MjTalon's Bomber Speed Idea

[BnZs]

Some folks actually enjoy bomber missions--try to keep the banter constructive.

Okay, how about this...I would trust most players in FSO to TRY and fly within a freakin' speed limit if one was assigned, but I wouldn't want to saddle the buffers with another piloting task.

Anyway, climb/time/distance considerations in this particular FSO means that the buffs probably will be at 25K at most.

[Krusty]

In this game, even if a bomber goes down it usually accounts for 2-3 of its attackers before done (talking US bombers here, formations enabled).

So, if a 190A is able to catch a 30K US bomber without miraculously being shot down 1.5k from the target, how long will it last?

On average 1 pass before being damaged beyond remaining, or out-and-out killed/disabled. So while some bombers may die, more LW fighters go down in droves for it. Usually it's a slaughter in favor of the allied gunners.

I know you've been around for a while, but to claim ignorance baffles me a bit. Anybody that's had to chase B17s up past 25k in ANYTHING LW-made knows they are too fast and fly too high and climb too quickly (low fuel weight). You can spend 15 minutes at WEP even in LATE war planes just to close for a single attack run.

As for another thing... some folks think a couple thousand feet is enough to attack bombers. It's not. They say "Oh, B17s at 22k, you're 24k, more than enough!!" but from the B17s gunner that's only 600 yards (instant kill zone range, first ping will kill you). To be 1k (yards from gunner) is still within lethal range at this alt (thin air, bullets fly better), so you need 3000 feet advantage to... well... still be inside gunnery range. To even MANUVER into position to attack bombers you need 4000 feet advantage or MORE, and that's bare minimum just to move around without being shot down instantly.


So flying at alts so high with guns so strong and powerful you can kill anybody under 35k? Oh, wait... LW planes can't fly that high.


You see the problem? It's no one thing, no one alt. The entire bomber system in this game is screwed up and doesn't "work" for historical use. Because of this LW planes have every disadvantage that historically was not there.

[AKKaz]

I am not claiming ignorance and do consider myself probably in the 20% of the low end of pilots in the game. I just dont see the major discrepancies within this argument that is being put forth.  I have flown LW planes at 30k, and do see the problems that exist doing so.  The buffs we were escorting were around 20-22k which is what is being brought in as a ceiling cap for in the future.  Also, even though I was in a 47, at 28k, the eny force was above us on the initial.  This fits right in to the fixes suggested for future ops, though I cant say what was the specifics in other areas.  So maybe this is why I dont understand the argument from this last frame, from where I was everything fit into what everyone is stating they want it to be.

If the buffs were to high, to fast and over armed, I dont understand why so many go down each and every scenerio.  I dont beleive I have ever seen the fighter to buff kill ratio in any frame that I have been in that you have suggested of course I took your posting as them unescorted).

Will go along with what comes out of the whole thing and adapt accordingly to it.  Heck, am even willing to fly a squad of b17's (15 pods?) at 25k-28k unescorted against the usual 2-3 squads of defenders (40+ planes) to see how things fair out to help come to some sort of conclusion that will make everyone happy.  I think something like this will give good insight for changes if needed.



Either way, you guys figuire it all out.  Will sit back and wait for the results to see what we are left with to adapt to.


<S> AKKaz, CO Arabian Knights

With all the back and forths in this subject, maybe that will be the only way to get it to somewhat of a conclusion for everyone.

[Stoney]

In this game, even if a bomber goes down it usually accounts for 2-3 of its attackers before done (talking US bombers here, formations enabled).

In the MA, perhaps or perhaps not depending on the quality of the fighters and the bomber pilot.  In frame 1 though, the ratio between bombers lost and Axis fighters lost was close to 1:1.  And, that doesn't account for all the German fighters shot down by Allied fighters, versus bomber guns.  So, I feel fairly comfortable spit-balling that the ratio was less than 1:1.

...catch a 30K US bomber

You didn't see any bombers that high in Frame 1, and you won't see any bombers that high in Frame 2 or 3 because the bombers do not have the time to climb that high and still make the T+60 restriction.

The entire bomber system in this game is screwed up and doesn't "work" for historical use.

Make sure you let Dale know so he can fix it.

[Krusty]

Let's be honest by admitting the ONLY reason the US bombers were flying less than the 32-35K you find them in MA encounters was ONLY because of the time limit in the rules.

I threw out 30K because .... frankly.... given any option to do so, most US heavy bombers in this game (FSO or MA) try to get as high as they can BECAUSE they know they can't be attacked this high.

Historically the B-24 couldn't even FLY that high. Wing warping and flexing caused the entire thing to shake and shimmy to hell and gone at that alt, but in this game it flies steady as a train on a track.

