No Alpha, you clearly missed. You released the bombs when the bombsight was over the nearest plane, but the bomb hit the ground and destroyed the middle/farthest planes on the airfield. The nearest two planes remained intact.

Perhaps it's because you didn't input the correct TAS: you put in 330km/h, but the TAS at the time of your drop according to the wonder woman view on your track was 345km/h.

Your track is inconclusive.

I made my own tracks of a similar target in Crimea. The target is about 20m above sea level, I'm always aiming for the nearest (easternmost) plane, and I always used the TAS according to wonder woman.

My first run was in a Pe-2 with 2x500 bombs. I had the speed, altitude, and angle pretty much perfect, yet the bombs dropped long, the first plane was not damaged.

My second run was also in a Pe-2 this time with 2x500 bombs. Again everything was as close to perfect as I could get it, and this time the bombs were almost on target. Just a bit long, but still close enough to destroy that first plane.

My third run was in an IL4 with one 500kg bomb. It's steadier than the Pe-2 so I think my altitude and speed were closer to perfect than in the first two runs, but the bomb went way, way, waaaaayyy long. I didn't even hit the rectangular tarmac. In fact, I think the tarmac could have been twice as long, and the bomb would still have missed it. Check for yourselves:

:rolleyes:

I missed ?

I hit where I aimed :)

Its simple 270kph ias @ 3900m = TAS 330kph whats wonder woman TAS got to do with anything just use the bombsite table settings and it works :)

The bombs dropped in the center of the target that's the way I use the sight and have for years the TAS is correct that's why I hit the middle of the target.

The point of aim is between the 0 and 5 indicator 2.5 being the target center.

NB

All consideration taken from actual pilots using these crude bombsites back in WW2 we do better than they probably ever did,
they were never designed to be precision bombing devices just a general aiming sight.

Those charts don't take temperature into account, so on a very cold map like Moscow they won't show the right TAS. Wonder-woman view shows the correct TAS.

Since when is 2.5 target center?

Try your technique with a 2x250 FAB load, or a 1x500 FAB in an IL4, or 2x500 FAB in a Pe-2 on the Moscow winter map.

Well I hit the target perfectly well every time not using "WW" views TAS reading.

I use the charts and have done for years taking into account the target altitude (elevation) it works for me.

Continue your method and keep missing.

Have fun.

No need to get pissy. I tried several planes, several bomb loads, on several maps and I think something is not right. You try one drop and say everything is fine.

OK, let's use your method then:

First track:
IL4, 1x500FAB, Crimea, IAS 270km/h, TAS set to 330km/h according to your chart, dropped from 3930m, took target altitude of 30m into account, dropped at the 2.5 mark above the bubble, aimed for first plane. Result: waaaaaaay long.

Second track:
Pe2, 2x250FAB, Crimea, IAS 270km/h, TAS set to 330km/h according to your chart, dropped from 3930m, took target altitude of 30m into account, dropped at the 2.5 mark above the bubble, aimed for first plane. Result: short enough to not damage the target.

Third track
Pe2, 2x500FAB, Moscow winter, IAS 270km/h, TAS set to 330km/h according to your chart, dropped form 4000m, took target altitude of 90m into account, dropped at the 2.5 mark above the bubble, aimed for middle plane at the far end of the tarmac. Result: way short, no damage to target (destroyed planes at the near end of tarmac)

Tell me what I'm doing wrong.

I also replicated the drop you did (Pe2, 2x500FAB, Crimea) and hit my target, so I can confirm that yes, on that map, that plane, that loadout, your method is accurate, if we assume 2.5 above the bubble to be the target center.

I guess I have been bombing on instinct and feeling for a long time, as some of the numbers you are quoting seem to be off.

I have a few rules for the bombsites and bomb types, subconsciously I suppose I have learnt the method to apply different loads and conditions for successful bombing without realizing it.

More testing............



.

Possibly. I try to go by the book and get frustrated with results that are bad but consistently the same: always long with Plane A bomb B, or always short with Plane C bomb D. No matter the book either: your charts, wonder woman TAS, Bombsight Table 2, Thor's book, IL2 Shturman, nothing seems to work for all the soviet planes and bombs.

If you're going by your instinct, I'd bet the IL4 will make you miss since it's a new plane and you may have not flown it much.

The initial problem is the sight its self as in HSFX its a smaller zoomed out optic and looks totally different from the stock one in v4.12.1 (HSFX being my main choice, maps etc)

Given that, the IL4 is a perfect example of a plane I have not bombed with until testing in this thread, that said the same problem exists in HSFX as in the stock version, the bombsite remains the same as is the method using it, so any corrections would be the same.

I have dealt with it in the game, as I already suggested, by unconsciously adjusting the sight for the difference without really making a conscious effort and referring to external devices for reference,
I kind of just got on with it.
In some places the settings touch the bombsite tables suggestions and in other areas its off so its inconsistent at its best and just plain wrong at its worst.

I'm not a good candidate for "by the book" testing as I have been at this too long and have probably picked up too many bad habits using bombsites and blowing stuff up :)

Maybe someone will pop up in here regarding the bomb weighting ............

:(






.

Hi all.

I'm performing several tests since de patch 4.12 about flying navigation an level bombing, watching two important effects: the wind speed and the free air temperature.

Wind speed and its direction have effects on your true heading in order to flight following a preplaned true course to your target. But also the wind affects your Ground Speed.
If in your mission there is wind with a non "zero speed", you shouldn't use TAS to set your bombsight up, but the Ground Speed. This must be solved knowing your TAS and the wind speed at a given altitude, as well as your course and the wind direction.
To find the Ground Speed (GS) you can use the "Cosin's Theorem", or solving the vectorial sum between TAS and Wind Speed (WS)... or using the back side of an E6-B Flight Computer (as I do :cool:). So, TAS may be used only when there is not wind (in such case, GS = TAS as it was before the patch 4.12).

The free air temperature affects both the TAS and the True Altitude (TA): when the air is colder it is denser, and your TAS will be slower than that measured in your TAS gauges, or that computed for any given warmer temperature. The same is for the altitude: in colder air your real altitude may be a bit lower than that indicated by your altimeter... or a bit higher if the free air is warm.
In air navigation it's admitted that the free air temperature decrease -6.5ºC each 1000 meters ASL. At sea level (for air navigation) the standard temperature is 15ºC; and from 11,000 m to 20,000 it's accepted the air temperature has a constant value of -56.5 ºC.

But, what if the air temperature on the ground level is not the standard value of 15 ºC?
The step of -6.5 ºC each 1000 m ASL doesn't change... but it means that you will find the limit of -56.5 ºC below of 11,000 meters (i.e., in a winter map), or above of 11,000 m (i.e., in a summer map).

So, the free air temperature at a given altitude affects the True Altitude and the TAS. And if there is wind, also it affects your GS. All together are combined and must be taken in account for the right setting of your bomb sight. Always I compute all these values with my E6-B and normally I find good results... and in any cases I've obtained the same bias with the same bombers using different bombs. Of course, I must perform more tests for to obtain a conclusion... but till now it seems that TD has implemented a very realistic atmospheric behavior. :grin:

About the bombs' FM, my tests let me guess that the FM is the same for all bombs, regardless of their sizes and their countries.

I hope this spots the new challenges of IL2-1946 propossed by TD. :cool: