Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=17789)

KG26_Alpha 01-05-2011 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha (Post 209766)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vparez (Post 209809)
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 01-05-2011 08:17 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 01-05-2011 08:24 PM

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 01-05-2011 08:46 PM

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 01-05-2011 10:06 PM

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 01-06-2011 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD_Titus (Post 209839)
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).


Quote:

Originally Posted by MD_Titus (Post 209839)
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 01-06-2011 03:22 AM

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 01-06-2011 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 209913)
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 01-06-2011 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 209913)
there'll never be a way of stopping idiots completely... its just a shame they spoil it for everybody else.]

pointless remark,..really..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wutz (Post 209919)
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 01-06-2011 09:52 AM

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

Wolf_Rider 01-06-2011 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk (Post 209935)


pointless remark,..really..





oh? why?

Avimimus 01-06-2011 11:30 AM

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

JG52Uther 01-06-2011 11:34 AM

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 01-06-2011 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 209963)
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 :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 209970)
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 01-06-2011 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk (Post 209971)

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"


Quote:

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk (Post 209971)


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




thank you

F19_Klunk 01-06-2011 01:22 PM

sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

Wolf_Rider 01-06-2011 01:33 PM

NP :cool:

W32Blaster 01-06-2011 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avimimus (Post 209966)
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 01-06-2011 05:37 PM

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

:grin:

JtD 01-06-2011 05:59 PM

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

MD_Titus 01-06-2011 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avimimus (Post 209966)
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:
Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 210063)
The TB-3 is a level bomber and has no need for delay.

not if you drive it to the target!

JtD 01-06-2011 07:59 PM

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

ElAurens 01-06-2011 09:35 PM

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 01-06-2011 09:39 PM

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 01-07-2011 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 210111)
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 01-07-2011 06:33 AM

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 01-07-2011 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 210169)
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 01-07-2011 07:18 AM

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

Wutz 01-07-2011 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 210173)
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 01-07-2011 08:25 AM

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 01-07-2011 10:06 AM

would this quote change your mind?

Quote:

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 01-07-2011 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPerro (Post 210194)
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 01-07-2011 11:06 AM

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 01-07-2011 11:51 AM

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 01-07-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

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 01-07-2011 12:30 PM

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 01-07-2011 01:10 PM

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 01-07-2011 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 210238)
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

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

JG52Uther 01-07-2011 02:10 PM

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 01-07-2011 02:18 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me
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 01-07-2011 02:27 PM

L.DV.8-4

page12, left upper table.

Min drop height calculated on 1sec arming time.

Letum 01-07-2011 02:38 PM

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 reads:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rear Admiral O. M. Hustvedt
The two duds reported may have been the result of insufficient air travel to arm the bomb fuses…

Source

And a doctrine on amphibious activities from 1944 reads:

Quote:

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

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 01-07-2011 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiss (Post 210257)
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 01-07-2011 04:05 PM

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 01-07-2011 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vparez (Post 210226)
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 01-07-2011 04:16 PM

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 01-07-2011 04:33 PM

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 01-07-2011 04:35 PM

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

fruitbat 01-07-2011 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 210315)
Its a real site,check the HS129 gunsight thread,a great picture ther.

rgr.

JG52Uther 01-07-2011 06:19 PM

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?

KG26_Alpha 01-07-2011 07:05 PM

Keep on track guys please.

I've cleaned up the thread a bit.
And lets keep it friendly too from now on.

:)

Flying Pencil 01-07-2011 08:38 PM

While not a priority on my list, I agree, the ability to change the fusing is important.

robtek 01-07-2011 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Pencil (Post 210396)
While not a priority on my list, I agree, the ability to change the fusing is important.

Fusing or arming???

Flying Pencil 01-08-2011 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 210401)
Fusing or arming???

Did I miss something?
The type of fuse will dictate when it will arm, and what will set it off (impact, time delay, disarming, even magnetic for mines)

swiss 01-10-2011 05:35 AM

Ok, I conducted some test tonight - although I can skip bomb now, I found out the fuses not only have a 2sec delay but also a 20m cap.

I tried this with the arado at 20m/750kph about 20 times.
The bomb definitely has >=2 secs before it touches the water, however the the bomb stayed disarmed in 100%.
Maybe my stopwatch is wrong... - if not, maybe TD can (or feels like) explain it?

DL ntrk from rapidshare

RAF_Swede 01-13-2011 03:25 AM

Hello
I would sure like to see a track on how to properly skip bomb now.. If someone has posted one, please point me in the right direction.
Thanks

Aviar 01-13-2011 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiss (Post 210842)
Ok, I conducted some test tonight - although I can skip bomb now, I found out the fuses not only have a 2sec delay but also a 20m cap.

