The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[ElAurens]

Sorry, but it does.

I've been trying for some time to come up with a speed/altitude/distance/aircraft combination that works for skip bombing ships and for me it's a bust. this was a tactic that was used and worked, but now you are sentencing those that say they can do it to certain death.

If the stated reason for doing it is true, to stop folks from dropping bombs from parked aircraft, then code the bomb releases not to drop at all with aircraft that are on the ground. End of problem.

Right now I just am getting the feeling that someone else is trying to force their style of game play on me.

It's not making me happy.

[Avimimus]

My personal guess is that it is relatively inappropriate for some weapons. In particular, some of the small bombs (2kg-20kg) should probably have simpler fuses and be able to detonate with low altitude release.

IMHO, it would be great to have fuses which malfunction (eg. a certain percentage of time-fused bombs detonate prematurely, or a certain percentage of bombs fail to detonate at all). Against ground targets the British RP-3 / 60lb rocket had a 25% failure to detonate rate. This would add a lot to gameplay.

So, basically I agree that it is forcing a certain style of play and also may be too simplified and inappropriate in some cases (even if I personally don't mind people being prevented from planting time-fused bombs at 5 meters altitude, having to use PTAB from height is rather cool). These things should be choices though - and more historically accurate.

I'd be very interested to find out more about fuses (eg. how safer were those converted artillery rounds dropped from U-2/Po-2?)

[Avimimus]

Btw. Adding correct probabilities for gun jams would also be great. It would give a different perspective on which guns are the best ones, balancing out guns like the Mk-108.

It would also create more "chance" in a fight - with gun jams potentially turning the tables or forcing an abort.

[robtek]

I think making a problem switchable isn't a working solution.
The 2 sec. arming delay is a step from game towards simulation.
This option switchable in the online world would only lead to "always set to off" because the servers try to attract ALL players.
As 25 m altitude in horizontal flight are enough to allow arming of the bomb i believe that skip-bombing is still quite feasible.

[swiss]

This option switchable in the online world would only lead to "always set to off" because the servers try to attract ALL players.


Funny, last time I checked, we arcade as well as f-r servers. ;)

[JtD]

Your picture shows a torpedo attack, and the two planes flying low are not up to release altitude yet.

The bombs have a two seconds arming time, if you dive bomb vertically with Mach1, then yes, you're going to need considerably more than 25m of altitude.

[swiss]

Well 4.10 certainly is going to encourage people to use bombers......

Yep, honestly I think they raised the the bar too much.
Just think of newbies, I takes them forever for the least bit of success.

[Letum]

For the US bombs, the arming spinner required a set number of revolutions, not a set rpm.

That means the arming is about the distance the bomb has traveled, not the time it has traveled.

TD have been generous with their bomb timing of two seconds. Three to four seconds may have been closer to a historical figure. It was an essential precaution to prevent bumps in flight or bombs hitting each other just after they have dropped causing an explosion.

The idea is that the bomb will never explode when it is close enough to the plane to do damage (i.e. 25m away!)

[JG52Uther]

The idea is that the bomb will never explode when it is close enough to the plane to do damage (i.e. 25m away!)
Isn't this why we have bomb delay?
Anyway,if its correct,I am happy to have it,as skip bombing always seemed too easy in il2.If however it is not correct,then it should be looked at again.

[Letum]

Isn't this why we have bomb delay?
Anyway,if its correct,I am happy to have it,as skip bombing always seemed too easy in il2.If however it is not correct,then it should be looked at again.

Nope, a bomb delay is a delay on the impact detonation fuse. The spinner delays
the arming of the bomb. Until that spinner spins it's 'x' number of revolutions, the
bomb is safe and can not be detonated at all.
Some spinners work by gearing down and rotating part of the arming mechanism
to line up, ready for detonation, other spinners work by screwing in a screw that
completes the arming mechanism once it is screwed in all the way.

[JG52Uther]

Thanks for the explanation Letum! So the new system is more accurate that 409? If so,I will be happy with that.

[Fenrir]

Sorry, but it does.

I've been trying for some time to come up with a speed/altitude/distance/aircraft combination that works for skip bombing ships and for me it's a bust.

Sorry El, but then you're doing something wrong. I loaded up a B-25 and set up a few transports and tankers to test.

1st run, 50ft - No dice. Bombs did not fall far enough before hitting water to arm*

2nd run, 100ft - Bingo! Good drop and strike, target sunk.

3rd run, 100ft - Bingo! Good drop and strike, target sunk.


this was a tactic that was used and worked,

Details? I've got a reference that has it that B-17s of the 5th Air Force in New Guinea skip bombed at night from 150ft with repeatable accuracy. The Mitchell strafer units were renowned or going in at 'Masthead' height but that can be anywhere from 50 - 100ft. The TD team are gonna want some hard facts mate, not just rhetoric.

but now you are sentencing those that say they can do it to certain death.

Please.


If the stated reason for doing it is true, to stop folks from dropping bombs from parked aircraft, then code the bomb releases not to drop at all with aircraft that are on the ground. End of problem.

Ok, but I imagine that the reason it's been coded in is because this is a prototypical safety feature - and not just for on the ground, but as Letum states, to prevent detonation to close to the carrier a/c for a number of reasons. It's not there just to make your life difficult.

Right now I just am getting the feeling that someone else is trying to force their style of game play on me.

It's not making me happy.

Wow. So your gamers human rights are under threat? Lol! It's a bloody game chum! The indignance round here is laughable!

*Regards the arming function, should the bombs be rendered inert by the first bounce on the water is, I think, the key issue here - I don't know much about the fuses used and I am sure there are as many different types as there are applications.
From some rudimentary internet searches, it seems, for example that the US 500lb GP could be armed by vanes in the nose or the tail - I guess the low level ones would have been tail armed, but would the initial bounce impact have stopped the vane? If so, did a reduced number of turns arm the bomb? Or did they have a different type of arming and detonator entirely?

Perhaps if special fuses were required for low level skip attacks then TD could program a new loadout option for each plane to have a certain loadouts with low level fuses?

Let's try to get some productive evidence instead of stamping feet and whining.

[6S.Manu]

Guys are using that mod in SEOW for months.

You need only a little practice and all will be fine.

[robtek]

A few nice examples of the arming can be seen at that "famous movie with Ben Affleck" Pearl Harbour.

[Letum]

Thanks for the explanation Letum! So the new system is more accurate that 409? If so,I will be happy with that.


It's certainly how it was in reality for all US GP bombs and most British bombs. Much more accurate.

Some British bombs used a long wire that got pulled out of the bomb as it dropped to arm it, but I don't think we have these bombs in game anyway.

I know nothing about Soviet, German and Japanese bombs.

[pupo162]

A few nice examples of the arming can be seen at that "famous movie with Ben Affleck" Pearl Harbour.

of ftopic question then:

if the silly boy who had a bomb next him in the ditch and stood there watching the spinner had steped in wi th his and and stoped it ( assuming it can be done ) would he have stopped the bomb?

[Sokol1]

4.10m shows this tactic is wrong:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/a00903b963ae57d25f4a4af5e17143c7.jpg


Well, this tactic was show wrong in RL too, since almost of G4M Betty are shot down, and the only ship hit - USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) - was for collision. :)

Sokol1

[Galagonya]

It's certainly how it was in reality for all US GP bombs and most British bombs. Much more accurate.

Some British bombs used a long wire that got pulled out of the bomb as it dropped to arm it, but I don't think we have these bombs in game anyway.

I know nothing about Soviet, German and Japanese bombs.

Concerning Soviet bombs, see the link below, the drawings show the spinner clearly.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Ordnance/FAB50/index.php

[Letum]

The B26 had six forward facing MGs and para-frag bombs. Just the kind of kit you need for tree-top attacks.

I don't understand you Wutz...It's a fact that bombs worked like this.
You can look at old bombs or blueprints and see the mechanics. This is how they worked. how can you disagree with such a plain fact?

1) The bomb is dropped
2) The spinner spins for 'x' revolutions (US bombs usually had two spinners front and rear; one for each fuse)
3) The bomb is now armed
4) The front or rear impact detonator is activated by impact
5) The bomb explodes

OR

4) No fuse is placed in the front so only the rear impact detonator is activated by impact
5) A pre-set time limit passes
6) The bomb explodes

[robtek]

@ wutz
You are mixing different issues her!
The bomb delay might work or not, haven't tested it now, but thats for another thread!
Is it really so difficult to understand that there is NO collision detection for casing and fuse???
There is a collision detection for the BOMB! Thats it!
Regarding this limitation the bomb arming we have now is the best possible solution to get closer to reality!
And i've done quite a few successful drops from 30m (100ft) height, tough 40m works even better.

[Aracno]

Right, but not only heavyly forward firing bombers did those kind of attacks, check up on the various written accounts of former Ju88 bomber pilots. They did also a lot of low level stuff. But if they had 4.10 they would have either never knocked out their target, or they would have blown themselves out of the air. As the bomb delay settings act also strange. Drop a bomb at 70m with a 3.0sec delay, normally enough to get out of harms way, now a sure way to blast yourself out of the air.

Wutz we have used this in SEOW for months, a lot of ship were sunk, no one ac destroyed by his own bomb.
Skip bombing before 4.10 was a joke for children, with 100% success, how can you call that situation more realistic than now?

[fruitbat]

this thread is pure gold.

people complaing they want more realism, then when they get it, throwing a hissy fit, big lol's:grin:

[JtD]

Bomb delay works, at least for me. Skip bombing a freighter sized ship from 40m altitude is still easy, against small ships however it is a bit difficult. Rockets and heavy guns are of better use here, or, if you lack that, a larger number of smaller bombs.

[pupo162]

make it a dififculty setting or incorporate it on one of the already exiting ones ( realsitic gunnery pheraps). done

[Letum]

What is there not to understand????
What sets of the darn bomb is the DETONATOR not the casing or any other part of the bomb touching anything..............


It does not matter what part of the bomb takes the impact.
The fuse at the rear of the US bombs would never actually touch the ground at all, but it just as capable as the front fuse when it comes to causing detonation.

It's not like the bomb has a button at the front and when the button gets pressed by the ground it goes off. These kind of "protruding striker" bombs where used for special bomb types (i.e. para-frags use a protruding striker), but it is the exception with GP bombs.

The majority of US bombs of this era used an inertial detonator. The detonator fired when a sufficient inertial force was put upon the bomb.
With inertial detonators, it doesn't matter if the ground strikes the fuze head, the bomb case, the tail fins or anywhere else. Just so long as it hits hard enough.

[JtD]

And what would happen when the detonator was triggered while the fuse wasn't armed, yet? Take skip bombing, the detonator would be triggered by each hit on the water. If it wasn't armed at the first impact, would the detonator be broken or could it still be set off with the second impact?

[Tbag]

Wutz makes a simple and as far as I can tell valid point:

The game should count the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the ship. If I understand correctly the game currently measures the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the water!?

[Letum]

And what would happen when the detonator was triggered while the fuse wasn't armed, yet? Take skip bombing, the detonator would be triggered by each hit on the water. If it wasn't armed at the first impact, would the detonator be broken or could it still be set off with the second impact?

Typically, the vane completes the detonator, either by completing the
electronic circuit (electronic vacuum tube detonators where common, even in
ww2) or by completing the mechanical device that was the detonator.

In other words, impact before arming by the vane will do nothing to the bomb unless the vane is damaged.

edit: A requirement of all US fuses (bomb and shell) was that they had to be able to make them selves permanently safe by safe self destruction of the fuze, but I have no idea under what circumstances they would do this.

Wutz makes a simple and as far as I can tell valid point:

The game should count the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the ship. If I understand correctly the game currently measures the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the water!?


Wow...that's his point? If it is, he has confused it a bit.

Assuming the vanes are still working after they hit the water, yes, they should continue to spin and arm the bomb if they continue to have air passing them.

[Tbag]

It took me some time to figure it out but I think thats what he means with "the casing doesn't matter, it's all about the detonator". I'm sure he will clarify soon.

[Letum]

It took me some time to figure it out but I think thats what he means with "the casing doesn't matter, it's all about the detonator". I'm sure he will clarify soon.

Hmm...if his point is that impacts to the casing won't cause detonation after the bomb is armed, he is wrong. that's how I read it anyway.
If his point is that the arming vane will continue to arm the bomb after the bomb takes impacts that don't damage the vane, he is right.

It was making this and being in the DBS that got me interested in US bombs.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5672/bombv.jpg
You can see part of the rear fuze there. The vane is on a long spindle so that it isn't in the dead air directly behind the bomb.
The rear fuze is both a back up, in case of failure of the front and also because time delay fuzes where fitted to the rear fuze only to protect the time delay from impact damage.

[zaelu]

Jesus... all this talk about going back, deactivating a good thing just because that old story of "...my grand father told me".

How about you ask for the proper solution? How about an option to set the detonator(s) arming delays in "arming screen"? This way the paranoids can set 10 minutes of delay so they can relive the spinner sceene from "Pearl Harbour" over and over and the schizoids could set it to zero and fly with a sadistic grin on their face.

DOOOH...


...I like those people with so wide views that always when in problem they go for the "fall back" option... "disable Antialiasing and your problem goes away", "Unplug your HOTAS and play with keyboard... no reversal bug there" etc etc etc... many of us have to know this... type.

[Letum]

One more thing that might be of interest....

At the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.

[fruitbat]

well, i've just been messing around offline practising skip bombing.

It took me about 5 go's to learn the new technique needed to skip bomb in 4.10.

its still easy, you just need to adjust what you used to do a little a bit.

I just hit 5 times in a row.

Wow, the sky is falling in:rolleyes:

[JG52Uther]

How about you ask for the proper solution? How about an option to set the detonator(s) arming delays in "arming screen"?

Sounds like the perfect solution to me.For now,skip bombing (such as bombing tanks in online wars) is kaput.

[Letum]

Sounds like the perfect solution to me.

Not a historical solution tho.

[zaelu]

Not a historical solution tho.

I am sure not all the bombs had 2seconds delay set for detonators.

Also... the old "delay" in the arming screen... was it historical? No irony here... I mean... if we have the delay of arming... is it historical to have a second delay after impact?

I wouldn't mind 3 options there for delay... 1 for delay after impact, one for delay front detonator, one for delay rear detonator... if available for that bomb.

I would'n mind some "choice" of ammo belts either but Christmas is over ain't it? ;) :P

[Tbag]

Forget it..............I have worked on just those type of bombs.....but the game is right the casing is the deadliest part of the bomb.....also how do you explain that your delay is reset to 0secs even though one has set it to a higher time then that, when you drop a bomb from over 70m? Man where you in the eighties.....our instructors knew nothing of ordances at all they just handeled them on a daily bases..........got to love internets wizzards, they know everything, just in real life you don´t see them thank god!

Why don't you come off your high "I've worked with those bombs and know more then all of you geeks"-horse, properly read other peoples posts and join the discussion here? You make yourself look very stupid here.

[robtek]

Everybody who sees only black and white has a limited intellect, in my eyes.
As i've already posted in this game there are no detonators and cases modelled, only bombs!
Why not assume that any impact before arming destroys the arming mechanism -> inert bomb.
And for the bomb-delay, that works as it should, at least when i tested it.

[ElAurens]

Wutz makes a simple and as far as I can tell valid point:

The game should count the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the ship. If I understand correctly the game currently measures the time between bomb release and the bomb hitting the water!?

Bingo.

The problem is that if the bomb skips on the water before the 2 second arming time is up it won't go off even if it takes longer than 2 seconds for the bomb to hit the target. So the bomb touching the water stops the arming.

This is just another case of armchair "pilots" who think that increased difficulty equals increased realism. It is not always the case.

[Tbag]

Why not assume that any impact before arming destroys the arming mechanism -> inert bomb.

I strongly doubt that this is the case when skip-bombing and that's what this thread is all about.

[Letum]

Forget it..............I have worked on just those type of bombs.....

Frankly, I don't believe you and i would be surprised if many here do, not because such a claim is so extraordinary, but because your post's content doesn't show it to be true.
you are using it as a prop for arguments you don't have. It makes you look silly.


I am sure not all the bombs had 2seconds delay set for detonators.

well, no bombs had a two second delay. the delay was a result of the number of revolutions the vane took.

Some 'direct' fuses used the vain to wind the hammer back, out of the bomb. both the hammer and the vain would move out, away from the bomb. Once it had wound back enough, the detonation charge would move by spring into the hole that the hammer used to occupy. The bomb is then live. On impact, the hammer would be forced back into the bomb and strike the detonator.

