hitorical flight speeds for bombing runs.  Perhaps program bombs from being released at abover certain speeds (200> speeds while bombing were the norm)?

 

[Squire]

Bombers did not "slow down" to drop bombs. Torpedo bombing and level bombing have nothing to do with each other. Torpedo bombers had speed limits because of the impact the torp had hitting the water. Too fast and it would damage/explode the torpedo, rendering it useless. Bombs dropped from a fast a/c have no such problem, as they simply travel through the air before hitting the target. So there is really nothing for HTC to address on that issue. 

[AKKaz]

I really like the idea of slowing bombers down for their bomber run.  I dont mind the high alt buffs (20-25k), but I do mind the grossly inaccurate 280mph boomb runs.

One must be allowed to believe that if HTC can limit torpedo runs to 200mph/200ft for German and Jap torps and 250mph/200ft for US/UK torps that they could do *****something***** to slow those buffs down to hitorical flight speeds for bombing runs.  Perhaps program bombs from being released at abover certain speeds (200> speeds while bombing were the norm)?

 

Have to becareful when trying to put in the "historical" aspect as justification into this online game.  Understand we all would like to strive for historical accuracy to aid in the immersion of flying a WWII sim, but you also have to keep in mind that the sword does cut both ways.

Things are done to aid in the gameplay and to also try to keep things at a see-saw level.  Let's say the buffs are brought into this realm, then shouldn't the fuel burn for all the planes sets be adjusted also?  Noone would fly LW if they new that they would be extremely restricted on FSO's in which missions are sent over england.

My point here is, to bring one area into the realism area, than naturally to make it completely even, other aspects must follow the same suit.

I'm all for readjustments to make things better, just wary of an adjustment to a single area to "just like in real life" while the other areas stay in a game area

[Ghosth]

Very well said Kaz.

Smoking loon if you want to call bomber runs at 280 mph grossly inaccurate you need PROOF sir.
Not pilot accounts, nothing that can be subjective, or interpreted. Real life hard core data that shows what speeds given planes actually attacked at. And you'd need it for more than 1 such attack. If you want to make the case that what we have is wrong. Then the burden of proof is on you sir. You have to make the case and prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Until you supply said proof  that speeds are too high your opinion  is just that, your opinion.
And its worth 2 cents just like everyone else's.

 

[texastc316]

krusty says they re too fast.

[Delirium]

Last Friday was my first FSO, I've never had the opportunity to participate in the event since I work every Friday night.

I saw nothing wrong with the way the Allies came in; they had their force split into at least 4 different groups and if anything, they should of amassed greater numbers to force air superiority over a designated area. The Allies will never win air superiority over all of France, their best bet is to dominate their target areas and it looked to me as though they failed.

My other opinion is that FAR too many of you take FSO far too seriously, it is more of a petty competition than an event that is supposed to run smoother because whole squads involved. It saddens me because I saw first hand the days of scenarios are over, I am convinced that FSO style event will become the wave of the future. It is too bad since a scenario environment will force you to fly with people you don't know, or in some cases even like.

Either way, when it comes to scenario/FSO type events; enjoy the game, enjoy the very small fraction what the historical combatants had to go through with little of the bad to go with it, and enjoy the camaraderie since we are all here to have fun.

[Bino]

My Dad's big brother flew as co-pilot in B-24s from bases in Italy against targets in Germany and Austria in 1944 and 1945.  According to him, the planes were *always* loaded to the max.  They just traded off bombs against fuel, depending on the distance they had to fly.  Short flight: more bombs / less fuel.  Long flight: fewer bombs / more fuel.

Is that "historical" enough for you?   

[Odee]

...Is that "historical" enough for you?   

Did he happen to say anything about the altitudes they went in at?

[Stoney]

Did he happen to say anything about the altitudes they went in at?

http://www.398th.org/Missions/Missions_Listing.html

This link will take you to a site that has tons of mission diaries and reports from which you can see what altitudes they dropped from.

[Shifty]

Is that "historical" enough for you?   

Take it with a grain of salt Bino. You always seem to run into a few people here that know more than the people who did this stuff in real life. 

<S>

[Bino]

Take it with a grain of salt Bino. You always seem to run into a few people here that know more than the people who did this stuff in real life. 

<S>

Roger that! 

[Bino]

http://www.398th.org/Missions/Missions_Listing.html

This link will take you to a site that has tons of mission diaries and reports from which you can see what altitudes they dropped from.

Thanks, Stoney! 

Out of curiosity I tallied up the 27 missions flown by S/Stg. Ellsworth Wright in B-17s between May and September 1944.  He flew on two "tactical" missions against German troops in the St. Lo area, one at 16,000 and the other at 12,000, so I figured to discard those two for the purposes of this thread.  All 25 of his other combat missions were against strategic targets like cities and factories.  Those missions were flown from 19,000 up to 30,700.  And over those 25 missions the average was 24,388.

Here are the numbers:
20,000
25,000
25,000
26,000
23,000
23,000
20,000
27,000
19,000
22,000
22,000
25,000
30,700
28,000
25,000
23,000
22,000
21,000
25,000
27,000
25,000
25,000
16,000
12,000
27,000
29,000
25,000

[Stoney]

Its a fantastic website, and an unbelievable resource.  You can get stuck for hours reading through some of those combat diaries and mission write-ups.

[DrDea]

 And we should cripple the buffs with 100% fuel so they can reach 10 to 15K???  Looks like this case is closed.

[BnZs]

Yep...they could fly at 30K. But I think that would be pushing things for the poor bananas in 190s asked to intercept buffs in our scenarios. Keeping 'em 20-25K is also historically "realistic" but doesn't totally put them in a range where the most common interceptors in AHII scenarios have absolutely no performance left.

Thanks, Stoney! 

Out of curiosity I tallied up the 27 missions flown by S/Stg. Ellsworth Wright in B-17s between May and September 1944.  He flew on two "tactical" missions against German troops in the St. Lo area, one at 16,000 and the other at 12,000, so I figured to discard those two for the purposes of this thread.  All 25 of his other combat missions were against strategic targets like cities and factories.  Those missions were flown from 19,000 up to 30,700.  And over those 25 missions the average was 24,388.

Here are the numbers:
20,000
25,000
25,000
26,000
23,000
23,000
20,000
27,000
19,000
22,000
22,000
25,000
30,700
28,000
25,000
23,000
22,000
21,000
25,000
27,000
25,000
25,000
16,000
12,000
27,000
29,000
25,000