I tried this with the arado at 20m/750kph about 20 times.
The bomb definitely has >=2 secs before it touches the water, however the the bomb stayed disarmed in 100%.
Maybe my stopwatch is wrong... - if not, maybe TD can (or feels like) explain it?

DL ntrk from rapidshare


Well, for what it's worth, this is directly from the 4.10 User Guide:

--------------------
This also applies to skip bombing: the bomb must be dropped from at least 25m and must not hit the ship before 2 seconds.
--------------------


Aviar

Ernst 01-15-2011 10:37 PM

I am loving. Is very difficult to suceed. Now i am feeling the odds of the fighter-bomb pilots like the real guys feel. Most of complains is because the guys are not suceeding like they did.

I do it (correct skip bombing and hit) only 30% of the times. I skiped i correctly and explode 80% of the times, but sometimes i missed the target. My bombing run is at about 50~80 meters. Bomb explode quite often.

If skip bombig was too easy like 4.09 the dive bombers were unecessary, specially at land targets. Now Stukas and other dive bombers ll make the difference they did do not made until now in IL2, since with this new feature i would prefer high angle dive bombing for precision.

6S.Manu 01-15-2011 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 212577)
I am loving. Is very difficult to suceed. Now i am feeling the odds of the fighter-bomb pilots like the real guys feel. Most of complains is because the guys are not suceeding like they did.

I do it (correct skip bombing and hit) only 30% of the times. I skiped i correctly and explode 80% of the times, but sometimes i missed the target. My bombing run is at about 50~80 meters. Bomb explode quite often.

If skip bombig was too easy like 4.09 the dive bombers were unecessary, specially at land targets. Now Stukas and other dive bombers ll make the difference they did do not made until now in IL2, since with this new feature i would prefer high angle dive bombing for precision.

This + the wind; in IL2 4.10 it's very amusing using bombers, far more than before.
Have you tried level bombing from 5000m with 3 m/s of wind?

To me IL2 4.10 is like a new (better) game.

JHartikka 01-19-2011 12:22 PM

Optional Safety Delay In German Electric Fuse
 
5 Attachment(s)
Pilots Wished Bomb SALVO Fix - Got a Forced Delay 410m Fuse Instead! :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy (Post 210210)
i also thinking that adding this arming time for the bombfuze was the last thing this game needed :D

With all respect to the fine voluntary work for developing this fine historical IL2 flight simulator I certainly must agree with you!

The IL2 sim used to have very finely made simulation for low bombing modes prior to 410m! The bomb actually bounced or slided in these simulations on the ground like the wartime expert low bombing 'jabo' pilots performed it, for instance! :)

As a virtual bomber pilot familiar with real history of delay low bombing styles like slide / bounce bombing it is very regrettable that we the 410m now denies these most exciting and skill demanding bombing modes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 210276)
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.

Thank you for information! Here is a description that appears to match and supplement your fuse knowledge:


The Wartime German Bomb Fuse with Switchable Safety Delay

A story I recalled from Finnish wartime recollections about German bombs electric fuse. The big German bombs were known to have an electric fuse with safety delay option. It was rather simple yet versatile.

It could be used in automatic 'safety delay mode' (like the forced 410m fuse) or manually in no safety delay mode (quite unlike the forced 410m fuse). It even allowed arming and disarming bomb and switching safety delay on or off during flight.

I have understood that these electric fuses were used with bombers having crew more than on person so the one responsible for bomb release could control bomb arming and disarming. The cases I have collected from my country about small bombs like fighter bombs indicate that these had no safety delay.


German Electric Fuse Circuit Description

There were two capacitors in the German electric bomb fuse circuit. The first capacitor was the one charged from aircraft. It was connected to second actual fuse capacitor through a delay resistor between them.

When capacitor nr. 1 got a charge from a connector attached to the bomb, it would start charge the nr. 2 capacitor through the resistor which slowed the charging and thus caused an arming delay or safety delay. I guess the 410m 2 s safety fuse is related to those bombs having this electric fuse arming mode?

Knowing the capacitor 1 - resistor - capacitor 2 - electric fuse circuit we can now understand the operating modes of this German electric bomb fuse:


Electric Fuse Operating Modes

1. Automatic Safety Delay: When used as automatic, an electric connector attached through a swiveled arm to the bomb would give the capacitor nr. 1 electric charge shot just before the connector attached to a swiveled arm would be ripped off from the falling bomb. Now the bomb would be armed in free fall after the actual fusecapacitor nr. 2 would be charged through the resistor causing the automatic arming safety delay.