The hammer moves back because it is threaded like a bolt. the number of turns it takes to arm the bomb depends on the thread of the hammer and can not be adjusted.


More commonly, the vain would turn a set of gears. The gears had a ratio of either 20:1 or 60somethig:1 (I forget). The gears spin the hammer to line up with the detonator and make the bomb live. It takes one full rotation to line up the detonator (so 20 or 60sum turns of the vain). The number of turns it takes can no be adjusted.

I do not know how the electronic fuzes that became popular mid-late war worked.

As I said earlier in this thread; at the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.

Also... the old "delay" in the arming screen... was it historical? No irony here... I mean... if we have the delay of arming... is it historical to have a second delay after impact?

Yes, very much so.
The delay was caused mechanically, pyrotechnically or chemically and could be set to a wide variety of times. It had nothing to do with the arming part of the fuze.

[Letum]

Why not assume that any impact before arming destroys the arming mechanism -> inert bomb.

I can imagine that the impact with the water would bend or rip off the delicate fins on the front fuse of the American bombs, but if the rear fuse also got damaged, then the bomb probably wouldn't bounce anyway.

To damage the rear fuse, you would have to seriously damage the fins that surround it. I suspect that would send the bomb spinning in a different direction or stopping in the water anyway.


I don't know, but I doubt that skip bombing could damage the rear arming mechanism, even if it did mess up the front one.

Of course, that only applies to US bombs.

[Sokol1]

Did few test in QMB - Pacif Islands against friendly moving cargo ship.

A-20, P-40, P-39, He-111 - dropping from 30 to 80 meters and got good hits - some miss due wrong angles I think, since I test with keyboard (no Jstick plugged).

At 20 meters bomb dont explode.

Bomb delay 2 s. No one case of blew my plane.

Sokol1

[TheGrunch]

Fruitbat's demo. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suJZpQ18UAY)

rubbish, it took me about 15mins to work out bombing in 4.10.

i sorry that you guys can't be bothered to take 15 mins of your life to work it out yourselves, but thats your problem.

skip bombing is still easy, just a bit different.

[fruitbat]

lol, i was going to post that here, you saved me the trouble!!!!!!

[LoBiSoMeM]

One more video I do now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVYmpgoSjg

I don't need to change a thing in my bombing runs over ships. And is good to newbies with 0 sec delay to don't blow their aircrafts...

[Tbag]

Interesting documents for those who can read german:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bomben/Allgemein/Handwerkzeug%20Bombenwurf.pdf

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bomben/Vorschriften/Der%20Bombenabwurf%20L.Dv.%208-5/Der%20Bombenabwurf%20L.Dv.%208-5.pdf

[TheGrunch]

No problem fruitbat, I'm gonna have to try it out now :)

[TheGrunch]

For a cargo ship, go down to 40-50m/150ft, drop when the ship's masts are either side of the reflector gunsight. That was in a Spitfire, though. I'll have a go in a bomber of some description, now. B-25 I think.

EDIT: Same deal in the B-25. In a shallow dive, go down to about 50-60m and drop when the ship's masts fill the whole reflector gunsight frame. Bomb delay 2s in addition to the arming delay for both. The angle you drop at is quite important. Better if it's shallower, but too shallow and it'll bounce too far.

BTW, fruitbat, LoBiSoMeM, which recording software are you using? What settings for recording? :)

[LoBiSoMeM]

BTW, fruitbat, LoBiSoMeM, which recording software are you using? What settings for recording? :)

I use Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10.0. It's do everythig for you and publish in YouTUBE after rendering. Very intuitive. Just use FRAPS to make a video and edit in Vegas. Less than 30 minutes to do all, even upload to YouTUBE.

[TheGrunch]

Thanks! I'll have to look into it.

[fruitbat]

fraps recorded at 1920*1200, 30fps and then virtualdub (which is free) with xvid codec compression.

[Wutz]

Frankly, I don't believe you and i would be surprised if many here do, not because such a claim is so extraordinary, but because your post's content doesn't show it to be true.
you are using it as a prop for arguments you don't have. It makes you look silly.




well, no bombs had a two second delay. the delay was a result of the number of revolutions the vane took.

Some 'direct' fuses used the vain to wind the hammer back, out of the bomb. both the hammer and the vain would move out, away from the bomb. Once it had wound back enough, the detonation charge would move by spring into the hole that the hammer used to occupy. The bomb is then live. On impact, the hammer would be forced back into the bomb and strike the detonator.

The hammer moves back because it is threaded like a bolt. the number of turns it takes to arm the bomb depends on the thread of the hammer and can not be adjusted.


More commonly, the vain would turn a set of gears. The gears had a ratio of either 20:1 or 60somethig:1 (I forget). The gears spin the hammer to line up with the detonator and make the bomb live. It takes one full rotation to line up the detonator (so 20 or 60sum turns of the vain). The number of turns it takes can no be adjusted.

I do not know how the electronic fuzes that became popular mid-late war worked.

As I said earlier in this thread; at the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.



Yes, very much so.
The delay was caused mechanically, pyrotechnically or chemically and could be set to a wide variety of times. It had nothing to do with the arming part of the fuze.

Really now? Then YOU tell me what we salvaged and defused at the airbase in Memmengen? I really would like to know Mr. Smart-Alec!

[TheGrunch]

fraps recorded at 1920*1200, 30fps and then virtualdub (which is free) with xvid codec compression.
Thanks fruitbat, seems like a significantly cheaper option.

[Fenrir]

For a cargo ship, go down to 40-50m/150ft, drop when the ship's masts are either side of the reflector gunsight. That was in a Spitfire, though. I'll have a go in a bomber of some description, now. B-25 I think.

EDIT: Same deal in the B-25. In a shallow dive, go down to about 50-60m and drop when the ship's masts fill the whole reflector gunsight frame. Bomb delay 2s in addition to the arming delay for both. The angle you drop at is quite important. Better if it's shallower, but too shallow and it'll bounce too far.


As posted earlier I can repeatably hit ships in a B-25J from 100ft (30.48m) 240mph from cockpit instuments and with 1 sec bomb delay. 150ft feels a bit high, 100ft, IMHO seems a bit safer and somewhat more prototypical.

[Wutz]

lol, i was going to post that here, you saved me the trouble!!!!!!
Hi Fruitbat, thank you for your vid! Did a few test runs, changed my delay which was causing my plane being blasted, and dropping my bomb a bit earlier and it worked.
Only amusing thing is though that where in 4.09 3 sec delay was fine for a 800kg bomb, it is now deadly at 4.10. But with the delay changed and now releasing the bomb roughly at the same distance as in your vid and things are o.k. So it is doable.

Only thing not changed is my opinion of a certain smart alex.

[JtD]

Good thing about Letum is that he knows and understands stuff. Can't be said about everybody.

[Tbag]

Good thing about Letum is that he knows and understands stuff. Can't be said about everybody.
+ he knows how to communicate!

[TheGrunch]

Hi Fruitbat, thank you for your vid! Did a few test runs, changed my delay which was causing my plane being blasted, and dropping my bomb a bit earlier and it worked.
Only amusing thing is though that where in 4.09 3 sec delay was fine for a 800kg bomb, it is now deadly at 4.10. But with the delay changed and now releasing the bomb roughly at the same distance as in your vid and things are o.k. So it is doable.

Only thing not changed is my opinion of a certain smart alex.
:confused: My bomb delay was 2 seconds, even with the G4M1. How slow are you guys going?! :)

[JG52Uther]

I have survived with a 0 second bomb delay and been blown to pieces with a 3 second bomb delay,in the same plane,doing the same skip bombing,in 4.10.

There are bugs in this patch,maybe the way bomb fusing works is one of them...

[LoBiSoMeM]

I have survived with a 0 second bomb delay and been blown to pieces with a 3 second bomb delay,in the same plane,doing the same skip bombing,in 4.10.

There are bugs in this patch,maybe the way bomb fusing works is one of them...

Well, the new fuse arming delay, as I understand, just put an arming delay of 2 seconds before the bomb is armed. In the period between the launch and the final arming, the bomb can't touch anything, or the bomb simply don't explode. After the bomb was armed, when it touches something the delay set in your options do the rest.

How this can kill someone is something beyond my imagination. I tried a lot of bombing and all OK. What exactly happens, Uther?

[JG52Uther]

No idea.Will just have to relearn skip bombing for 4.10 I suppose,not for realisms sake,with a fixed 2 second fuse delay,but because a modder at DT decided this is the way we should skip bomb now...
Personally,I feel like I have just installed a new buggy mod pack.

[KG26_Alpha]

Why on earth is the bomb casing having anything to do with fusing of the device ?

The bomb should be allowed to bounce/skip without turning off the fuse within 2 seconds of release.

The arming should be done on bomb velocity to arm it not altitude or casing sensitivity limitations.

If this has been done to stop Dogfight Server idiots killing at airfields with static bomb drops from the spawn points,
cant it be done instead with the speed of the bomb to fuse/arm it rather than the 2 seconds from release ?

Hopefully it will be re-thought :)

[Skoshi Tiger]

Really now? Then YOU tell me what we salvaged and defused at the airbase in Memmengen? I really would like to know Mr. Smart-Alec!

I'm not sure how you did it in Memmengen, But here's the Standard bomb disposal technique in Papua New Guinea!

http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b423/Skoshi_Tiger/Flight%20Sim/Kokoda284.jpg

Notice the 'Safety' bucket over the fuse!

To be fair the bomb (500lb or 1000lb it was quite big, near Myola) was safe in the bomb bay of the plane when it ended up here and the US Team that rendered it safe were more interested in recovering the Crew from the wreckage. It had been burried but it was uncovered years later by the locals for tourist purposes.

Cheers!

[ElAurens]

Thank you Uther and Alpha for seeing my point in this.

There is nothing historical about picking a 2 second arming time, and certainly nothing historical about the arming being stopped by the bomb skipping on the water before impact with the target ship.

This is a case of making something more difficult in the misguided belief that higher difficulty always equals higher realism.

This needs to be optional, just like the new pilot health, structural damage, and engine damage selections (All of which I approve of by the way).

[Letum]

There is nothing historical about picking a 2 second arming time, and certainly nothing historical about the arming being stopped by the bomb skipping on the water before impact with the target ship.

Whilst you are quite correct about skipping, I don't see why a two second
arming time is wrong.

It's wrong in so far as the arming is dependent on the number of revolutions
the vane must take, but two seconds sounds like a reasonable length of time
for the vane to make those rotations.

[KG26_Alpha]

The problem is the casing deciding the fusing on contact with scenery.

Velocity should decide the vane arming the bomb on release.

The vane still turns on bounce or skipping due to velocity of the bomb.

But if it was done as suggested to stop DF server airfield killing at spawn perhaps a velocity solution would be better than 2 sec arming delay ?

[Furio]

The problem is the casing deciding the fusing on contact with scenery.

Velocity should decide the vane arming the bomb on release.

The vane still turns on bounce or skipping due to velocity of the bomb.

But if it was done as suggested to stop DF server airfield killing at spawn perhaps a velocity solution would be better than 2 sec arming delay ?

+1

[Wutz]

Why on earth is the bomb casing having anything to do with fusing of the device ?

The bomb should be allowed to bounce/skip without turning off the fuse within 2 seconds of release.

The arming should be done on bomb velocity to arm it not altitude or casing sensitivity limitations.

If this has been done to stop Dogfight Server idiots killing at airfields with static bomb drops from the spawn points,
cant it be done instead with the speed of the bomb to fuse/arm it rather than the 2 seconds from release ?

Hopefully it will be re-thought :)
Absolutely agree on that, as that was what I was trying to say the whole time, given the velocity and time till impact the bomb should arm normally, reguardless of any bouncing or skipping happening to the casing.

[W32Blaster]

It has been done to get a more realistic fusing.
This has been done with the possible features in the game.
Since there is no such thing like a seperate fuse within the bomb IN GAME it has to be determined with the bomb object interacting with other in game objects (instead of a fuse object which simply isn´t there).

Despite the correctness when compared to real bombs it is an improvement.

You never mind really dying when being shot down. This feature also is a lack of realism, like the not real complex fusing of the bombs in game. ;-)

There always will be constraints in implementing features when one considers
- game engine features
- amount of work
- schedule


And there is IMHO no necessity to make this an option. If you cannot cope with the feature, take an hour or two and practise how it´s done.
This is not a game for Johnny Joystick, you won´t succeed in Dogfight without practise, why should you succeed in bombing then?



just my 2ct!

[Furio]

And there is IMHO no necessity to make this an option. If you cannot cope with the feature, take an hour or two and practise how it´s done.
This is not a game for Johnny Joystick, you won´t succeed in Dogfight without practise, why should you succeed in bombing then?



just my 2ct!

This is an argument that time and again pops up to the surface. If you’re happy with maximum difficulty level, why other people should not have the option to tailor difficulty level to their own tastes and needs? As long as it’s not cheating online, where’s the problem?

IMHO, “option” is a magic word. I would like to have much more options, as many as possible within the limits imposed by engine game and by developers’ (read TD) available time.

[W32Blaster]

how many people do you think you will get online one server with options 1-100?

Just do some training and hone your skills. It´s as easy as that.
Same like if you fly a fighter: no skill, no success

[Furio]

how many people do you think you will get online one server with options 1-100?

I’m not sure to understand this point. Are you worried to have too many different servers? Or are you saying that most people would prefer maximum difficulty level? In any case, minorities should be tolerated (by the way, talking of majority, most Il2 users fly offline).

As for the training, I train as much as I like. Also, I believe that El Aurans, KG Alpha and others are trained well enough, so, why should they not have their options with bombs?

Just to summarize: many people on this thread feel that the new fusing system is unrealistic. Some are asking for corrective action, others to have the option to restore the old system (if I’m not mistaken). I agree with both, and believe that an option does not subtract anything to anyone, you included.

[robtek]

There is only minimal training needed to learn the procedures for successful bombing runs.
But then, most fighterpilots fly by the seat of their pants and only care fore the most essential procedures like take off and sometimes landing. :-D :-D :-D

[ElAurens]

Stop being condecending robtek.

There is nothing realistic about this approach to bomb fusing and DT has provided no info to the contrary. It was one person, or group of persons decision on what they felt was better. Not more historic, not better for the sim in general, just a method picked out of a hat to change something just because they could, to suit their personal vision of what the sim should be like.

Scalability has always been the hallmark of IL2, but I see now that the sim will be pushed into an even smaller niche of uber difficulty for the sake of it.

Good luck with that.

[BadAim]

It has been done to get a more realistic fusing.
This has been done with the possible features in the game.
Since there is no such thing like a seperate fuse within the bomb IN GAME it has to be determined with the bomb object interacting with other in game objects (instead of a fuse object which simply isn´t there).

Despite the correctness when compared to real bombs it is an improvement.

You never mind really dying when being shot down. This feature also is a lack of realism, like the not real complex fusing of the bombs in game. ;-)

There always will be constraints in implementing features when one considers
- game engine features
- amount of work
- schedule


And there is IMHO no necessity to make this an option. If you cannot cope with the feature, take an hour or two and practise how it´s done.
This is not a game for Johnny Joystick, you won´t succeed in Dogfight without practise, why should you succeed in bombing then?



just my 2ct!

It's amazing to me that it took so long for someone to realize that there are limits to what can be done within the game engine. Congratulations Blaster!

I'd only add out that the accusations that DT have some agenda other than to make the game more realistic are ludicrous, why not just take it at face value?

[TheGrunch]

It's amazing to me that it took so long for someone to realize that there are limits to what can be done within the game engine.
Probably because DT have the entire source code of the game, so it's not a feature that is in any way out of their reach? There are some things which are very difficult to achieve, but I'm pretty sure that starting and stopping the running of a timer based upon the interactions of an object in the game is not one of them.

[moilami]

There is only minimal training needed to learn the procedures for successful bombing runs.
But then, most fighterpilots fly by the seat of their pants and only care fore the most essential procedures like take off and sometimes landing. :-D :-D :-D

Rofl Yappers can't even do takeoffs and especially landings right :lol:


Edit: The word "Yapper" refers to typical fighter pilot. I can only imagine how a voice echoes in their head "ME MUST SHOOT STUFF NOW ME GO NOW ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MY STATS MY STATS ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MY STATS ME ME ME ME". They know nothing of team work and imagine air warfare is like in some µ$ Aces High or whatever shitty sim where they can shoot in ez mode 10 - 20 planes down each mission and feel they are aces.

[robtek]

@ElAurens
Me? condescending?
Man, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Manhattan :-)
I stated that it takes minimal, additional training to cope with that delay.
I really don't understand the reason for you, to get so agitated about something so minor.

[Aracno]

Stop being condecending robtek.

There is nothing realistic about this approach to bomb fusing and DT has provided no info to the contrary. It was one person, or group of persons decision on what they felt was better. Not more historic, not better for the sim in general, just a method picked out of a hat to change something just because they could, to suit their personal vision of what the sim should be like.

Scalability has always been the hallmark of IL2, but I see now that the sim will be pushed into an even smaller niche of uber difficulty for the sake of it.

Good luck with that.

Why are you so pissed?
Why so catastrofic?
The game will finish for a difference of few second or few meter in skip bombing?
No one of TD sayd "you are totally wrong, we have the only true", probably both the solution, the old and the new, are not perfect, but be sure, the guys did it with good intention, for sure not against you.
I think that now FEEL more realistic, but i will not cry if the group may decide to go back to the stock feature and i will not exult if remain as it is now.

[kimosabi]

Man, I am so angry right now. SO ANGRY DABNABBIT!§!! Mah bombs won't work!!!"

[ElAurens]

It was your comment about fighter pilots robtec.

But then, most fighterpilots fly by the seat of their pants and only care fore the most essential procedures like take off and sometimes landing.I mostly fly bombers and fighter/bomber types these days, but I've seen this argument used a lot and never understood where it comes from.

Chip on my shoulder? Not really. I just don't understand the need for this change, especially with so many other things that I would have prioritized ahead of bomb fusing. And the fact that it really is poorly implemented, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many many folks that I know that fly the sim.

It's all a balance between enjoyment and difficulty. Make it too difficult and it becomes a job, and hence less enjoyable.

Like I said, I do this for fun. If it becomes no fun then why do it? I love ground pounding, but if it becomes a job, well, then I'll just go back to fighters.


I've also noted that high altitude bombing accuracy seems significantly degraded in 4.10. Any reason for that?

[Letum]

I've also noted that high altitude bombing accuracy seems significantly degraded in 4.10. Any reason for that?

Wind now affects bombs.

[swiss]

It's all a balance between enjoyment and difficulty. Make it too difficult and it becomes a job, and hence less enjoyable.


biggest prob imho. I wonder if fighter jocks still go for a casual bombing run on the servers, just for a bit variety.

let's hope online bombers dont become an endagered breed thanks to 4.10

[moilami]

Man, I am so angry right now. SO ANGRY DABNABBIT!§!! Mah bombs won't work!!!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh boy, that comment gave me the very best laughs this a week or even maybe a month :cool:

[robtek]

@ElAurens

You didn't quote the smileys -> ironic
also it is "common knowledge" (again: ironic) that the attitude of fighter pilots is "up in the wild blue yonder"
and: "fighter pilots do movies, bomber pilots make history" and so on and on...

and its robtek, with a "k".

[Skoshi Tiger]

But then, most fighterpilots fly by the seat of their pants and only care fore the most essential procedures like take off and sometimes landing. :-D :-D :-D


I think you will find that 'Most' successful pilots achieve that status by disregarding their 'seat of the pants' feelings and rely on their training and their knowledge of system that they operate, the instruments that they rely upon and what they know of physics and how they expect their aircraft to react in the situations that they put them in.

Following your seat of the pants feeling will find you in a tight spiral dive into the ground once you lose your visual reference in a cloud or some such!

cheers!

[W32Blaster]

I think you will find that 'Most' successful pilots achieve that status by disregarding their 'seat of the pants' feelings and rely on their training and their knowledge of system that they operate, the instruments that they rely upon and what they know of physics and how they expect their aircraft to react in the situations that they put them in.


like I said: Fighter Choks do training to hone their skills.
Why should it be plain easy to succesful hit targets with bombs?!

[Fenrir]

There is nothing realistic about this approach to bomb fusing and DT has provided no info to the contrary.

Yes, there is, it has been demonstrated repeatedly in the previous pages. Besides, where is your evidence to counter DT's decision? In all your posts I have seen nothing, no links, not a single scrap of video, photographic reference or document. You have a duty to verify the veracity of your claims too you know.

It was one person, or group of persons decision on what they felt was better. Not more historic, not better for the sim in general, just a method picked out of a hat to change something just because they could, to suit their personal vision of what the sim should be like.

And how is that any different from your stance?!?! You seem like an intelligent guy El, surely you're aware of the hypocrisy of this statement?

Scalability has always been the hallmark of IL2, but I see now that the sim will be pushed into an even smaller niche of uber difficulty for the sake of it.

Ok, the "let's make it an option" stance would seem like the easy way out, and in some regards I agree but it would seem like a lot of work to implement, when all it requires is for some folks here to adjust there technique - a challenge, sure, but that's what keeps us on our toes and keeps us playing the game. Pushing you out of your comfort zone and providing you with an impetus to improve and adapt to new problems.

Geez it took me 4 or 5 goes to test and then adjust my technique sufficiently to hit ships regularly. Read back through the posts El, you'll see plenty of people able to manage this 'impossible' task.

But then I suspect you aren't reading the posts. Cos you seem to keep repeating the same old line without having addressed any other posters - unless they agreed with you; naturally.....

[kimosabi]

I vote moar xxxx in the cockpit. I'm sick of those xxxless pin-ups.

[swiss]

I vote moar xxxx in the cockpit. I'm sick of those xxxless pin-ups.

they were standard that time.

[kimosabi]

they were standard that time.

The four X'es or the three X'es?

[fruitbat]

The four X'es or the three X'es?

three X'es, 4 didn't become standard until the '50's

[IceFire]

I'm all for options personally. As far as I have read and understand 2 seconds is about right although obviously in some cases it's not working quite right in regards to skip bombing. But some aren't going to like it... so option!

[Wutz]

Well stock 4.10 is not the last word, and not the only option thank god there are also others, that do a bit of research, and don´t dig into alternative reality as is the case with 4.10. Those that like it fine, for me 4.10m has been removed due to this "wonderful, and very realistic" change on the bombs.
Just hope that certain tinkers keep their fingers out in SoW.

[Aracno]

This is hilarious, you have not discussed with TD, you have discussed with forum users, you dont know what TD think, as a group, about all the debate here.

[TheGrunch]

Well stock 4.10 is not the last word, and not the only option thank god there are also others, that do a bit of research, and don´t dig into alternative reality as is the case with 4.10. Those that like it fine, for me 4.10m has been removed due to this "wonderful, and very realistic" change on the bombs.
Just hope that certain tinkers keep their fingers out in SoW.
Look, Wutz, you're just being such a prima-donna about such a small (and indeed likely realistic) change. I've posted in a similar topic on Ubi:

...if skip-bombing was even mildly realistic, you'd have to deal with a sea that isn't a perfect mill-pond 100% of the time, so you'd be worrying about whether the bomb landed on the crest of a wave or in a trough. You'd have to worry about bombs that no longer have a 100% success rate even under their ideal drop conditions. There are a whole host of things that are wrong with the difficulty of skip bombing in the game already (particularly skip-bombing on land!).
To whine about a minor change that was made based upon the way that bombs are actually constructed is a bit rich, even if I do agree that there should be some chance of the bomb continuing to arm as long as it doesn't hit the target before the two seconds is up, and that the skips off the water shouldn't always stop the arming process.

Why do you think that turning skip-bombing from the easiest ground-attack method in the entire game at which players can easily have a 100% hit ratio against ships right from their first try is somehow an unfair alternate-reality representation of history? Do you only read Biggles books? :confused:

[Fenrir]

Well stock 4.10 is not the last word, and not the only option thank god there are also others, that do a bit of research, and don´t dig into alternative reality as is the case with 4.10. Those that like it fine, for me 4.10m has been removed due to this "wonderful, and very realistic" change on the bombs.
Just hope that certain tinkers keep their fingers out in SoW.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a52/tomtheyak/lion-yawn_1355493i.jpg

[Wutz]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a52/tomtheyak/lion-yawn_1355493i.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/arguemnetuj1.jpg

[W32Blaster]

Well stock 4.10 is not the last word, and not the only option thank god there are also others, that do a bit of research, and don´t dig into alternative reality as is the case with 4.10. Those that like it fine, for me 4.10m has been removed due to this "wonderful, and very realistic" change on the bombs.
Just hope that certain tinkers keep their fingers out in SoW.

Good decision, since it might stop your complaints about peanuts here.
Sorry for being direct but I just don´t get your message.

[moilami]

I vote moar xxxx in the cockpit. I'm sick of those xxxless pin-ups.

I agree on that the new bomb fusing could be an option. More choise for people. That said, I gladly took more difficult to use bombs since the previous bombs were just ridiculous. Just a pity that it seems skip bombing possibly took a step in the wrong direction.

In 4.09m I could Fly 3m above the target and drop the bomb, get direct hit, and escape from the blast. From what I have read that would not had been possible in real. If the arming mechanism works as explained here, that is the bomb gets armed if the arming propeller turns enough, then this 2 secs wait appears to be like good enough implementation if it took about 2 secs in real for the propeller to arm the bomb.

Anyway I am pretty sure TD is not surprised about all complaining. If a game is much liked any changes into it will cause yelling and uproar somewhere.

Now I want to hear what the Bomber Girl says about all this :)

http://coffeescholar.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ashley-sillsbury.jpg

Oh she said to me ignore them and come be my rear gunner :lol: Will do.. :lol:


Edit: Photo by Cindi Broome photography.

[Wutz]

Good decision, since it might stop your complaints about peanuts here.
Sorry for being direct but I just don´t get your message.

Right peanuts, why bother as long as the fighter jocks are happy right, and peanuts because a silly change has been made, where not a single referance has been produced showing that skipping on the water stopps the arming process. With your point of view one can then say the whole sim is peanuts.
If you can not read or have understanding difficulties, I am certain there are forums that can help you with your problems.http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/pillepalle.gif

[TheGrunch]

Yeah, because skip-bombing is the ONLY thing that bomber jocks can do, and making it any less difficult than previously (i.e., even easier than ramming) is a fatal mistake, despite the fact that in reality it was a very rare and dangerous tactic that required a lot of practise. :rolleyes: It's still really f***ing easy, jeez!

[BadAim]

Probably because DT have the entire source code of the game, so it's not a feature that is in any way out of their reach? There are some things which are very difficult to achieve, but I'm pretty sure that starting and stopping the running of a timer based upon the interactions of an object in the game is not one of them.

I imagine that it might be possible, and if someone had bothered asking nicely instead of throwing a fit (and I'm not talking about you, I actually think well of you), we might have the answer from the horses mouth. The simple fact is that releasing your bombs from any height a reasonable, non suicidal pilot would have IRL gives them plenty of time to arm. It really is that simple.

[TheGrunch]

Agreed. Fundamentally, I don't think the points being made are unreasonable...I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that arming should continue based upon the bomb's speed until it is no longer moving (i.e., it has hit something). It's just that this could easily have been posted in a bug thread as a small and unremarkable issue, or as a request in the Daidalos Team thread. It's the fact that certain posters have made out that:
a) DT have made skip-bombing impossible - demonstrably untrue
b) DT have made skip-bombing harder than it was in reality - laughably incorrect, even ignoring the effects of the sea surface, bomb reliability etc., it's still easier in game than any other kind of bombing activity to hit ships with it, which is the ONLY use it saw in reality anway.
c) DT and the occupants of the forum who don't find this change ghastly have some kind of conspiracy against/don't care about bomber pilots - wait, what? For me at least I understand why the change was made (to stop people from using bombs to kill low alt pursuers, to stop skip bombing from being really f**king easy, because bombs actually DO have an arming delay) and I can cope with it even if I don't think it's quite perfect yet. As for DT, radio navigation, analog axis control of up to 4 engines(!), new Ju-88 and He-111 models, the Hs-129, Fritz-X, etc., etc. Even the MDS is an absolute boon for bomber pilots. Oh, except you can have moving vehicles now? Heaven forbid that there might be moving vehicles in a dogfight server! That would make life much too difficult for ground-pounders!

It's just embarrassing and childish for anyone to say that DT ruined skip-bombing or have ruined the game for ground attack pilots.

Did you guys all love skip-bombing before simply because it was so easy? Is that any way to decide whether a game has been ruined, the easiest activity has been made infinitesimally more difficult?

[BadAim]

Perhaps now we can get somewhere? Naaaaaaah. :)

[ElAurens]

TheGrunch, you have no clue why I am questioning this apparently, Oh and I have been attacking moving vehicles for some time now. And yes it is difficult, as it should be.

Always make it a personal attack don't you? Anyone that questions something is portrayed as a lazy player or ungrateful for the work of the dev team or whatever else you rant about.

I have nothing against bomb fusing per-se, but they way it is currently implemented is just flat out wrong.

Note I have not said anything about the new torpedo drop parameters. It is far more difficult, but torpedo bombing was very difficult and risky, far more so than skip bombing, which is why skip bombing of ships became the preferred method of attack.

So please stop the personal slagging. There is no reason for it.

[TheGrunch]

I don't see how my post could be construed as a personal attack against you so much as bafflement that anyone would think that this change "ruins" anything. My apologies if you took it that way. I apologise if I am often quite sarcastic. I'm British, it's a national past-time. :confused: In any case my post is not directed at you, but at Wutz and his fanatic belief that DT and other forum members are peddling an "alternate history" that panders to fighter pilots/funds piracy and destroys our video industry, and indeed at Ubi you'll notice I was replying to Uther's comments about no longer being able to skip-bomb moving land vehicles at 30ft meaning that the world of online wars has been irrevocably ruined.
Certainly I have no beef with your aim - I agree that this mechanic could do with tweaking, but I don't see what Wutz's outraged ranting and other such hysteria has to do with achieving that aim other than to insinuate that the unpaid volunteers who provided this free, non-compulsory patch have some kind of sinister agenda. This could easily have been a short simple enquiry in a bug reporting thread.

[Letum]

Time we ahd some actual data with a source...

My source for this data is "Ordnance Pamphlet 1548" Bomb Fuse Data 1945 October 5th.

Ordnance Pamphlet 1548 contains a summary of pertinent information concerning all bomb fuzes of restricted and non restricted classifications now in use by the US Navy or Army

In this document arming delay is measured by "Air travel to Arm".

This gives an average figure (unless otherwise noted) for the air travel, along the trajectory of the bomb for which it is designed.

I will give both the 'air travel to arm' and vertical fall required to reach that speed at a TAS of 100, 200, 300 and 400 Knots with a dive angle of 0 degrees (the document provides a handy conversion chart). I won't give data on fuzes that do not apply to IL2, but I will list them.

Navy Fuzes

Fuze: AN-mk 219
Type: Instant impact
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 1000 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 440 ft
200kn - 140ft
300kn - 60 ft
400kn - 40 ft


Fuze: mk 221
Type: Impact, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 223
Type: Impact/inertia, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 1000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 227
Type: Anti-aircraft bomb

Fuze: mk 228
Type: Impact/inertia, 0.08 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 1000lb to 1600lb
Air Travel to Arm: 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 500 ft
200kn - 160 ft
300kn - 75 ft
400kn - 40 ft


Fuze: mk 224, 229, 230, 231, 234, 240
Type: hydrostatic

Fuze: mk 235 & 236
Type: 2 - 30 hour delay

Fuze: mk 239
Type: Impact, 0.01 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs except navy 100lb
Air Travel to Arm: 850 - 1100 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 350-500 ft
200kn - 95-160 ft
300kn - 40-75 ft
400kn - 23-40 ft


Fuze: mk 243
Type: Water discriminating

Fuze: mk 244
Type: Impact, 4 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs except navy 100lb
Air Travel to Arm: 450 ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 110 ft
200kn - 25 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft


Army Fuzes

Fuze: AN M100,101,102
Type: Impact/inertia, non-delay up to 0.24 second delay
Bombs: GP bombs from 100lb to 4000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 2000ft or 445ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (445ft version only)
100kn - 100 ft
200kn - 25 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft

Fuze: AN M103
Type: Impact, non-delay up to 0.1 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs - Restricted to non-naval use
Air Travel to Arm: 1140ft with delay, 1710ft without delay or 510ft with delay, 765ft without delay
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (510 version only)
100kn - 140 ft
200kn - 37 ft
300kn - <20 ft
400kn - <20 ft

Fuze: AN M104, 120, 170
Type: Para-Frag

Fuze: AN M106
Type: Impact, delay 4-11 seconds
Bombs: All GP bombs - Restricted to non-naval use
Air Travel to Arm: None. Armed by safety wire

Fuze: M106, 147, 152, 153
Bombs: target ID and incendiary

Fuze: M110
Bombs: 20lb

Fuze: M11, 146
Bombs: flare

Fuze: m112,113,114
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 100ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 10 ft
200kn - < 10 ft
300kn - < 10 ft
400kn - < 10 ft

Fuze: m115,116,117
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 450-650ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (500ft ATtA)
100kn - 130 ft
200kn - 30 ft
300kn - < 20 ft
400kn - < 20 ft

Fuze: M123,124,125, 132, 133
Type: Long Delay

Fuze: M126, 127, 128, 158, 159
Bombs: Chemical

Fuze: M129, 130, 131
Bombs: Butterfly Bomb

Fuze: m135, 136, 137
Type: Impact or 5-92 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 1300ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - 180 ft
300kn - 80 ft
400kn - 43 ft

Fuze: m139, 140
Type: Impact or 0.01 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 510ft with delay, 765ft without delay
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 130 or 265 ft
200kn - 30 or 68 ft
300kn - < 20 or 28 ft
400kn - < 20 or 20 ft

Fuze: 142,145, 151, 155
Type: Cluster bomb

Fuze: 143
Type: Smoke bomb

Fuze: 148
Type: to fit captured Japanese bombs

Fuze: m149
Type: Impact or air pressure
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 250ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 25 ft
200kn - < 20 ft
300kn - < 20 ft
400kn - < 20 ft

Fuze: 157
Type: Napalm

Fuze: m160, 161, 162
Type: Impact inertia, non delay or up to .24 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs 100lb to 4000lb
Air Travel to Arm: 2000ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - ~400 ft
300kn - ~200 ft
400kn - ~140 ft

Fuze: m160, 161, 162
Type: Impact inertia, non delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 1500ft or 2200ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees: (1500ft)
100kn - over 500 ft
200kn - 300 ft
300kn - 140 ft
400kn - 80 ft

How does this data compare to IL2 4.10?

IL2's new bomb fuze system works like modern mechanical fuzes with governors on the arming vane.
They arm after 2.5 (or 2?) seconds, regardless of aircraft speed.

After a little testing in IL2 I found that this means you must be at or above 29.5m / 97ft for the bomb to detonate after it is released in level flight. This is regardless of speed.

The fuze in IL2 acts like many wartime fuzes do when they are dropped in level flight at 200knots TAS. At 200knots it acts as if it where a fuze with a 850 foot air travel to arm distance

There are, however some fuzes that armed faster and some fuzes that armed slower than this at 200knots.

Below 200 knots IL2's bombs arm too quickly compared to most second war fuzes and above 200 knots IL2's bombs arm too slowly compared to most second war.



Facts end here, opinion starts below.

It's unreasonable for IL2 to model all fuzes. There are too many for US bombs alone and US bombs are only a fraction of the bombs ingame. We need to use ball-park figures for IL2's bombs.

From the data above, we can see that IL2's current arming delay is well within the ball park for speeds between 100 knots to about 250 knots. Above these speeds IL2's bombs start to leave the ball-park a little as the two seconds become too long.

The B25 has a top speed of about 200 knots and the A20 has a top speed of about 250 knots. At these speeds IL2's bomb arming delay compares well to real data for US bombs.
The P47's top speed of about 300 knots means the bomb arming delay is going to be too long, even more so if it is in a dive.

Ideally, the arming delay would be a result of the distance the bomb has traveled, but that kind of data may not be easy to calculate for the game.
If you had to have a time based arming delay, IL2 4.10's delay is about the best you could pick. For most speeds it's about right, for some speeds it's too short, for other too long, but it is about in the middle.
Certainly a huge improvement on having no delay.



edit: I forgot to mention about what fuzes where most common. I have no idea what fuzes where most common.

[IceFire]

Thanks Letum. Great to have some solid data!

[swiss]

From the German sturmovik forum:

http://www.abload.de/thumb/mindestabwurfhhefqhj.png (http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=mindestabwurfhhefqhj.png)

Zünder: fuze
Entsicherungszeit: arming time
Waagrechtflug: level flight
blind: blind/disarmed
teilweise: partly
scharf: armed

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Did anyone manage to attack a single tank with the 2 sec arming delay?

Dudes! we are in a world of pain !!! LOL

I guess we have to adapt eh?

[W32Blaster]

Did anyone manage to attack a single tank with the 2 sec arming delay?

Dudes! we are in a world of pain !!! LOL

I guess we have to adapt eh?

Yes, moving tanks with 4 x SC 50
fifty/fifty chance to hit and destroy the moving tank in 4.10

@wutz:
I´m preferring Bomber / Jabo flights, so don´t call me a fighter jock please:)
and: no need to get personal!:cool:

[moilami]

Did anyone manage to attack a single tank with the 2 sec arming delay?

Dudes! we are in a world of pain !!! LOL

I guess we have to adapt eh?

u need 2 l2p

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, I would myself appreciate ground pounding more if it would not be so ez. The same goes with ww2 flight sims in general - I can appreciate the real pilots more if the sim at least even tries to simulate how hard things was in real. So making realistical hard sims would be perhaps the best favor devs can do to the vets. It can help peeps to understand it was not ez in real.

[[URU]AkeR]

I flew a few campaigns using the realistic bombs and torpedo fusing mod, it made bombing much more challenging and entertaining.
I found that it was easier to bomb ships in a 45deg dive than sjip bombing, having practice with that mod i could bomb succesfully in my first 4.10 jabo mission.
To me it made Jabo more atractive, it just harder and demands more practice, you have to focus more, but when you hit the target is much more rewarding

[moilami]

AkeR;207489']I flew a few campaigns using the realistic bombs and torpedo fusing mod, it made bombing much more challenging and entertaining.
I found that it was easier to bomb ships in a 45deg dive than sjip bombing, having practice with that mod i could bomb succesfully in my first 4.10 jabo mission.
To me it made Jabo more atractive, it just harder and demands more practice, you have to focus more, but when you hit the target is much more rewarding

I started yesterday DCG Luftwaffe pilot in Eastern Front campaign in 1./JG5 with Bf 109 E-7/B. Jabo Rules!

[swiss]

AkeR;207489']I flew a few campaigns using the realistic bombs and torpedo fusing mod, it made bombing much more challenging and entertaining.
I found that it was easier to bomb ships in a 45deg dive than sjip bombing, having practice with that mod i could bomb succesfully in my first 4.10 jabo mission.
To me it made Jabo more atractive, it just harder and demands more practice, you have to focus more, but when you hit the target is much more rewarding

Sure but:
As far as I know(haven't tried yet), they didn't change the damage model of the German bombs.
Now, if I get a 2sec delay, but on the other hand an increased blast radius, I'll be fine with that.
Still, expect our kill/sortie ratio will be changed for ever, at least minus 20%.

Something else I fear is the comparison to the IL2.
In 4.09 this bucket could kill about 12 Tiger in a single attack, thanks to their cluster ammo.
I don't know if this is historical correct, I would guess not, as in the other case there must be a Russian "Rudel" pendant with thousands of tank kills...
Wiki says: with PTAB you could kill about 2 tanks in average.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB
I have no problem flying home with a few kills less - but I feel castrated in comparison to the uber-IL...

[JG52Uther]

Maybe we are just supposed to use the Henschel for ground attack now.
Operation 'Certain Death'...
;)

[Ernst]

Until as i known and reading books (Air Combat Manouvres) this was the right tactic. They flew very near to the deck to evade enemy fire then climb when approaching the target to release the bombs cause bombs may not explode if dropped too low. I see nothing wrong with the new bomb fusing. I do not understand, what is the real thing then? If its possible to improve, do it in next patches but now is better than 4.09 way.

But this i described above is true, pilots flying very low climbed a little to release the bombs. Instead to be complaining you must develop new tactics.

[Ernst]

Sure but:
As far as I know(haven't tried yet), they didn't change the damage model of the German bombs.
Now, if I get a 2sec delay, but on the other hand an increased blast radius, I'll be fine with that.
Still, expect our kill/sortie ratio will be changed for ever, at least minus 20%.

Something else I fear is the comparison to the IL2.
In 4.09 this bucket could kill about 12 Tiger in a single attack, thanks to their cluster ammo.
I don't know if this is historical correct, I would guess not, as in the other case there must be a Russian "Rudel" pendant with thousands of tank kills...
Wiki says: with PTAB you could kill about 2 tanks in average.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB
I have no problem flying home with a few kills less - but I feel castrated in comparison to the uber-IL...

This because in IL2 tank commanders are idiots :-) They do not use terrain advantage, camouflage, do not use evasive tactics, stay close and aligned under enemy attacks.

All this complains are just because a correct change that turns more difficult to the reds take out the blue armor divisions hehehe... Stop complaining and start to train my puppies.

[Avimimus]

From the German sturmovik forum:

http://www.abload.de/thumb/mindestabwurfhhefqhj.png (http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=mindestabwurfhhefqhj.png)

Zünder: fuze
Entsicherungszeit: arming time
Waagrechtflug: level flight
blind: blind/disarmed
teilweise: partly
scharf: armed

So, from two to six seconds?

Sure but:
As far as I know(haven't tried yet), they didn't change the damage model of the German bombs.
Now, if I get a 2sec delay, but on the other hand an increased blast radius, I'll be fine with that.
Still, expect our kill/sortie ratio will be changed for ever, at least minus 20%.


Wouldn't it be better to decrease/randomise all bomb damage effects?


Something else I fear is the comparison to the IL2.
In 4.09 this bucket could kill about 12 Tiger in a single attack, thanks to their cluster ammo.
I don't know if this is historical correct, I would guess not, as in the other case there must be a Russian "Rudel" pendant with thousands of tank kills...
Wiki says: with PTAB you could kill about 2 tanks in average.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB
I have no problem flying home with a few kills less - but I feel castrated in comparison to the uber-IL...

This is only true if you line up the tanks perfectly and are very lucky (and even then I don't get 12 tigers). I tend to average one or two Panzer IIIs, with occasionally larger numbers if they are lined up on a road.

You will also find that Il-2 pilots have to drop bomblets from higher altitudes.

P.S. If anyone has information on the fusing of the smallest Polish, Czech and Russian bombs - it would be very interesting.

[kimosabi]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't derailed into a debate about grass colour yet.

[swiss]

So, from two to six seconds?


1.7s/~17m



Wouldn't it be better to decrease/randomise all bomb damage effects?


There was thread about German SC, especially the bigger ones are castrated - and the USSR pendant ueber.

I tend to average one or two Panzer IIIs, with occasionally larger numbers if they are lined up on a road.

Speaks for your skills. ;)
I've seen IL2 take out whole columns all the time on QL2.

You will also find that Il-2 pilots have to drop bomblets from higher altitudes.


Is that so?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Read a HSU IL-2 pilot's memoirs and he said that the accuracy/performance of the bomblets left a lot to desire as an average IL-2 pilot was not capable of accurately hitting with them. Required precise flying and as losses were high pilot material was very varying. His book gave a pretty different picture of the IL-2 as a plane and pilot training than the game, even he said it was a sturdy and suitable plane for it's job. But in IL-2 it is very much "easy mode" compared to the real deal if this HSU pilot is to be believed.

[JoeA]

There was thread about German SC, especially the bigger ones are castrated - and the USSR pendant ueber.



I've seen IL2 take out whole columns all the time on QL2.





Oh god not another red vs blue bias whine.

Did you not read Ernst's post last page? Il2 tank commandrs (and truck drivers and ship captains) are all robotic retards and easy to kill by vets. Funny story I recently purchased Steel Fury and was mesmerised the first time I was attacked by a Sturmovik while commanding a Panzer-IV as it dove at me head on firing rockets and I watched the smoke trails head to me. Then black screen and outside view with the message "you have been heavily wounded" (the crew screamed "the commander is dead" actually) as I like a dummy was watching and forgot to button up. So while my tank got a bit of damage I bet I got my head blown off. ;) All Il-2 tanks are as smart.

[JoeA]

Did anyone manage to attack a single tank with the 2 sec arming delay?

Dudes! we are in a world of pain !!! LOL

I guess we have to adapt eh?

Did you not read Letum's post??

[KG26_Alpha]

Hmm

The 2 second delay is not the problem.

Its the casing touching the scenery within those 2 seconds that disarms the bomb that's the problem and not realistic.

The bombs velocity should decide its arming if its skipped or bounced into the target ship or tank the arming vane should be the deciding factor.

If this route is being taken for mud movers/bomber/Jabo to make it realistic etc etc, then start giving the fighters realistic mg/cannon jamming in the wings under G load.

We will soon see some reaction for that one :)

[JoeA]

Hmm

The 2 second delay is not the problem.

Its the casing touching the scenery within those 2 seconds that disarms the bomb that's the problem.

The bombs velocity should decide its arming if its skipped or bounced into the target ship or tank the arming vane should be the deciding factor.

If this route is being taken for mud movers/bomber/Jabo to make it realistic etc etc, then start giving thye fighters realistic mg/cannon jamming in the wings under G load.

We will soon see some reaction for that one :)

Good point and yes I would love to see g force jamming effects. Still the limitation of the casing touching is not that bad if you use historical tactics as Fruitbat, Dkoor and others have shown.

[KG26_Alpha]

Good point and yes I would love to see g force jamming effects. Still the limitation of the casing touching is not that bad if you use historical tactics as Fruitbat, Dkoor and others have shown.

Well lets give the fighters G load jamming and see how the discussion goes

I will come here and tell them

"Its not that bad just learn how to use it and practise more with it"

The fact is the bombs at the moment are not realistic with the casing being a deciding factor on its arming there are better ways to do this as already mentioned in this thread.





.

[TheGrunch]

I wouldn't think that would be a problem outside the inevitable low-alt furball on arcadier servers. I don't think most tend to make shots in tight turns anyway. :)

[robtek]

@KG26_Alpha

The difficulty to adapt to the new circumstances is so minimal that i regard your post close to trolling.

[ElAurens]

I was just online on my Test Center map with Monguse and several other experienced pilots.

Yes we could kill ships via skip bombing on occasion, but the randomness of it is just so wrong. Same bomb dropped from different aircraft even at equal speed/altitude failed to arm. I lost count of how many bombs I saw make good hits and not go off. A failure rate so high that it is beyond belief.

Once you add in enemy fire, which we did not have, and air opposition, there is no way you will even begin to approach historical success rates in the sim.

And all because the bombs stop arming if they hit the water too soon. It's the wrong approach. It needs to be changed.

On the other hand, torpedo drops can be gotten down to an utter science, nearly 100% success rates for drops and arming. Now this will go down with enemy action of course, as it should.

[KG26_Alpha]

@KG26_Alpha

The difficulty to adapt to the new circumstances is so minimal that i regard your post close to trolling.

Errrrmmmm which post would that be ??

[Wutz]

I was just online on my Test Center map with Monguse and several other experienced pilots.

Yes we could kill ships via skip bombing on occasion, but the randomness of it is just so wrong. Same bomb dropped from different aircraft even at equal speed/altitude failed to arm. I lost count of how many bombs I saw make good hits and not go off. A failure rate so high that it is beyond belief.

Once you add in enemy fire, which we did not have, and air opposition, there is no way you will even begin to approach historical success rates in the sim.

And all because the bombs stop arming if they hit the water too soon. It's the wrong approach. It needs to be changed.

On the other hand, torpedo drops can be gotten down to an utter science, nearly 100% success rates for drops and arming. Now this will go down with enemy action of course, as it should.
Absolutely agree, as it has become so random, I guess the aim is to stop skip bombing all together?
Just wondering what other curbing of flying styles will be installed in future....

[Avimimus]

There was thread about German SC, especially the bigger ones are castrated - and the USSR pendant ueber.

Yes, I've seen the values. I'm not sure if it is historical or not.
What I was proposing was to castrate them both! I like the lower blast effects (one has to aim more).

Speaks for your skills. ;)
I've seen IL2 take out whole columns all the time on QL2.

The overall probability of a PTAB knocking out a tank may be slightly elevated over the historical (eg. the shaped charge may not have been effective if it hit sloped armour) - but I think pilot quality and the layout of the ground targets are the main factors in any excessive effects.

Try making a few runs against tanks which aren't on roads or are only driving down roads in pairs (instead of groups of eight).

