Author Topic: Serious flaws in High Altitude Bomber Performance (Read 1595 times)

Fury · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:09:00 PM »

There goes the laser-guided uber guns on the buff conspiracy theory

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:16:00 PM »

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 ]

Buzzbait · « **Reply #32 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:40:00 PM »

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.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #33 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:42:00 PM »

S! Toad

I didn't have a lot of fun.

But I did learn about bombers at high alt.

Hammerhead · « **Reply #34 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:01:00 PM »

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Hammerhead ]

Hammerhead · « **Reply #35 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:03:00 PM »

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

DingHao2 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

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.

Urchin · « **Reply #37 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:41:00 PM »

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)?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #38 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:43:00 PM »

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

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** September 19, 2001, 02:07:00 PM »

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 ]

1776 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 19, 2001, 03:00:00 PM »

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.

hitech · « **Reply #41 on:** September 19, 2001, 03:26:00 PM »

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

lazs1 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 19, 2001, 04:08:00 PM »

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

Buzzbait · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2001, 04:51:00 PM »

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

Buzzbait · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2001, 05:00:00 PM »

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.