2. Manual arm and disarm from onboard: If the bomber staff person responsible for bombing gives the bomb a charge shot prior to releasing a bomb, it will arm itself in the alleged time and when released later, it will drop with no safety delay. He could also decide to disarm the bomb by shortcircuiting the bomb arming circuit. When shortcircuited, the arming capacitor nr 2 would bleed empty from charge through the delay resistor in about the time of the safety delay and the bomb would be disarmed again.

We see that this kind of electric bomb fuse circuit would allow the bomber crew to arm and disarm any bomb connected to onboard arming circuit and release the bomb either disarmed or armed. Further, this bomb arming circuit gave the crew an option to decide whether to use safety delay or not..! Alas, we virtual bomber pilots were not allowed to decide setting safety delay on or off with the rather incorrect 410m fuse... :(


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

Finland


First Line HL Pilots about 410m Bomb Fuse

In this thread, we will discuss in proper civilized manner, of course. However, I guess that on the long run regarding developing this historical sim further it may be useful to get some direct user feedback, too. Here are some excerpts from HL pager discussions to tell how noted 'front line' virtual pilots really feel with the flawed 410m fuse. For obvious reasons I am pasting their feelings here incognito:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Experienced virtual war ace in HL pager
...cause low bombing in 4.10 has just be f##### up ;)

I tried to bomb some tgts w Pe-3 at ~ 150m, low level bombing, and bombs didnt even explode...whats the height limit for dropping?! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by A very skilled virtual war ace in HL pager
i was told about 4.10
;))))
*full ##iiiiiit* for bombers and jabo..agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A virtual bomber pilot and history expert in HL pager
nain ne meittia kohtelee kuin spitaalisia:)))

Translated: They treat us (bomber pilots) like ve vere leprous :)))


Quote:

Originally Posted by Respected virtual war player in HL pager
####### 4.10 noob patch-((

Quote:

Originally Posted by HL pager
Fortunately the new 410m '##### fuse' does not prevent all low bombing... ;)

One IL2 kills 14 tanks + 1 flak :o

http://war.by-airforce.com/rep/rep_10122.html


Wartime Aircraft Photos

Here are more photos that I scanned from my late uncle's album. More old photos are on threads http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...d=1#post210220 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...588#post216588

Ernst 01-19-2011 01:10 PM

Sorry I do not agree. Now the most exciting and demanding method are really most eciting e demanding. Before any player could do, now one the skilled ones.

This skilled pilot you quote are just used to bomb that old way, now they have to learn again. Just this. Go training. Skip bombing is not supposed to be easy, even for good pilots. If it was, there was none reason for especialized dive bombers for better precision.

What i see is that this complains are just wounded egos of pilots not capable to score like they do before. From that supposed VVS or luftwaffe "heroes" striking massive columns of tanks and ships in one fly by.

KG26_Alpha 01-19-2011 01:30 PM

Again the problem is the casing stops the arming of the bomb if it touches the water/land/scenery before 2 seconds.

The arming could/should have been done on the bombs velocity not contact with terrain.

As already said by TD stopping Dog Fight server spawn killers dropping bombs at home bases is the main benefit of the 2 second delay in arming.





.

Skoshi Tiger 01-19-2011 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 213812)
Sorry I do not agree. Now the most exciting and demanding method are really most eciting e demanding. Before any player could do, now one the skilled ones.

This skilled pilot you quote are just used to bomb that old way, now they have to learn again. Just this. Go training. Skip bombing is not supposed to be easy, even for good pilots. If it was, there was none reason for especialized dive bombers for better precision.

What i see is that this complains are just wounded egos of pilots not capable to score like they do before. From that supposed VVS or luftwaffe "heroes" striking massive columns of tanks and ships in one fly by.

I'd say the reason skip wasn't done routinely against shipping was that, similar to torpedo runs, for any success you exposed yourself to the broad side of the ship that you attacked, you also had to get really close to your target to release the bomb. Every gun on that side of the boat would open up at you and you had a high probability of getting shot down.

In the sim the AI is too easy to fool following a decending curved path on your attack run.

When dive bombing your generally attacking the ship in its bow/stern axis so you've got a larger margin for error in your attack. You dont get as close to the ship and the ships guns can't all get a bead on you at the same time. In the sim the AI seems to be able to predict your attack path in a classic divebombing run and you've got a higher chance of getting hit using this method.

In real life I am sure that pilots would have used the strategies that gave them the best chance of wining and getting home alive.

In the sim you'ld be a mug not to use the method thats going to get your team the most points!

If skip bombing is more difficult pilots will just practice more and still get the same amount of kills. Without changes to the AAA AI it's still going to be the safest option, therefore pilots will still do it!

Cheers!

Cheers!