Regarding having to drop bomblets from higher altitudes - yes it is the case. My effectiveness has dropped by almost 40% since 4.10 (although I expect I'll improve). It is funny to release the AO-10 at low altitude - they don't fuse, but they skip along the road like little fishes.

[Avimimus]

On the other hand, torpedo drops can be gotten down to an utter science, nearly 100% success rates for drops and arming. Now this will go down with enemy action of course, as it should.

It took a few tries. I found heavier bombs were more likely to skip. I even managed to skip reliably using an Il-2. I just never dumped bombs while in even a shallow dive or under 90 metres and tried to keep my speed up.

I don't think it was necessarily easy in real life. If you've ever been in the ocean - it is hard to imagine throwing a several hundred kilo high-explosive device and expecting it to bounce several times is ever going to be perfectly reliable, predictable and undemanding of skill.

As for torpedo bombing - science perhaps - but I'm having an awfully hard time meeting the release requirements (speed and altitude)!

[Avimimus]

I've actually come to like skip bombing and releasing bomblets in 4.10

My personal concern is regarding individually dropped small bombs (eg. AO-10 on the I-15, not on the Il-2). These are already hard enough to use!

It might also be nice to have early war missions in American aircraft where the delay has been shortened (I remember some stories of P-47 pilots killing themselves while attacking trains). It would be cool to have as an option in the mission file instead of in the menu screen.

[ElAurens]

I'm having an awfully hard time meeting the release requirements (speed and altitude)!


It's quite hard to get the A-20 to even fly slow enough for a good drop. The SM 79 on the other hand is a gem.

[Avimimus]

Yes, I've been mainly testing on the Il-2T and the Ju-88. The latter has ruddy auto-retract on the flaps: I press "combat flaps" and the plane says "flap retracted" five times in a row (at which point I'm too low or too close to the the target to make the run). ;)

[JG53Frankyboy]

Has anyone tested how this New fuze influences the german AB bombs?
Do the bomblets also Need These 2 seconds after they are released from the AB , what already takes 3 seconds.....
I cant Test it, im on vacation. Im just curious

[WTE_Galway]

oh well ... at least it stops people spawn grieving online with FAB 5000's :D

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

IL2 1946 - 4.10

2 second fusing delay, bomb drops.
All bomb drops are done in real time, time delay is applied
during playback for attention on details as Height, Scope,
aiming e.t.c.

www.zg52.com

ThankS! for watching



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLT8Fm8tdU

Your assessment.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Out of interest I found an interview with fighter pilot Richard Lee, 94th Fighter Squadron that flew P-38s from Tunisia in 43/44. In it he talks about Skip Bombing and the technique they used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEu0oLmjiI0

100 feet would be about 30 meters!

Cheers!

[Mustang]

The Bomb Fuzing INCIDENT
In IL2 :cool:


Many pages about Bomb Fuzing LOL :grin:

And de FM s .. ????
Many planes too slow ...or too fast… or all bad in FM

Many fly like UFOs :o




Bomb Fuzing INCIDENT

LOL :rolleyes:



And the guns incident???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZGaEEi8Ek

[moilami]

IL2 1946 - 4.10

2 second fusing delay, bomb drops.
All bomb drops are done in real time, time delay is applied
during playback for attention on details as Height, Scope,
aiming e.t.c.

www.zg52.com

ThankS! for watching



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLT8Fm8tdU



Your assessment.

Wow, just wow. I want to be as good as you are!


Edit: Is there just a bug in Bf 109 F-7/B? You have taken 250kg bomb and dropped it, yet graphics show you carry it.

Edit: (Or actually I want to be better, but for starters I want to be as good as you are :lol:

[Skoshi Tiger]

I assume he has unlimited ammo selected.

Cheers!

[[URU]BlackFox]

I think it was done with Unlimited Ammo, for training purposes. That's why the bomb's always there.

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

BlackFox;207746']I think it was done with Unlimited Ammo, for training purposes. That's why the bomb's always there.

Off course :)

[moilami]

Off course :)

Patch 4.10 seems to be just fine. Bads will be continue to be bads, and pros will continue to be pros. What changed was that it is not possible for bads to faceroll bombs at targets anymore :lol: However I have said a long time ago that there were in real bads in WW2 too :lol: That is actually my motto :) So everything is just fine.

Anyway you Sir should join in New Alliance against The Red Menace :) After doing some research I though saw that you have already been contacted :cool: Anyway I seriously hope to fly on your side* soon in SEOW.


Edit: *As long as it is Axis.

[Korn]

The 2 second delay is not the problem.

Its the casing touching the scenery within those 2 seconds that disarms the bomb that's the problem and not realistic.

The bombs velocity should decide its arming if its skipped or bounced into the target ship or tank the arming vane should be the deciding factor.

+1

DT, please fix it!

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Anyway you Sir should join in New Alliance against The Red Menace :) After doing some research I though saw that you have already been contacted :cool: Anyway I seriously hope to fly on your side* soon in SEOW.
Edit: *As long as it is Axis.

I'm not sure what you're saying .. :) could you please pm me a link of the of this "New Alliance" :)

All the best!

[moilami]

I PM you details.

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha
The 2 second delay is not the problem.

Its the casing touching the scenery within those 2 seconds that disarms the bomb that's the problem and not realistic.

The bombs velocity should decide its arming if its skipped or bounced into the target ship or tank the arming vane should be the deciding factor.
+1

DT, please fix it!

I wouldn't know the RL situation .. but the game situation became a Real bitch ...

Even an enemy seagull can throw you off your imelman routine and send the bomb to a

henn house near by, if not to hell lol

[TheGrunch]

I was just online on my Test Center map with Monguse and several other experienced pilots.

Yes we could kill ships via skip bombing on occasion, but the randomness of it is just so wrong. Same bomb dropped from different aircraft even at equal speed/altitude failed to arm. I lost count of how many bombs I saw make good hits and not go off. A failure rate so high that it is beyond belief.
I'm beginning to wonder whether this is an issue with online play and the effect of lag on the fusing or something odd like that...I experience none of the randomness you describe. Either I drop too late or too early and miss, or I drop too low and it doesn't go off, and I can almost invariably identify what it was that I did wrong. That attitude of the aircraft at the drop is important as well. Do you have such obvious issues with the fusing offline?

[Mustang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8whPvW85a0E&feature=player_embedded


Old Times

No more .....:(

[Letum]

Old Times

No more .....:(

He says he is releasing at 150 feet in a slight climb.

With the new delay, the bomb will detonate when dropped at just below 100ft flying level.

150ft in a slight climb will work perfectly with plenty of room for error.
The events in that video will work just as well now as they did before.

[Mustang]

:-P

[[URU]BlackFox]

One more video I do now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVYmpgoSjg

I don't need to change a thing in my bombing runs over ships. And is good to newbies with 0 sec delay to don't blow their aircrafts...

Doesn't seem to be a big complication. Skip bombing still rulez!

[ElAurens]

I'm beginning to wonder whether this is an issue with online play and the effect of lag on the fusing or something odd like that...I experience none of the randomness you describe. Either I drop too late or too early and miss, or I drop too low and it doesn't go off, and I can almost invariably identify what it was that I did wrong. That attitude of the aircraft at the drop is important as well. Do you have such obvious issues with the fusing offline?

I'm beginning to wonder if the online component is indeed a part of this.

One of the guys made several drops from the recommended altitude/speed, got no "torpedo failed" text, yet his torps never were seen to run in the water and never exploded either.

I'm beginning to think that the MDS is a culprit here.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I'm beginning to wonder if the online component is indeed a part of this.

One of the guys made several drops from the recommended altitude/speed, got no "torpedo failed" text, yet his torps never were seen to run in the water and never exploded either.

I'm beginning to think that the MDS is a culprit here.

Maybe, because in all my offline tests all OK, just need to respect the "2 sec rule". I can do all kinds of bombing runs, even skip bombing.

But online, I don't know. Will test tonight!

[Jack_Aubrey]

I think it should be added as the bomb delay, but with a one sec armed delay min. this way if TD manage to simulate the problem of two bombs hitting each other in the middle of the air and exploding we, the people's that like to fly big bombers, wolud have the posibility to set it to more than two seconds ...

[Skoshi Tiger]

Bombs falling from the same plane would have the same relative velocity. Any impact would not be very forceful. Especially just after release.

How sensitive are the fuses of Aerial bombs? What sort of impact would be required to set them off?

[Letum]

How sensitive are the fuses of Aerial bombs? What sort of impact would be required to set them off?

That's a question for which I suspect there is no definitive answer.


Fuze designers could make a fuze that exploded with anything from 2G of
acceleration to 500G and they bomb would still work the same in most
cases, so I would be surprised if there was a drive for accuracy.
However, even if they did aim for an accurate figure, it doesn't look like
they achieved it on a regular basis.
Some bombs detonated mid air because they bumped into another bomb
on the way down or hit a patch of turbulence. Other bombs crashed
through three floors of a house, buried them selves 6ft underground and
are still there today, unexploded.

When skip-bombing, a time delay was used to prevent the bombs
exploding when they bounced off the water. That's one way in which
skip bombing is easier than it should be in IL2.

[JHartikka]

I've been trying for some time to come up with a speed/altitude/distance/aircraft combination that works for skip bombing ships and for me it's a bust. this was a tactic that was used and worked, but now you are sentencing those that say they can do it to certain death.

If the stated reason for doing it is true, to stop folks from dropping bombs from parked aircraft, then code the bomb releases not to drop at all with aircraft that are on the ground. End of problem.

Right now I just am getting the feeling that someone else is trying to force their style of game play on me.

It's not making me happy.


You said it well! Yes, I too got the impression that someone else is trying to force their style of bombing on others - and what is the worst, in an unrealistic way. In recent 4.10m mission I was advised to drop from minimum alt of 500 meters..! For precision bomber, denying 'jabo' bombing this is like denying fighter pilot from shooting closer than 500 meters to target..! :mad:

In reality, bombs were fused for each mission bombing style. Original makers of IL-2 flight sim have made very fine bomb bounce modeling to enable low accuracy bombing styles like ground 'slide bombing' and ship 'bounce bombing' or 'skip bombing'. Now all these low bombing styles (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17765&page=26) are denied from us because of the 410m safety fuse! No more work for a precison bombing pilot in 4.10m, I have to go back to 4.09m again...

If there are bomb salvo settings, please let pilots set them like it was done back then! Safety fuse style forced 'idiot bombing' modes are good for AI pilots, but many human pilots like to learn precision bombing the real way - low! So please either remove that 4.10m safety fuse from the next patch or let people set it with other bombing salvo settings (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=209454&posted=1#post209454) -quite like in reality..! :grin:


Bomb SALVO Fix to Consider for the Next Patch?

The otherways very realistic IL-2 has got from its beginning one great bomber reality flaw: The bombs are always dropped as forced pairs only. There is no chance to set bomb SALVO for bombing drops individually, one by one, as in reality.

It may seem a laborious job to set all bombers for one by one bomb SALVO. However, there are good news: It already has been done!

There already is a 'Weapon Control Mod' to fix IL-2 bomb SALVO built by ZloyPetrushkO that has proved to work well. I have test flown with it for months and have only good to say about it. The Weapon Controller lets pilot set into IL-2 conf.ini file the SALVO to drop any number of bombs individually at desired intervals! Now this is like it was done by the bomber crews!


Bomber Pilot's Wish Nr.1

Maybe it could be considered to add this 'Weapon Controller' bomb SALVO fix to next IL-2 patch..? If not yet to 4.10m, maybe the one after it? This is a shy bomber pilot's wish who would like this flight sim keep and improve its fine feeling of reality! More about the 'Weapon Controller' to fix the IL-2 flight sim bomb SALVO on another thread (http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,2359.0.html).


All the Best,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

[robtek]

@JHartikka

i wish that you've read all posts regarding this.
Then you would have seen that it is still possible to do those skip / bouncing attacks successfully.
It is slightly more difficult to drop from 30 m instead of 10 m or less, but hey, we were spoiled!
It was much too easy till now.
Successful earth moving was always more demanding and less glamorous then shooting at planes, imho.

[vparez]

S!

I read this whole thread now, and all I can say: THANKS LETUM! Your posts are really nice and useful texts to read.

I can add only this: due to limitation of the game engine, in several aspects, skip bombing of ships is much easier in IL-2 than in RL. This fact leads to very unrealistic outcomes of anyone trying to play a convoy protection or naval battle scenario.

So, even if this bomb fuzing solution is not 100% realistic, its impact on the style of combat in such scenarios is definitely increasing the realistic feel, if by nothing else, then at least by bringing the outcome of such battles to much more realistic levels.

Maybe the means are not 100% perfect, but the end justifies the means!

Thank you TD!

[311_Tank]

IL2 1946 - 4.10

2 second fusing delay, bomb drops.
All bomb drops are done in real time, time delay is applied
during playback for attention on details as Height, Scope,
aiming e.t.c.

www.zg52.com

ThankS! for watching



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLT8Fm8tdU

Your assessment.

Now take the I-153, FAB 50 bombs and show us some skill in destroying PzIV... because with SC250 its noob job.

[Wolf_Rider]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/A20BismarckSea.jpg

US A-20 Havoc of the 89th Squadron, 3rd Attack Group, at the moment it clears a Japanese merchant ship following a successful skip bombing attack. Wewak, New Guinea, March 1944.




Skip bombing was a low-level bombing technique refined for use against Imperial Japanese Navy warships and transports by Major William Benn of the 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group (Heavy), 5th Air Force, United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area Theater during World War II. General George Kenney has been credited with developing skip bombing.[1][2]

The first time skip bombing was used was at the base of Rabaul on New Britain. The United States 5th Army Air Force used B-25 bombers to attack and destroy Japanese ships. It proved to be very effective and received growing popularity. The only drawback was that it took a lot of skill to perfect. Sometimes the bombs would detonate too soon, or in some cases, sink.[3]

The bombing aircraft flew at very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)) at speeds from 200–250 mph (320–400 km/h; 170–220 kn). They would release a "stick" of two to four bombs, usually 500 lb (230 kg) or 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs equipped with four- to five-second time delay fuses at a distance of 60–300 ft (18–91 m) from the side of the target ship. The bombs would "skip" over the surface of the water in a manner similar to stone skipping and either bounce into the side of the ship and detonate, submerge and explode under the ship, or bounce over the target and explode as an air burst. All outcomes were found to be effective. Unlike "Upkeep" or "Highball", this technique used standard types.

Various aircraft types were used for skip-bombing attacks, including B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers, B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, and A-20 Havoc attack bombers. These were supported by heavily-armed Royal Australian Air Force Bristol Beaufighters, which would suppress Japanese antiaircraft fire with their machine guns and cannon. Soviets used lend-leased A-20 Havoc and P-40 Tomahawk as well as Il-2 sturmoviks (also used for air defence suppression). Skip bombers were often used by aviation of the Soviet North Sea Fleet in combination with torpedo bombers (usually the same A-20, skip bomber and torpedo bomber operated in pair). Skip bombers were called "topmachtoviks" (топмачтовики) in Russian, because they were flying "at the level of ship mast tops".

A notable use of this technique was during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea (March 2–4, 1943), off the northern coast of New Guinea.

- Wiki




popular mechanics article => http://books.google.com/books?id=hd8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=popular+Mechanics+1944+Marader&hl=en&ei=tq2iTI7hEouenQflj92IBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true



Skip Bombing - James T Murphy

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275945405/thewolfboutique#_

[JG53Frankyboy]

".... very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)..."

:D

[vparez]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/A20BismarckSea.jpg

US A-20 Havoc of the 89th Squadron, 3rd Attack Group, at the moment it clears a Japanese merchant ship following a successful skip bombing attack. Wewak, New Guinea, March 1944


Yes, and how many escort ships were there around it?

A typical skip bombing action is much like a torpedo run, only you have to come in very, very close to the target. We all know how usually torpedo runs ended up against heavily defended warships, and that's even when the torpedo planes released their payload a long way away from the target (thus a very poor hit ratio).

What we have now in IL2 is that you can fly in the middle of a convoy of 10 merchants + 10 warships (from DD to CV), you can jink like crazy and evade the naval gunfire, and during a jink you can just throw your bombs, when you are close enough, and you'll hit the target.

At the moment of release, you may be jinking quite hard and still your bombs don't care... if you hit the target they will explode, no matter what you altitude or pitch was.