[DrDea]

 This is a historical setup. Historical records show the LW went for head on passes and either disengaged or tried to make another pass.They had real lives to worry about.In the FSO its normaly to the death taking risks that a real pilot wouldnt even think about for the most part.
 I think the axis did an outstanding job in the first frame.They were in the right place at the right time and it worked for them. THAT,to me is what makes a plan work or not. Not the alt of the buffs,which if I have this right was below 25000 ft. Well within the FW and 109's envelope.I fly em all the time.I know this.
  If theres a problem with the FSO's its in the planning stage of the CIC of the side. Sometimes they get lucky and sometimes they dont. If they adjust to the situation from good intel from the air wings,they should be able to put the fighters dead in front of the buffs and create a favorable situation.
  IMHO castrating the buffs to make up for poor leadership is nonsence.

[Krusty]

It's not a matter of castrating them. It's a matter of HTC uber-fying them and that skewing with any results in any FSO, snapshot, or scenario they are used in.

Think not of it as nerfing, but returning back to where they should be. IMO 100% gas (which historically all bombers took even for short hops across the channel) should be mandatory, but that's just the only easily-controlled solution I can think of that is actually enforcable.

[DrDea]

 Like it was said before,with a 1 hour time limit to attack AND the targets known,your asking for some kind of realism as far as the buffs go but still wanna know where and when they are going to attack.If FSO made buffs take on 100% fuel then how about they do away with the known targets and time limit to attack.THAT would make for a fair exchange.Give a list of 20 or so targets and the defenders gotta figure out where and when they are going to be hit.
  But who wants to be on all night hunting buffs? Thus the 1 hour and known targets and less fuel so buffs can get some alt.Its all equal and fair.

[PFactorDave]

The bombers we encountered last night were at about 22-23k or so.  We had no problem intercepting them and killing a bunch of them before their escorts could stop us.  I think the only reason so many of us got shot down was that there were a ton of fighters and we stayed around a little longer then we should have.  I think if we had dove for the deck after a couple passes we could have reformed and caught the bombers again on their way out.

After last night, I think things work fairly well how they are as long as the scenario designer uses the T+60 rule to limit the bombers' climb out.  Although, I do think it would be proper to require bombers to carry 100% fuel.

[SmokinLoon]

  IMHO castrating the buffs to make up for poor leadership is nonsence.

It isnt about castrating the bombers.  It is about putting them (and the entire sim) more in line with the real deal.  The bombers in AH2, and in particular in the FSO's are by far and away are being abused because they can be.  They dont take %100 fuel (against SOP in WWII) so they climb far better that the real deal, and they fly %25-30 faster while performing bombing runs in FSO than they did in WWII.  Typical speed was roughly 200, at least in the PTO in late 1943, and I doubt it was much different in the ETO.   

It has nothing to do with "poor leadership".  Check your fire, young padawan.

[Baumer]

Looking at the Air Force records it's clear that the losses due to enemy flack vs enemy fighters was pretty balanced for heavy bombers.



To be VERY clear, the PB4Y-1 was a B-24D. They were passed directly from the Air Force to the Navy as part of a deal to increase B-29 manufacturing space. The PB4Y-2 did have the modifications that have all ready been discussed. See the two picture below,

PB4Y-1
Note the oval engine cowling and lack of a single tail


PB4Y-2

[Stoney]

are being abused because they can be.

Abused???  Lets not be overly melodramatic. 

They dont take %100 fuel (against SOP in WWII)...

You have a copy of one of these SOPs?

Typical speed was roughly 200, at least in the PTO in late 1943, and I doubt it was much different in the ETO.

Is that 200 IAS or 200 TAS?  And, at what altitude?  Can you post your source?   

[DrDea]

 And as its been said you could say the fighters are being abused.Fighters didnt run around full throttle either.I would wager that the fuel fighters use in the game last longer than it did in rl. Its 6 of one half dozen of the other.Like I said in another thread.Give the buffs 100% fuel and no time limit in FSO.Targets not known and THEN it would be fair.

[Ghosth]

"Give the buffs 100% fuel and no time limit in FSO.___Targets not known___ and THEN it would be fair."

Exactly, bombers are going up against a stacked deck every single fso frame.
As the enemy knows which targets they have to hit. Granted they don't have to hit them all.
But they are on a tight time frame, and you still know where they are going to come. Some maps you can even make a very good educated guess as to flight path. Avoiding radar circles helps funnel them into certain area's. Bombers are fighting an uphill battle in FSO already, and now you want to make it harder?

You want to impose speed limits?

Unlike an alt cap which film will instantly show if someone breaks the rules. How are you going to know how fast they are going? How are you going to punish them if they are over the set speed? Is this really someplace we want FSO to go? Cause it doesn't sound healthy to me.

Bombers have gotten a bad rap in the mains IMO, FSO one of the few places where you can actually fly a bomber somewhat historically, in a group, with escort, and feel good about yourself. We don't want to change that.

[RTHolmes]

So to try and place some artificial limits on something that is modeled CORRECTLY is not needed.

agreed, however the power settings for (at least) the B-17G are modelled incorrectly. I showed in the locked thread Krusty linked to that the B-17G effectively has unlimited WEP. Certainly in MA usage they are commonly flown at full WEP settings for the entire sortie until descent for landing. Correcting the power settings model would go along way to providing realistic climbrate/speed performance, and hence more realistic bomber/fighter encounters.