RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say?

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

castor troy -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 9:53:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, The low flying 4 engine bomber is slow, poorly maneuverable and BIG juicy target for any navy man-of-war ship with serious AA on board... the attacking bombers should have been wiped out with AA... Atacking unarmed merchants is different story though! Leo "Apollo11" Or if the warship is caught napping! A bomber at top speed at 100' gives almost no time for the warship to react!. I've done it in real life at 200' to both NATO and Soviet ships. If you can get away with it in the 1980's , surely you can do it in the 1940's! [:D] what were the Soviets saying when you bombed their ships?

bklooste -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 10:15:56 AM)
One major thing people keep forgetting with lookouts etc is it is normally an Entire Squadron no 1 pr 2 planes! That is a LOT easier to spot. WHile the first plane has the best chance the last plane has no chance. I suspect most of this skip bombing was small units and at night - thats hard to do in AE unless you use a decimated unit.

castor troy -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 11:03:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste One major thing people keep forgetting with lookouts etc is it is normally an Entire Squadron no 1 pr 2 planes! That is a LOT easier to spot. WHile the first plane has the best chance the last plane has no chance. I suspect most of this skip bombing was small units and at night - thats hard to do in AE unless you use a decimated unit. not just that. It´s not only one CV that is surprised. A CV usually has escorts and those are further out so those have to be passed first. Five or six carriers plus BBs, CAs and DDs with the carriers going in the mid of the TF. Well knowing that a single (or a couple) of DBs diving out of the clouds can very well surprise a carrier. But half a dozen B-17 coming in low...

Mike Scholl -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 12:15:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FAsea quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis About PH, if japanese really get more hits than they have torpedoes, that is ridiculous too. I haven't tried that yet. And it's not subject of this thread. They get more hits than they had converted gun shells because of game engine limitations to simulate such things is the explanation I read a week or so ago. So I think there is a reason behind this other than making up crazy stuff for the hell of it. Didn't say there wasn't. Just curious why Puhis hadn't gotten all upset about those results? Why do people calmly accept the absurd when it occurs to the Allies.., but get all bent out of shape if it happens to the Japanese? Even when one is physically impossible, but the other only quite unlikely? [8\|][8\|]

AW1Steve -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 12:28:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, The low flying 4 engine bomber is slow, poorly maneuverable and BIG juicy target for any navy man-of-war ship with serious AA on board... the attacking bombers should have been wiped out with AA... Atacking unarmed merchants is different story though! Leo "Apollo11" Or if the warship is caught napping! A bomber at top speed at 100' gives almost no time for the warship to react!. I've done it in real life at 200' to both NATO and Soviet ships. If you can get away with it in the 1980's , surely you can do it in the 1940's! [:D] what were the Soviets saying when you bombed their ships? Bombed? OK, there was the incident with the box lunches back in 1983, [:D],,,, Seriously, we were not armed except with cameras. And got some great photo's (which unfortunately were stamped "classified" and locked away...I would have loved to post some here). But we frequented the mining range at various altitudes, and I described earlier the "canyon bombing" in Greenland (trying to get the bouy in the polynya). BTW , I must point out the correctness of some of my opponets on this issue , that everytime we suprised a ship we were alone, not part of a squadron. But I do suspect that a formation in "loose trail" might be able to replicate similar results. The last plane in will not have the same surprise as the 1st. But will it matter? No one knows, as I don't belive it has ever been tested in real life. [&:]

morganbj -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 1:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill This is something that can easily be handled by House Rules. After a seven day siege of PH by the KB, to heck with the AI. No personal house rules. I'm out for (pixel) blood!

TheElf -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 9:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical. Pad, No one argues that it never happened. It just wasn't common. It wasn't common for all the reasons we know, it was just too dangerous. Until weapons, technology, tactics, and knowledge of the enemy proved it was possible with reasonable attrition rates.

RHoenig -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 9:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 It's the reason why most of us have the house rule of no 4Es on naval strike below 10k feet. Its not that low level bombing was a-histroical, its the fact that they get too many hits in game doing it. 1 B-17 squadron can single handedly wipe out a task force when set that low. I belive this is the key here. It is not about historical(sp) correctness i.e. "It can´t be done!" "Yes, it was done!" "But not against warships!" "Sure it was!".... It´s about the game engine giving the one using it too many hits! Does the term "playability" ring a bell?

Sardaukar -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 10:26:08 PM)
Well, before you all jump in conclusions, I have tried this now multiple times against different targets in 8 Dec scenario, April 42. I have not achieved single hit by placing B-17s to 100ft naval attack. Results have been 75-100% damaged B-17s in strike. Until I (or someone else) can reproduce this, I am inclined to think it is "one off" or maybe scenario-specific problem. Especially Coral Sea and Guadalcanal scenario seem to have problems with air combat.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 10:38:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Well, before you all jump in conclusions, I have tried this now multiple times against different targets in 8 Dec scenario, April 42. I have not achieved single hit by placing B-17s to 100ft naval attack. Results have been 75-100% damaged B-17s in strike. Like I said..., it's about a 1 in 100 chance. And still much higher than the Japanese torpedoing the Pennsylvania at PH (which happens frequently)

Kwik E Mart -> RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? (8/10/2009 11:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Bombed? OK, there was the incident with the box lunches back in 1983, [:D],,,, Seriously, we were not armed except with cameras. And got some great photo's (which unfortunately were stamped "classified" and locked away...I would have loved to post some here). But we frequented the mining range at various altitudes, and I described earlier the "canyon bombing" in Greenland (trying to get the bouy in the polynya). yumm...nothing says delicious like cold processed turkey sandwiches from a boxed lunch...(P-3 inside joke, sorry)[;)] cameras yes, but also empty sonobouy tubes filled with a couple dozen "Hustler" and "Swank" mags...used to love sending them down to Ivan in his "fishing trawler" to demonstrate all the perks of democracy...[:'(] oh, yeah...we did do some training with cluster bombs...we were supposed to try and "surprise" a surfaced submarine, maybe mess up their missle launch sequence...I don't recall the altitude, but it was more of a shallow dive than a straight in 100' approach...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.34375