Now, the bomb fuse of 2 seconds forces you only to have a stable level flight until release, which doesn't make it almost at all harder to hit a lone merchant (which was a realistic attack method as in the picture); but when that merchant is a part of the convoy, with escorts, it gets much harder, but still not impossible.

Anyway, the objective of this fix is to make it hard for players to use this attack profile in the situation when it wouldn't be used in RL (i.e. against defended targets).

Maybe this is too much realism for some people, indeed.

EDIT: so how will you suppress the AA gunners from the ships in IL-2? That is an engine limitation that TD had to work around to bring more realism, and they found a very good solution. So if the fusing needs to be an option, then I guess ships firing needs to be an option too ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

vparez wrote


Anyway, the objective of this fix is to make it hard for players to use this attack profile in the situation when it wouldn't be used in RL (i.e. against defended targets).



perhaps even a quick scan of some the articles of the attached links could there?... skip bombing was apparently used on land as well

[vparez]

perhaps even a quick scan of some the articles of the attached links could there?... skip bombing was apparently used on land as well

I am re-posting this very interesting text, from my squadron forum:

They've said the first victim of the war is the truth.

Modern literature on WWII is replete with accounts of devastating air strikes on tank units. There are many stories about dozens or even hundreds of enemy tanks being destroyed in a single day, thereby destroying or blunting an enemy armoured offensive. These accounts are particularly common in literature relating to later war ground attack aircraft, most commonly the Soviet Ilyushin II, the British Hawker Typhoon, the American Republic P-47, and the German Henschel Hs 129. All these aircraft have the distinction of being called ‘tank-busters’ and all have the reputation for being able to easily destroy any type of tank in WWII.

Now what's the truth?

Case 1 - Normandy

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.

Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.

Case 2 - Kursk

Luftwaffe

In July 1943 the German Citadel Offensive (battle of Kursk) was supported by several types of apparently highly effective ground attack aircraft, two of which were specialist tank killing machines. The first was the Henschel 129B-1/2. Made in modest numbers (only 870 of all types) it was specifically designed for the anti-tank and close support mission. The second was the Ju87G-1, armed with two 37mm cannon also specifically designed to kill armour. These aircraft, along with Fw-190Fs, were first employed en masse in the Schlachtgeschwader units supporting Operation Citadel.

They are credited with ‘wreaking havoc amongst Soviet armour’ and the destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks in this battle. On 8th July 1941, Hs 129s are credited with destroying 50
T-34s in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in less than an hour. There is some evidence that 2nd Guards Tank Corps took heavy casualties on 8th July, but 50 tanks appears to exceed their total losses form all causes.

In fact total Soviet tank losses in operation Citadel amounted to 1 614 tanks totally destroyed, the vast majority to German tanks and assault guns. Further detailed research has shown air power only accounted for 2-5% of Soviet tanks destroyed in the battle of Kursk.(24) This equates to at most around 80 tanks. Again, even if this is a low estimate, where are the hundreds of tanks destroyed by German ground attack aircraft?

Soviet Air Force

On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division.
It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present (the II./Pz Regt 33) with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division. 9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over three months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.
During the battle of Kursk, the VVS IL-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2 000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 3rd Panzer Division’s 6th Panzer Regiment had only 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed! On 11th July (well after the battle) the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks. 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of 3rd Panzer Division’s tank losses were due to dug in Soviet AT guns and tanks.
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s IL-2s, is that over a period of 4 hours they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39) with a grand total of only 67 tanks. This time only 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS! The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector for the Kursk battle, but further south with 1st Panzer Army’s 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year still intact.
In fact total German tank losses in Operation Citadel amounted to 1 612 tanks and assault guns damaged and 323 totally destroyed, the vast majority to Soviet AT guns and AFVs. Where are the many hundreds destroyed by IL-2’s? It appears the RAF and VVS vied for the title for ‘most tank kill over-claims in WWII’.

In addition it is difficult to find any first hand accounts by German Panzer crews on the Eastern Front describing anything more than the occasional loss to direct air attack. The vast majority, around 95%, of tank losses are due to enemy AT guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and infantry assault, or simply abandoned as operational losses. Total German fully tracked AFV losses on the East Front from 1941 to 1945 amounted to approximately 32 800 AFVs. At most 7% were destroyed by direct air attack, which amounts to approximately 2 300 German fully tracked AFV lost to direct air attack, a portion of which would be lost to other aircraft types such as the Petlyakov Pe-2. From 22nd June 1941 to war's end, 23 600 Il-2 and Il-10 ground attack aircraft were irrecoverably lost. Whatever these aircraft were doing to pay such a high price it wasn’t destroying German tanks. If that was there primary target, then over 10 Il-2s and Il-10s were irrecoverably lost for every German fully tracked AFV that was completely destroyed by direct air attack on the East Front during WWII.

Source:

P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death, Helion & Company Ltd, Solihull, UK, 2007,
N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000,
F. Crosby, The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of WWII, Anness Publishing Ltd: Hermes House, London, 2006, p. 365. Also M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 56.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 349.
T. L. Jentz, Panzer Truppen, The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Deployment of Germany’s Tank Force: 1943-1945,
M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 66.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 276. According to Glantz and House, these are admitted Soviet tanks totally destroyed but the number is probably higher. In addition a similar number were probably recovered as repairable.
Tank Forces in Defense of the Kursk Bridgehead, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Volume 7, No 1, March 1994,



I don't know where the text comes from, but the sources are listed below.

Now, if that text is even remotely true, I feel that the IL-2 engine and the state of the game as it is now, really allow for much more efficiency in ground attack than it was (apparently) obtained in the realistic conditions of WW2... And note that the text above focuses on weapons which are supposed to be more effective at tank busting than fragmentation bombs!

[Wutz]

Yes, and how many escort ships were there around it?

A typical skip bombing action is much like a torpedo run, only you have to come in very, very close to the target. We all know how usually torpedo runs ended up against heavily defended warships, and that's even when the torpedo planes released their payload a long way away from the target (thus a very poor hit ratio).

What we have now in IL2 is that you can fly in the middle of a convoy of 10 merchants + 10 warships (from DD to CV), you can jink like crazy and evade the naval gunfire, and during a jink you can just throw your bombs, when you are close enough, and you'll hit the target.

At the moment of release, you may be jinking quite hard and still your bombs don't care... if you hit the target they will explode, no matter what you altitude or pitch was.

Now, the bomb fuse of 2 seconds forces you only to have a stable level flight until release, which doesn't make it almost at all harder to hit a lone merchant (which was a realistic attack method as in the picture); but when that merchant is a part of the convoy, with escorts, it gets much harder, but still not impossible.

Anyway, the objective of this fix is to make it hard for players to use this attack profile in the situation when it wouldn't be used in RL (i.e. against defended targets).

Maybe this is too much realism for some people, indeed.

EDIT: so how will you suppress the AA gunners from the ships in IL-2? That is an engine limitation that TD had to work around to bring more realism, and they found a very good solution. So if the fusing needs to be an option, then I guess ships firing needs to be an option too ;)

That picture is from the battle of the Bismarck Sea, and there where armed ships there:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/wwii1331.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/bismarcksea002.jpg


Also have a look at this article, at what distance to the target bombs where released? Try that with 4.10 bet you it won´t work. as that is no 2 sec falling time at all.
When General Kenney took command of the 5th Air Force, he explained to MacArthur that his primary mission was to take out Japanese air power "until we owned the air over New Guinea. There was no use talking about playing across the street until we got the Nips off our front lawn"1

Doing this with Japanese air power dependent on its Navy bringing supplies and reinforcements in a part of the world covered with wide-open sea required that Kenney devise effective ways of bombing Japanese ships, something that had been ineffective using high-altitude bombing. Imagine trying to hit a ship with a bomb dropped from an altitude of 25,000 feet! The standard technique was so ineffective that , for example, less than 1% of of bombs dropped by the 19th Bomb Group's B-17s hit their ship-targets2. The answer: low-altitude bombing. What may sound like an obvious thing was not so easy to effect in real life; the British tried minimal altitude bombing and couldn't make it work. Something more was needed, something was missing.

Discussing the situation with Major Bill Benn, Kenney suggested the idea of 'skip bombing': dropping a bomb such that it literally skipped off the water like a stone, hitting its target from the side. To do this, the bombs, set with delayed fuzes so the plane would have time to clear the detonation, must be dropped at an extremely (dangerously!) low altitude and at the right speed and from the right distance. The bomber for the job must have enough fire power in the nose to defend itself from enemy flak at such low heights. The man for the job of making it work was Major Bill Benn, so Kenney fired him as his assistant and assigned him to command the 63rd Squadron and undertake the perfection of 'skip bombing'.

Major Benn then gathered together some of the best pilots in the 43rd --1st Lt. James T. Murphy, Capt. Ken McCullar, Lt. Folmer "The Swede" Sogaard, Capt. Ed Scott, Lt. Glenn Lewis-- who set about the task. Many hours of practice taught them that approaching the ship from 2,000 ft., then dropping down to an altitude of 200 to 250 ft. (maintaining the air speed of 200 to 250 m.p.h.) and releasing the bomb --equipped with a 4 to 5 second delay fuze-- 60 to 100 ft. away from the target was the way to do it.2 Thanks to the efforts of these men, the percentage of targets hit increased from less than 1% to 72%.

But I am certain some "smart" people are going to disagree, and one can only say "sure you are right, and I have my peace"

[Wolf_Rider]

oh good, you've heard of propaganda then...


Yes, and how many escort ships were there around it?

Now, the bomb fuse of 2 seconds forces you only to have a stable level flight until release, which doesn't make it almost at all harder to hit a lone merchant (which was a realistic attack method as in the picture); but when that merchant is a part of the convoy, with escorts, it gets much harder, but still not impossible.




how did the kamikazes get through then ?

articles quote 3 - 5 sec time delay fuses

[JG52Uther]

OK if we want realism:
Please DT remove the 'refly button' in D/F servers option in the next update.Once people are dead,they lose all their precious points,and have to leave the server and rejoin as a 'new pilot...
Thats got to be more realistic than a refly button surely?

Failing that,please make the bomb fuse either:
User changeable,like bomb delay OR
A difficulty option,like almost everything else in the game.
Please don't force 'your' style of gameplay on everyone else.

[TheGrunch]

But I am certain some "smart" people are going to disagree, and one can only say "sure you are right, and I have my peace"
But Wutz, it says in the quote that you posted right above this that the altitude used was 200 to 250ft, which is perfectly fine for 4.10. :confused:

[vparez]

Wutz, the only thing you and others succeed in this argument is to show that current bomb model is not 100% accurate.

However, you did not prove, nor can't (because it is not true) that the 4.09 bomb model was any more accurate than this!

Why? If you revert to the previous fusing, I can tell you that this is not realistic because the engine doesn't model the air burst if the bomb skips over the ship, it doesn't model the keel braking if the bomb sinks, or how the hell does it model the event of the bomb possibly striking the superstructure above the deck? It doesn't model deaths of AAA gunners, nor does it model waves.

The simulation of hitting a ship in IL-2 is a big black box. If you look at the release distance from your text, as an INPUT into the black box, and the damage to the ship as the OUTPUT, I can tell you that in 4.09 the INPUT may be better, but the OUTPUT is terribly exaggerated in therms of easiness of ship killing.
In 4.10 the INPUT is maybe less than historically 100% accurate, but the OUTPUT gives you much more historical results.

And by the way, in every single text quoted so far, the drop altitude that they used in RL matches exactly the drop altitude that we have to use now in 4.10. You stress here a drop point of 60ft to 100ft away from the ship, but I really have no idea what is the distance I use in IL-2 4.10 now, but I can tell you id doesn't measure in thousands of feet, rather I would say it is in the ball park of what you mentioned, which is damn good for a simulator from 2001.

But you know what? I gues TD should make this an option... I like the bomb fusing mod in HSFX and we are using it all the time in SEOW... for me to go back now to 4.09 bombing is too easy. But if people have to be able to deposit a bomb on top of a tank in order to have fun in this game... well let them do it! People who appreciate realism and challenge (and tehre are plenty of them) will still use this option and will appreciate all the good work from TD!

OK if we want realism:
Please DT remove the 'refly button' in D/F servers option in the next update.Once people are dead,they lose all their precious points,and have to leave the server and rejoin as a 'new pilot...
Thats got to be more realistic than a refly button surely?

That is how we fly in SEOW. Only you can't rejoin, you have to wait until the next week's mission in order to fly again. It is the best thing in any flight sim since Falcon dynamic campaign!

how did the kamikazes get through then ?

articles quote 3 - 5 sec time delay fuses

Kamikazes usually didn't get through mate; check their success ratios... And anyway, aiming for a precision bomb release and aiming your whole plane to hit something isn't the same. Terrorists who hit the WTC in 2001 didn't need to have military training; if you want to hit something with a fired weapon you do need this training, even if it is a big building.

Cheers!

[6S.Manu]

But I am certain some "smart" people are going to disagree, and one can only say "sure you are right, and I have my peace"

Wuts,
the bomb/torpedo launching in the stock IL2 was TOO MUCH simple.

If we talk about realism we had something like a 20%, probably now we are at 70%.

Do you want a 90%? Even a 100% is possible. They need only somebody to develop the code.
I think that TD would be happy to have a new member in their group: I'm quite sure that the guys of TD are not payed for improving IL2 so you should prepare yourself to work in your free hours.

Have fun implementing the detonator models and so, improving IL2 stock bombs. I can assure to you that software development is really rewarding if you are doing something you have interest in.

[Wolf_Rider]

Wutz, the only thing you and others succeed in this argument is to show that current bomb model is not 100% accurate.




of course that is correct, but it also applies to every facet of every sim ever developed, and likely to be developed in the future.
...even real world science modeling is no different and not without estimations
The best to hope for it a realistic approach based on numbers and something representational for the various dynamics - air/ water/ damage/ flight/ AI


[QUOTE=vparez;209695]

Kamikazes usually didn't get through mate; check their success ratios... Cheers!

[QUOTE]

sport... the ones that got through, got through, the same as the torpedo bombers that got through, got through, the same with navy dive bombers and other attack aircraft.

you also need to remember... il2 started off as a single plane study sim many many years ago and has beeen expanded on and extended because of its simmer interest. BoB has come about because of the recognition of the need for a new sim engine

[6S.Manu]

That is how we fly in SEOW. Only you can't rejoin, you have to wait until the next week's mission in order to fly again.


And the loss of an airplane is a minor penality respect to the loss of the pilot, speaking of campaing results.

[JG53Frankyboy]

the working window in 4.10 is actually small.................
loaded a B-25 with 500lb bombs (unlimited ammo) and tried to skip (just to see IF the bombs are skipping and donating) with level stabilizer:
20m, skipping yes, exploding no , hence the 2 sec fuze
30m, both ok
40m, ok
50m, ok
60m, not skipping anymore !!!!!!!
thats around 195feet

one have to learn to estimate/calculate the distance to target new, true. in 4.09 you were so low to have the target always in your Revi sight ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

60ft (18m) ~ 300ft (90m) out seemed to be the real world value for the drop

[swiss]

I finally found enough motivation to train my BK skills as I'm not going to relearn everything - at least not in the same game.
No more bombing for me.

[Oktoberfest]

Stopped bombing too, as long as blast effect, shockwaves and crew modelization is not done. I wait next patch.

Try skip bomb a DD with full AA with your method now. I personnaly want to play and have fun, not to fly 20 minutes to get killed instantly, and hit refly to have a second try 20 minutes later.

[JG53Frankyboy]

indeed , thats a proplem on Dogifhgtservers.... at MOST times you are flying alone in your bomber/assault plane :(

the the good old times of many COOP online wars looks like to be over :( a real pitty , as the game is as its best in this mode - IMHO !
attacking ships succsefully (read, to win the mission ;) ) with bombers needs in 4.10 not only teamwork bewtween the bombers, also close fightercover is needed more than ever with the new approach limits you have to care about flying your crate :D.

[fruitbat]

i get it now.

people want to be able to sink a DD all on there own, and its just not fair that you can't now:cry:

[Oktoberfest]

No you don t have it Fruitbar. Most people don't have 3 hours per day to fly. I personnaly have only 30 minutes to 1 hour the day, and most time only one or two days per week because of other issues. As I said, I want to simulate AND to have fun. I have not the time to learn procedures again that I learned for 6 or 7 years for bombing.

I am ok to have it more realistic, but in the real world, strafing a cargo ship with 20mm and 30 mm guns would set it on fire (HE, AP and incendiary rounds mixed), and droping 1 ton of bomb between 1 cm and 20 m next to it would cause massive damage to the hull integrity.

