Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Why are people picking on Greta?

She seems like a nice young lady, and quite intelligent.

+1
I was asking myself the same question just now.

She has indicated her willingness to shoot people who disagree with her views. Among other things.

Not saying that you are wrong, because I am not following her every move and don't agree with absolutely everything she says, also she is young and fiery, a combination which can lead to unfortunate wording.
But for me to believe your exact statement you would need to send me the source.

There is even a video with her speaking in English.

Greta Thunberg turns heads when she threatens to put world leaders ‘against the wall’

quote:

Wearing what appeared to be a mass-produced plastic raincoat, on Friday fanatical 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg promised her followers that they would one day force the world’s leaders to do their bidding, one way or another.

“Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome,” she said at a climate change protest in Italy, referring to she and her acolytes’ efforts to persuade world leaders to jettison the fruits of Western civilization so that the Earth may be saved from doom.

“World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/14/greta-thunberg-turns-heads-when-she-threatens-to-put-world-leaders-against-the-wall-864506/

quote:

up against the wall in an inextricable situation; in great trouble or difficulty.
The image here is of someone facing execution by a firing squad.
See also: up, wall

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/up+against+the+wall

This is exactly what I meant with unfortunate wording and also speaking in a second language.
Here is her apology and reasoning for that phrase:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Why are people picking on Greta?

She seems like a nice young lady, and quite intelligent.

+1
I was asking myself the same question just now.

She has indicated her willingness to shoot people who disagree with her views. Among other things.

Not saying that you are wrong, because I am not following her every move and don't agree with absolutely everything she says, also she is young and fiery, a combination which can lead to unfortunate wording.
But for me to believe your exact statement you would need to send me the source.

There is even a video with her speaking in English.

Greta Thunberg turns heads when she threatens to put world leaders ‘against the wall’

quote:

Wearing what appeared to be a mass-produced plastic raincoat, on Friday fanatical 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg promised her followers that they would one day force the world’s leaders to do their bidding, one way or another.

“Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome,” she said at a climate change protest in Italy, referring to she and her acolytes’ efforts to persuade world leaders to jettison the fruits of Western civilization so that the Earth may be saved from doom.

“World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/14/greta-thunberg-turns-heads-when-she-threatens-to-put-world-leaders-against-the-wall-864506/

quote:

up against the wall in an inextricable situation; in great trouble or difficulty.
The image here is of someone facing execution by a firing squad.
See also: up, wall

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/up+against+the+wall

This is exactly what I meant with unfortunate wording and also speaking in a second language.
Here is her apology and reasoning for that phrase:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233

Some public figures will issue an "apology" for something that they mean with a sorry excuse just so they will not lose their followers.

I doubt that many German fans will shout in the German language "Hail Victory" for any sporting events even if that is what they want to say.

quote:


To be clear, there’s no evidence to suggest she was referencing executions. In fact, the teen grew up in Sweden, and it just so happens that the literal translation of the Swedish phrase “ställa mot väggen,” which means to hold someone accountable, is “set against the wall.” This could possibly explain her disconcerting choice of words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Why are people picking on Greta?

She seems like a nice young lady, and quite intelligent.

+1
I was asking myself the same question just now.

She has indicated her willingness to shoot people who disagree with her views. Among other things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

As the developers have said many times - "It's a game, not an historical simulation!". They set out to make a game that would challenge both sides, and to do that they had to work in some a-historic advantages for the Japanese side, including caliber of pilots and probably hit rates. This practice of comparing the game structure to history is fine for interests sake, but please don't make noises about it ruining the game!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I don't know what your targets were CT, but in general the Allied flak was far more fearsome than the Japanese had. And flak is a big factor in calculating attack results. The Allies also had better bomb sights.

As for Avenger vs B-25 (MB not AB) hit rates, I am guessing the naval aircraft could fly at a lower speed than the B-25 and thus have more time on target. I don't know if that was factored into the abstracted calculation, but it could have been.

I am also unsure about how the attack profile for an Assault Bomber figures into an approach made at 5000 feet - does the bomber stay at the ordered 5K, or does it drop down to low level attack altitude the way TBs do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Not bad.

Scen001v5

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Bacolod at 79,85

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 8
B5N1 Kate x 15

Allied aircraft
P-26A x 2

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAKL Corregidor, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

As the developers have said many times - "It's a game, not an historical simulation!". They set out to make a game that would challenge both sides, and to do that they had to work in some a-historic advantages for the Japanese side, including caliber of pilots and probably hit rates. This practice of comparing the game structure to history is fine for interests sake, but please don't make noises about it ruining the game!

Not sure about the op but for me it's not about torpedo bomber accuracy in the game vs real life (history) but torpedo bomber accuracy compared to medium bomber accuracy in naval attacks. There must be either two different routines for them or medium bombers are bugged, for what reason ever. We know that each bomb gets it's own die roll so a B-25 dropping six 500lb bombs from 5000ft should have three times the chances of an Avenger dropping 2 500lb bombs from 5000ft (this is what heavy bombers made so ridicoulosly effective in nav bombing in WITP). Both times 70 nav skill, same exp. Just to find out the Avengers would hit probably five times more often than the B-25 would do. Hit rates of 70 nav skill medium bombers like a Sally, Helen, Marauder or Mitchell are so bad I've stopped using them in a nav attack role, no matter if 2000ft or 6000ft. 1000ft and fully trained (70) low nav doesn't work either. Attack bombers work.

In WITP medium bombers worked perfectly fine in a nav attack role.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, the Fubuki was sunk by a B-17. Those pilots had not trained on naval bombing whereas I do believe that the Naval Kates would have trained dropping bombs. Somehow, somewhere, I remember reading about those Kates flying level, dropping bombs, damaging some ships and even sinking at least one of them!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, the Fubuki was sunk by a B-17. Those pilots had not trained on naval bombing whereas I do believe that the Naval Kates would have trained dropping bombs. Somehow, somewhere, I remember reading about those Kates flying level, dropping bombs, damaging some ships and even sinking at least one of them!

Fubuki was sunk by CA San Francisco at Cape Esperance, but there was a DD sunk by a B-17. I think it was stopped to pick up survivors from a troop convoy that was being mauled. Easier target for the B-17s.

The Kates that dropped AP bombs at Pearl Harbour would have trained in that, and they had to drop from fairly high altitude to get the bomb up to speed before impact. But again, their targets were stationary.