In real life, when you strafe the deck of a DD, the crew at the machine guns and light AA guns tend to get transformed in hamburgers.

Today, you may have the realistic bombing, but not at all realistic effects on the ships, where you have to glue your bomb to the ship to have it to work.

I find it sad that for the sake of a few "I'm a geek hardcore WWII nerd that want to have it realistic because I'm an ueber armchair pilot", lots of pilots lose the fun side of online war.

I still see this game as a free time fun, not as an "I need to plan everything from A to Z to have a 1% success rate instead of 0%, and this is fun!"

[vparez]

Did you actually try to skip bomb in 4.10? You make it sound like the new fuse requires a college degree to master it...

I mean really... funny... :rolleyes:

In the time it took each person to post their complaints here, they could have learned how to skip bomb in 4.10!! :grin::grin::grin:

[swiss]

"I need to plan everything from A to Z to have a 1% success rate instead of 0%, and this is fun!"

Couldn't agree more.

[Wutz]

But Wutz, it says in the quote that you posted right above this that the altitude used was 200 to 250ft, which is perfectly fine for 4.10. :confused:

Yes it does and it says also 60 to 100 ft. away from the target was the way to do it that will not work with 4.10, as you have to release at a greater distance than that.

[JG52Uther]

No you don t have it Fruitbar. Most people don't have 3 hours per day to fly. I personnaly have only 30 minutes to 1 hour the day, and most time only one or two days per week because of other issues. As I said, I want to simulate AND to have fun. I have not the time to learn procedures again that I learned for 6 or 7 years for bombing.

I am ok to have it more realistic, but in the real world, strafing a cargo ship with 20mm and 30 mm guns would set it on fire (HE, AP and incendiary rounds mixed), and droping 1 ton of bomb between 1 cm and 20 m next to it would cause massive damage to the hull integrity.

In real life, when you strafe the deck of a DD, the crew at the machine guns and light AA guns tend to get transformed in hamburgers.

Today, you may have the realistic bombing, but not at all realistic effects on the ships, where you have to glue your bomb to the ship to have it to work.

I find it sad that for the sake of a few "I'm a geek hardcore WWII nerd that want to have it realistic because I'm an ueber armchair pilot", lots of pilots lose the fun side of online war.

I still see this game as a free time fun, not as an "I need to plan everything from A to Z to have a 1% success rate instead of 0%, and this is fun!"

Exactly.No more bombing for me either until its fixed.

[vparez]

Yes it does and it says also that will not work with 4.10, as you have to release at a greater distance than that.


So:

4.09 state: 1st parameter is not at all historical (you can bomb from a lower alt than historical) , 2nd parameter is not at all historical (you can release as close as the target will allow you to clear it)

4.10 state: 1st parameter is exactly historical (you have to be in altitude limits published), while the 2nd parameter is a bit off, but in a ballpark (you have to release, let's say, 150-300ft instead of 60-100ft)

If I want a WW2 flight sim, I would definitely choose 4.10.

If I want an airplane arcade, I would go with 4.09.

Maybe indeed TD should make this an option to go with the "easy" realism setting.

BTW why do you always go personal, mate? I am no uber flier, I crash a sissyfire on takeoff all the time, not to mention Bfs and FWs... But skip really isn't that hard, even for me, just give it a try, without prejudice, and you'll make it in no time. C'mon, be positive.

[JG52Uther]

vparez,I,like I suspect a few others here,have been flying il2 for nearly 10 years,and even after 2 hours of trying,I can no longer skip bomb.
Its ceased to be fun,and become work,and I have enough of that in my real life.
As for arcade settings,that is of course your view,but personally I don't even use the speedbar when flying usually.Personally,I would be quite happy with way of altering the timer myself,like with bomb delay.That was done in real life,and,after all,we want realism don't we!
With the current ship/tank DM, the bomb fuzing has made it harder than it was in real life,because you didn't have to be bang on target to cause major damage with a 500KG bomb.

So now,because of a DT decision,I have had a large part of my il2 fun removed,and will have to fly fighters,and go round and round in ever decreasing dogfight circles like the majority.

[Wutz]

So:

4.09 state: 1st parameter is not at all historical (you can bomb from a lower alt than historical) , 2nd parameter is not at all historical (you can release as close as the target will allow you to clear it)

4.10 state: 1st parameter is exactly historical (you have to be in altitude limits published), while the 2nd parameter is a bit off, but in a ballpark (you have to release, let's say, 150-300ft instead of 60-100ft)

If I want a WW2 flight sim, I would definitely choose 4.10.

If I want an airplane arcade, I would go with 4.09.

Maybe indeed TD should make this an option to go with the "easy" realism setting.

BTW why do you always go personal, mate? I am no uber flier, I crash a sissyfire on takeoff all the time, not to mention Bfs and FWs... But skip really isn't that hard, even for me, just give it a try, without prejudice, and you'll make it in no time. C'mon, be positive.


Not really my intent on getting personal, but I may quote I mean really... funny...

In the time it took each person to post their complaints here, they could have learned how to skip bomb in 4.10!! That be littles everyone who does not see things from your point of view?
Up to 4.10 I almost solely flew bombers, but a half hour to 3/4 of an hour flight for a less than 10% chance that you will hit anything is, a boost to furballing if anything! Since 4.10 is out and trials have shown you can just as well dice on hitting something or not. I have changed to late war fighters, so mission accomplised you could say. Not my choice, but I get more enjoyment now out of fighters than bombers, and if we had reconnaisance seaplanes, like a Do24 I would completely skip combat missions.
How much are you willing to bet that newbees who have just bought the game are going to take up a bomber once they find out how the settings are?
Call it what you like this is a clear swing away from mission objective flying to furballing and arcade flying.
If you have endless amounts of time to adjust to these so called realistic settings good for you, I don´t have that much time, if I am lucky maybe a hour or a hour and a half.
The settings are realistic to hobbeling the bombers, and thats it, as if you are talking about realistic there is still a lot to be desired, as others have listed already. Also be happy no one has yet decided to go "realistic" on the fighters yet. I am certain you would applaude gun failures, radiator leaks on liquid cooled aircraft which is not modeled at all, only oil leaks, puntured tires, I think if some one made a real effort they could make the life of fighter pilots also really "challenging"

[KG26_Alpha]

There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC

[Letum]

the working window in 4.10 is actually small...........

I don't think this should be a surprise.
Consider the precision the dam-busters had to use when getting their
altitude correct, even when using a bomb the perfect shape for skipping and
with back-spin applied.

That said, it's very speed dependent. You will find it possible to skip bombs
from 200+m in IL2 with the P-51 and a dive from 1-2k.


There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It's true that distance traveled after a bomb has hit the water should count to
the Air Travel to Arm, however, with a ~850ft AtTA distance, I doubt the distance
traveled after first impact is going to amount to 10% of that.

Perhaps more importantly, impact with the casing and the ground/water should
cause explosion of the bomb if it is armed and unless it has a delay, even if it does skip.

[MD_Titus]

the bomb delay, as with rocket dispersal and wind affecting munitions, should be an option like the advanced pilot wounding.

as it is, someone else has decided that the game should be played in a certain way.

ftr, the realistic fusing and dispersal has been an option for some for a while, i turned that "option" off because frankly i have little time to play, and taking the time to get to target only to have things fail is frustrating, irritating and ultimately the entire opposite of what i play the game for - fun.

if you want fully realistic, then fine, turn it on. if you don't you should be able to turn it off. if folk go online then they will go with whatever the server settings are. however making it so casual bombers are discouraged from bombing will make a lot of servers fighter-only fests, and that is nearly as dull as flying for 20 minutes only to have your munitions fail.

[Letum]

the bomb delay, as with rocket dispersal and wind affecting munitions, should be an option like the advanced pilot wounding.

as it is, someone else has decided that the game should be played in a certain way.

ftr, the realistic fusing and dispersal has been an option for some for a while, i turned that "option" off because frankly i have little time to play, and taking the time to get to target only to have things fail is frustrating, irritating and ultimately the entire opposite of what i play the game for - fun.

if you want fully realistic, then fine, turn it on. if you don't you should be able to turn it off. if folk go online then they will go with whatever the server settings are. however making it so casual bombers are discouraged from bombing will make a lot of servers fighter-only fests, and that is nearly as dull as flying for 20 minutes only to have your munitions fail.


Quite agree.
The options page is already large and a little unwieldy, but another realism option for this would be good.

[MD_Titus]

"realistic munitions", sure there's space for that
:D

[vparez]

There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC


1. Yes Alpha, there is something historical: this mechanism forces you to use an attack profile that is quite close to what was historically used. Even if it is not 100% perfectly simulated.

2. Completely wrong, so don't push that "theory".

I can really understand that someone wants "easy" settings, like when you pick "easy" flight model or unlimited ammo, or such. But to claim that the 4.09 is more real, more historical, or that 4.10 is a complete fabrication, is just wrong and ignorant.

So you guys should maybe argue on the basis of game difficulty scalability, but to claim that it is not contributing to realism is just plain wrong.

Is this fusing model incorporated in "Realistic gunnery" option? If not, it should be, so who wants an easier model, they can switch off realistic gunnery altogether.

But if you fly with full real and even no speedbar, then I really don't see any argument for fusing not to be used.

Cheers!

[KG26_Alpha]

There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC

1. Yes Alpha, there is something historical: this mechanism forces you to use an attack profile that is quite close to what was historically used. Even if it is not 100% perfectly simulated.

2. Completely wrong, so don't push that "theory".

I can really understand that someone wants "easy" settings, like when you pick "easy" flight model or unlimited ammo, or such. But to claim that the 4.09 is more real, more historical, or that 4.10 is a complete fabrication, is just wrong and ignorant.

So you guys should maybe argue on the basis of game difficulty scalability, but to claim that it is not contributing to realism is just plain wrong.

Is this fusing model incorporated in "Realistic gunnery" option? If not, it should be, so who wants an easier model, they can switch off realistic gunnery altogether.

But if you fly with full real and even no speedbar, then I really don't see any argument for fusing not to be used.

Cheers!

This is TD's own explanation in a thread/discussion on this forum, not mine, you need to read the full history of this thread and not come in with the wrong information.

From the v4.10 read me

Bomb Fusing
Real life bombs have generally an electrical or mechanical time fuse to avoid premature explosion in case of mishap
(e.g. a bomb detaching from the aircraft while still on the runway, or a bomb hitting the bomb rack due to turbulence).
This has been implemented in IL-2, so that bombs now have a 2 seconds time fusing.
If the bomb hits the target before that time,the fuse does not activate and the bomb does not explode.
This means that in level flight a bomb must be dropped from a minimum altitude of about 25 meters to explode.
If the bomb is dropped in a dive the altitude must be proportionally greater.
This also applies to skip bombing: the bomb must be dropped from at least 25m and must not hit the ship before 2
seconds.

This is a wrong description of how the bombs work as now if they hit any scenery before 2 secs they disarm, not just the target.




.

[vparez]

This is TD's own explanation not mine you need to read the full history of this thread and not come in with the wrong information.

If TD says this is the only reason, then I must admit, they introduced it for a wrong reason.

The original author who made this model, had nothing to do with that, but with realistic naval battles, and a more realistic air to ground effectiveness.
Don't forget that this addition is not only a 2 second fuse; it is also rockets and bombs dispersion and realistic torpedo release profiles.

I will finish my involvement in this discussion by quoting what I previously said, which I think would be a good solution:

Is this fusing model incorporated in "Realistic gunnery" option? If not, it should be, so who wants an easier model, they can switch off realistic gunnery altogether.

[KG26_Alpha]

And as I have stated the simpler solution would be to arm the bombs on their velocity when dropped so the arming takes place via the vane and not through the casings under 2 sec scenery contact.

An example of vane arming.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2417418.pdf





.

[MD_Titus]

so would that mean a higher velocity drop = shorter arming time?

as it is, what kind of altitudes do you need to release at say 5-600kph in a 45 degree dive?

one of the most amusing and tricky things to do when vulching - skipping ab500-2000 along a runway with bandits on it...

[ElAurens]

The last thing I want is bomb fusing tied to realistic gunnery, or anything else for that matter.

This is only about bomb fusing.

I'm fine with torpedos as they are now, and the rockets certainly are more realistic as well. My only issue is the bomb fusing.

Why do some people want to make this an all or nothing thing?

[Letum]

so would that mean a higher velocity drop = shorter arming time?

Yes, this is true for bomb fuzes produced before the 1960s. After the 60s, it
became more common to have a governor or electronics to prevent release
speed influencing the time to arm.

In IL2, this is not the case. The bomb acts as if you where going at 200knots.
with a 850ft fuze. Therefore it will take longer to arm in some circumstances
and shorter to arm in others. However, because of the variations in the arm
distance of different fuzes, IL2's 2 second arm time doesn't start to become
unrealistic until you get above 300knots (350mph / 550kph).



as it is, what kind of altitudes do you need to release at say 5-600kph in a 45 degree dive?

In reality: with a typical fuze, you would need between 500 and 550ft.

The chart below shows the air travel a bomb makes in a 45degree dive at
various speeds. You can see the air travel needed for different fuzes in my
previous (long) post.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2981/atta.jpg

In IL2, you should need about 900ft at 500kph.
That's about the same as a fuze with a 1300ft air travel to arm fuze. That's
quite a typical value for a fuze, so not unrealistic.

You will need about 1,100 at 600kph, the equivalent of a bomb with a ~1500ft
ATtA fuze. They existed, but I don't think that that represents a typical American fuze.

[Wolf_Rider]

there'll never be a way of stopping idiots completely... its just a shame they spoil it for everybody else.


anyways... http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html

[Wutz]

there'll never be a way of stopping idiots completely... its just a shame they spoil it for everybody else.


anyways... http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html
Well it is a bugger that in the well meant effort to curb idiots, everyones game has been hijacked if you use 4.10 and you have to fly as certain people have decided for everyone else.
I thought those times have gone since the fall of the iron curtain.
The sad thing though is that the idiots will find new ways to foul up game play for others. Must we then recon with more dictated ways of using our bought game?

[F19_Klunk]

there'll never be a way of stopping idiots completely... its just a shame they spoil it for everybody else.]

pointless remark,..really..

Well it is a bugger that in the well meant effort to curb idiots, everyones game has been hijacked if you use 4.10 and you have to fly as certain people have decided for everyone else.

hrm... everyone's?
hmm certain people have decided?.. u mean like Oleg have decided how we should fly?
Or do u mean that your solution how things should be ergo decide how people have to fly?
------------------

Honestly, I appreciate a good debate in benefit for realism and to make things as correct as possible within the sim's limitations and I am sure TD, / Oleg et al appreciate a GOOD CONSTRUCTIVE input , but I suggest that exaggerations are limited and to stop blow things out of proportion, stop the namecallings and stop building some kind of theory of conspiracy. All these things are 1) contraproductive which in no way benefit this sim nor it's development... 2)embarressing for the community... and 3) silly... yes really...plain silly.


So guys.. how about it.. stick to the topic.. stay professional and be open for eachother's views and opinions?
It's a human characterisitic to stop listening to good arguments when it is delivered with spite, arrogance and insults.

[TheGrunch]

You see Wutz, this is why you can't have nice things. :rolleyes: He's only trying to be helpful.

[Wolf_Rider]

pointless remark,..really..







oh? why?

[Avimimus]

Now here is an interesting question:
Does anyone still use the bomb-delay option? Or have we outgrown it?

[JG52Uther]

Its getting personal now.Everyone,including me,needs to step back and take a deep breath.
Opinions have been heard,from both sides of the argument,and from some who just like to jump into threads to spit at people and have a good row,and now it is up to TD if they decide to change it or not.

[F19_Klunk]

oh? why?

Mate .. you know calling people idiots is not a good way to approach a solution.. your link is very useful as it presents interesting facts, but facts are clouded by insults and that is nothing you nor I want. so thanx for the link :)

Its getting personal now.Everyone,including me,needs to step back and take a deep breath.
Opinions have been heard,from both sides of the argument,and from some who just like to jump into threads to spit at people and have a good row,and now it is up to TD if they decide to change it or not.

+1

and Wutz.. I am not sure you understood what i wrote but I am glad that we share the love for this sim,,, your enthusiasm shows that ..so cheers
oh and if you are the same person as KU_Sato on WoP then it makes sense, and again.. as I told you on WoP... your opinion about this fuse issue is by now quite clear ;)

[Wolf_Rider]

Mate .. you know calling people idiots is not a good way to approach a solution..



err, I don't recall calling people idiots, I recall however, saying, "it is impossible to stop the idiots" and you need to look at that in the (often skipped, but all important) context of the reasons why TD seem to have caused a furore with their fuzing changes.

"Programming these days is a race between engineers developing bigger and better idiot proof software, and the universe producing bigger and better idiots... so far the universe is winning"





your link is very useful as it presents interesting facts, ~ so thanx for the link :)






thank you

[F19_Klunk]

sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

[Wolf_Rider]

NP :cool:

[W32Blaster]

Now here is an interesting question:
Does anyone still use the bomb-delay option? Or have we outgrown it?

sure in some cases it makes sense to use it.

e.g. if blast-radius of the bomb is of great size and bomb is dopped low or with slow speed.

In other words it makes sense under circumstances where the plane is endangered by the explosion of the bomb.
Mostly the case with bigger bombs.

[ElAurens]

Delay is very important on the TB3, as that thing egresses the combat zone at a walking pace!

:grin:

[JtD]

The TB-3 is a level bomber and has no need for delay.

[MD_Titus]

Now here is an interesting question:
Does anyone still use the bomb-delay option? Or have we outgrown it?
yep, typically on fighter-bomber sorties i take 1.5 seconds, as i'm never sure how i will be able to approach the target or whether i may need to "mine" a 6 bandits approach. on heavier bombs i will up that to 3. if i'm feeling evil, and i know that the intended vulch victims may well hit refly rather than die in an explosion... i set it to about 8-10 secs to get them when they respawn.:cool:
The TB-3 is a level bomber and has no need for delay.
not if you drive it to the target!

[JtD]

If you drive to the target you don't need a delay, because thank god there's a 2 sec arming time. ;)

[ElAurens]

On most every map in the game the TB3 has no room to get to altitude.

:):):):):)

And yes I have flown it in a non-historical manner. And used it as a fighter too. What now, no bomb drops from level bombers that are under 5000m altitude?

:rolleyes:

Lighten up folks.

Sheesh.

[KG26_Alpha]

Try flying it on the Kalkin Gol map.

You will get out to target but not back.

And not over 1000m either ( I will stand corrected if found other wise ) IIRC

The ambient temperature is too high on the map for the TB3 cooling systems.




.

[Wutz]

On most every map in the game the TB3 has no room to get to altitude.

:):):):):)

And yes I have flown it in a non-historical manner. And used it as a fighter too. What now, no bomb drops from level bombers that are under 5000m altitude?

:rolleyes:

Lighten up folks.

Sheesh.

Well the same you can say for a Val or a Ju87, although the Val can only take a 250kg bomb as largest bomb load. But thinking of those documentries where the Stukas went in really low before releasing there bombs to make pin point hits....I guess they where doing something wrong.....:-P

[Skoshi Tiger]

As a strong proponent of Kamikaze attacks, can we get an option of instantaneous detonation regardless of whether the bomb has been released or not? It’s really annoying making the supreme sacrifice and only causing cosmetic damage.

[Wutz]

Well wutz,
as "real low" in real life ist anything below 100m agl one still can do it "right".
As longer as i follow this thread as stronger the words "learn resistance" float to my mind.
Yepp dive at below 500m and nothing happens, and then try hitting a moving tank, but I am certain those fellows back then did it all wrong.
But I know you are right....just because you say so.:rolleyes:

[JtD]

Wutz, how effective and efficient was bombing against tanks in the first place?

[Wutz]

Wutz, how effective and efficient was bombing against tanks in the first place?
Hmm let me see, that the Ju87s where called the flying artillery, and used in close support of ground units. But of course that is all wrong, and during the battle of France only the ground units mopped up the French army especially those Char B tanks......Those guys should have asked TD how to fly properly.

[JtD]

Ju 87 attacked all types of ground units. Ju 87 were not the only planes to fly ground attacks in WW2. Ju 87 had pullout altitudes high enough to allow 2 seconds of arming.

So two sarcastic sentences do not answer the question sufficiently.

[JPerro]

would this quote change your mind?

They've said the first victim of the war is the truth.

Modern literature on WWII is replete with accounts of devastating air strikes on tank units. There are many stories about dozens or even hundreds of enemy tanks being destroyed in a single day, thereby destroying or blunting an enemy armoured offensive. These accounts are particularly common in literature relating to later war ground attack aircraft, most commonly the Soviet Ilyushin II, the British Hawker Typhoon, the American Republic P-47, and the German Henschel Hs 129. All these aircraft have the distinction of being called ‘tank-busters’ and all have the reputation for being able to easily destroy any type of tank in WWII.

Now what's the truth?

Case 1 - Normandy

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.

Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.

Case 2 - Kursk

Luftwaffe

In July 1943 the German Citadel Offensive (battle of Kursk) was supported by several types of apparently highly effective ground attack aircraft, two of which were specialist tank killing machines. The first was the Henschel 129B-1/2. Made in modest numbers (only 870 of all types) it was specifically designed for the anti-tank and close support mission. The second was the Ju87G-1, armed with two 37mm cannon also specifically designed to kill armour. These aircraft, along with Fw-190Fs, were first employed en masse in the Schlachtgeschwader units supporting Operation Citadel.

They are credited with ‘wreaking havoc amongst Soviet armour’ and the destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks in this battle. On 8th July 1941, Hs 129s are credited with destroying 50
T-34s in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in less than an hour. There is some evidence that 2nd Guards Tank Corps took heavy casualties on 8th July, but 50 tanks appears to exceed their total losses form all causes.

In fact total Soviet tank losses in operation Citadel amounted to 1 614 tanks totally destroyed, the vast majority to German tanks and assault guns. Further detailed research has shown air power only accounted for 2-5% of Soviet tanks destroyed in the battle of Kursk.(24) This equates to at most around 80 tanks. Again, even if this is a low estimate, where are the hundreds of tanks destroyed by German ground attack aircraft?

Soviet Air Force

On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division.
It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present (the II./Pz Regt 33) with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division. 9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over three months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.
During the battle of Kursk, the VVS IL-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2 000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 3rd Panzer Division’s 6th Panzer Regiment had only 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed! On 11th July (well after the battle) the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks. 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of 3rd Panzer Division’s tank losses were due to dug in Soviet AT guns and tanks.
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s IL-2s, is that over a period of 4 hours they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39) with a grand total of only 67 tanks. This time only 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS! The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector for the Kursk battle, but further south with 1st Panzer Army’s 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year still intact.
In fact total German tank losses in Operation Citadel amounted to 1 612 tanks and assault guns damaged and 323 totally destroyed, the vast majority to Soviet AT guns and AFVs. Where are the many hundreds destroyed by IL-2’s? It appears the RAF and VVS vied for the title for ‘most tank kill over-claims in WWII’.

In addition it is difficult to find any first hand accounts by German Panzer crews on the Eastern Front describing anything more than the occasional loss to direct air attack. The vast majority, around 95%, of tank losses are due to enemy AT guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and infantry assault, or simply abandoned as operational losses. Total German fully tracked AFV losses on the East Front from 1941 to 1945 amounted to approximately 32 800 AFVs. At most 7% were destroyed by direct air attack, which amounts to approximately 2 300 German fully tracked AFV lost to direct air attack, a portion of which would be lost to other aircraft types such as the Petlyakov Pe-2. From 22nd June 1941 to war's end, 23 600 Il-2 and Il-10 ground attack aircraft were irrecoverably lost. Whatever these aircraft were doing to pay such a high price it wasn’t destroying German tanks. If that was there primary target, then over 10 Il-2s and Il-10s were irrecoverably lost for every German fully tracked AFV that was completely destroyed by direct air attack on the East Front during WWII.

Source:

P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death, Helion & Company Ltd, Solihull, UK, 2007,
N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000,
F. Crosby, The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of WWII, Anness Publishing Ltd: Hermes House, London, 2006, p. 365. Also M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 56.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 349.
T. L. Jentz, Panzer Truppen, The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Deployment of Germany’s Tank Force: 1943-1945,
M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 66.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 276. According to Glantz and House, these are admitted Soviet tanks totally destroyed but the number is probably higher. In addition a similar number were probably recovered as repairable.
Tank Forces in Defense of the Kursk Bridgehead, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Volume 7, No 1, March 1994,

[Wutz]

would this quote change your mind?
Well if you are only focusing on the mid to late war stuff.
I was aiming at the early war stuff. Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs against heavy Char B tanks?? The 88 canon was not used yet at that time as a anti tank weapon, so how where the French tanks knocked out? Surely not with MG34s? Also the Panzer IV was not yet available in large numbers, although even that tank would have its difficulties against a Char B, as the French tanks where at that time better than the German ones.
Also TD have admitted themselves that the 2sec thing is just a random number they pulled out of the hat.
Some one is just against dive and skip bombing and would like to see bombing refined to high level bombing. A function for which the Ju87 was really built for! :-P
I just have a feeling that the supporters of this random setting are not bomber fliers at all, but fighter jocks that hate being surprised by bombers, but wish to have every opportunity of surprise for bombers removed, and force them into high level carpet bombing. Any poor sod on a server who is silly enough to take a bomber and not have a dozen or more mates along to help, is from that point of view then just too stupid for a bomber in the first place, and should have choosen a fighter instead. From that point of view one could have then set the fusing time to 2min or indefinately.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i recommend to do a new research about the use of the 8,8 against french CharB and british MatildaII tanks in France summer 1940...................
and about the minimum heights of bombrelease of the Ju87.

that the "qualitiy" of the targets in game is sometimes questionable, true.

and to ad:
i also thinking that adding this arming time for the bombfuze was the last thing this game needed :D
at least in the form it was done....

but i DONT think that it makes divebombing or skipbombing impossible. i am just thinking about how it would be if it would have been implimented from the beginning of IL2 almost 10 years ago.......................................

[Skoshi Tiger]

In all that research did they state how many tanks had been attacked more than once by aircraft? Spotting the difference between a disabled tank and one in fully working order during attack run would be reasonable hard I would imagine.

Did they count all the ones that were temporarily put out of order due to minor damage but still taken out of the battle?

Did they count all the ones put out of action by being forced hulls down and incapable of moving due to the risk of air attack?

I have never been in combat, nor due to my age reasonably expect to be placed into that position. I'm not going to come down hard on the servicemen that claimed a kill on a derelict tank. I expect in all of these battles the pooh was hitting the A.M.D. and if you see your eight HVARs (equivalent to the broadside of a light cruiser) lifting the dirt around the tank that you are targeting I can see that you could assume that you've got a kill. Let’s face how long are you going sticking around to see the final outcome?

In my opinion these instances of over claiming are a natural part of warfare. How many claims for kills were made by the antitank gun crews in the same battles? It is part of human nature to want to hope for the best.

In the sim it should come down to if you accurately target the vehicle using the correct technique and work within the operational parameters of the weapon and the delivery system then you should get the kill. It shouldn’t be artificially made harder so it conforms to the statistics of the war.

Well that’s my opinion anyway!

Cheers

[vparez]

In the sim it should come down to if you accurately target the vehicle using the correct technique and work within the operational parameters of the weapon and the delivery system then you should get the kill. It shouldn’t be artificially made harder so it conforms to the statistics of the war.


So if you line up correctly, and are in range, every gun round should hit bullseye? Every rocket should hit the same spot?

Sorry mate but that is not called a "simulation" that is called an "arcade action game".

[Flanker35M]

S!

Maybe you could provide your EOD/Armament training vparez? Wutz can and so can I ;) Do you think if we work with military we do NOT have access to this kind of data? There are STILL bombs/munition out there that are cleared out by EOD personnel. And they HAVE to know EXACTLY how a fuze/bomb/munition works to safely disarm it or otherwise render harmless..or even to approach it as some fuzes tend to get very touchy with age. So let's hear your professional opinion on this matter, shall we? :)

[JG52Uther]

Why does the new flyable Henschel have a low level bombing site that starts at 10 meters?
I would guess the Germans in WW2 had some idea what they were doing.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17990

[swiss]

Why does the new flyable Henschel have a low level bombing site that starts at 10 meters?
I would guess the Germans in WW2 had some idea what they were doing.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17990

The Henschel manual mentions L.Dv.8 and L.Dv.152 (L.Dv.= Luftwaffe Dienstvorschrift)

LDV8-5 (http://www.deutsche-luftwaffe.org/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bomben/Vorschriften/Der%20Bombenabwurf%20L.Dv.%208-5/Der%20Bombenabwurf%20L.Dv.%208-5.pdf)

Unfortunately I dont really get it, under "Bemerkungen" they show much shorter arming times.
Anyone can clear that up?

[JG52Uther]

Wutz don't stoop to their level,lets try and keep this on track.

Why do you think the Henschel 129 low level bombsight start at 10 meters,if our bombs don't work unless we are flying at 30 meters...

[Letum]

I know nothing about German fuzes, but as listed in my post on page 11, American fuzes with time delays of 4-15 seconds have Air Travel to Arm distances as low as 100ft, giving them plenty of time to arm in 30ft of vertical fall.

Fuze: m112,113,114
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 100ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 10 ft
200kn - < 10 ft
300kn - < 10 ft
400kn - < 10 ft

I haven't checked, but I believe the m112,113,114 fuzes are all tail fuzes as that's the norm for time delay fuzes.

[swiss]

L.DV.8-4 (http://www.deutsche-luftwaffe.org/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bomben/Allgemein/Handwerkzeug%20Bombenwurf.pdf)

page12, left upper table.

Min drop height calculated on 1sec arming time.

[Letum]

Looks like they had the same issues in the war some of us are having in IL2.

A report by Rear Admiral O. M. Hustvedt about Operation Leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Leader) reads:

The two duds reported may have been the result of insufficient air travel to arm the bomb fuses…

Source (http://www.airgroup4.com/german.htm)

And a doctrine on amphibious activities from 1944 reads:

Pilots should be briefed on minimum speed and altitude necessary to arm the bombs and depth charges they carry on each mission. Many fuzes have been discovered in an unarmed condition due to the lack of sufficient air travel to arm them

Source (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Transport/transport-26.html)

I would guess these cases aren't isolated.


It would be awsome if someone could get a copy of "Selection of Bombs and Fuzes to be used against various targets", OPNAV-16-V #A6, March, 1944"

[JtD]

Unfortunately I dont really get it, under "Bemerkungen" they show much shorter arming times.
Anyone can clear that up?

German fuses were timed and the ones used for low level horizontal attack used arming times of about 1s and delay settings of 14s. Note that due to the technical characteristics of the fuse the "save" arming time was about 1.6s minimum, lower than that would be risking duds.

[fruitbat]

from me, a 99% fighter pilot;)

going up against a 1945 DD destroyer, all on my lonesome. 2 runs, first time only one bomb hits, second run, sink it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxJgiiKQ0Vk

[Igo kyu]

So if you line up correctly, and are in range, every gun round should hit bullseye? Every rocket should hit the same spot?
Every one that actually fires, should land near the target. How far from the centre of the target on average is called the circular area of probability, it varies between munitions, but if it is very large for a particular munition at a particular range, the military usually don't use that munition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable

The maths is quite scary, but the idea is simple, half the rounds from a given gun at a given range will land within a circle of a known diameter from where the barrel is aimed. The barrel may not be aimed at the intended target, or there may be other operator errors, but half the rounds will go into the circle the barrel is aimed at, the others around it.

[JG52Uther]

Its not a question of not adapting.I don't care if some people can bomb from 50 meters,or shoot down a Me 262 in a P11!
Again,why would a HS129 have a bombsight for low level bombing at 10 meters,if the bombs we have now have been set not to go off below 30 meters? To me that says the bomb fuzing was adjustable for different timings,not set at a non negotiable 2 seconds by someone at TD.

[fruitbat]

just out of curiosity (and i don't know the answer to this, genuine question) are we talking about the real sight for HS129, or the in game sight that Team D made?

[JG52Uther]

Its a real sight,check the HS129 gunsight thread,a great picture there.

[fruitbat]

Its a real site,check the HS129 gunsight thread,a great picture ther.

rgr.

[JG52Uther]

I don't know,some people seem to want to have an internet row,can't seem to be civil,and take the thread off topic.That goes for both sides.
So Fenrir,I don't think you have noticed it,what do you think about the 10 meter low level bomb sight on the Henschel 129,and the diagram in that thread (in German,sorry) that talks about fusing?