JG52Uther 01-19-2011 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 213812)
Sorry I do not agree. Now the most exciting and demanding method are really most eciting e demanding. Before any player could do, now one the skilled ones.

This skilled pilot you quote are just used to bomb that old way, now they have to learn again. Just this. Go training. Skip bombing is not supposed to be easy, even for good pilots. If it was, there was none reason for especialized dive bombers for better precision.

What i see is that this complains are just wounded egos of pilots not capable to score like they do before. From that supposed VVS or luftwaffe "heroes" striking massive columns of tanks and ships in one fly by.

So the fact that a fixed 2 second fuse for all bombs is wrong isn't bothering you at all...Anyway,doesn't matter now,CoD is on the way,I don't really care anymore ;)

Ernst 01-19-2011 09:11 PM

The fixed 2 second is just because TD had not bomb fusing times for each specific bomb or the implementation time would have much more higher etc. Ask them why they used this fixed value. But i am sure this can be improved if they want.

robtek 01-19-2011 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 213835)
So the fact that a fixed 2 second fuse for all bombs is wrong isn't bothering you at all...Anyway,doesn't matter now,CoD is on the way,I don't really care anymore ;)

It's only that the 2 sec. delay is less wrong than no delay!
Also the complaining about case and fuse, it's not modelled!
All TD can do is minimizing the errors, not remove them!

ElAurens 01-19-2011 10:07 PM

Well, in this case they did not minimize an error, they created a larger one.

I'm with JG52Uther on this now. Cliffs of Dover will soon be out and IL2 will no longer matter.

This issue will no doubt be fixed by other means anyway.

I/ZG52_Gaga 01-20-2011 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 214047)
Cliffs of Dover will soon be out and IL2 will no longer matter.

This issue will no doubt be fixed by other means anyway.


I agree 100%

IL2 is still in development and the new title will take a very long time to top it

because nowadays IL2 has come in the user's hands and no nomenclature is in

position to hold it back or reverse the process of it becoming a fair and exciting

simulation.

No worries :)

Wutz 01-20-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 214047)
Well, in this case they did not minimize an error, they created a larger one.

I'm with JG52Uther on this now. Cliffs of Dover will soon be out and IL2 will no longer matter.

This issue will no doubt be fixed by other means anyway.

Absolutely agree, I hope that critical settings do not get tampered with in any near future by any non 1c people.

JoeA 01-20-2011 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 214047)
Well, in this case they did not minimize an error, they created a larger one.

I'm with JG52Uther on this now. Cliffs of Dover will soon be out and IL2 will no longer matter.

This issue will no doubt be fixed by other means anyway.

You guys really think there will be no such issues with CoD? It really seems like the old fallacy "harder=more realistic" which we know is not true has been turned around to "harder= less realistic" which is also not true.

I mean every plane type has similar g-limits for example (meaning by type) IIRC and every pilot is modelled the same-part of the compromise every sim programmer has to make.

Well really looking forward to spring and a whole new set of whines.*



*Not from you talking in general. ;)

JoeA 01-20-2011 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_Gaga (Post 214227)
I agree 100%

IL2 is still in development and the new title will take a very long time to top it

because nowadays IL2 has come in the user's hands and no nomenclature is in

position to hold it back or reverse the process of it becoming a fair and exciting

simulation.

No worries :)

You kidding?

"in user's hands and no nomenclature is in position to hold it back or reverse the process of it becoming a fair and exciting simulation."

It wasn't exciting before? Fair is NOT realistic btw, most users just want to substitute "Oleg's world" for their "fantasy but it's mine so it's right world" nonsense.

Jumoschwanz 01-20-2011 01:46 PM

Practice makes perfect. I am sure that a large percentage of those who tried skip-bombing in WWII failed also.

Ernst 01-20-2011 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz (Post 214280)
Practice makes perfect. I am sure that a large percentage of those who tried skip-bombing in WWII failed also.



+1

The real is that skip bombing was a hazardous tactic not used frequently as it was in IL2, exactly because in IL2 it was too easy. Some did not used skip, just approached low and close enough the ships and released the bombs, hiting directly. No fusing, they scored hits 100% times. This is not real.

p.s: to not say they suceed 100% always, sometimes one colided with the ship's cables. Hehehe...:cool::twisted:

I/ZG52_Gaga 01-20-2011 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeA (Post 214279)
You kidding?

"in user's hands and no nomenclature is in position to hold it back or reverse the process of it becoming a fair and exciting simulation."

It wasn't exciting before? Fair is NOT realistic btw, most users just want to substitute "Oleg's world" for their "fantasy but it's mine so it's right world" nonsense.

Excuse me but you have no idea what i'm talking about ....

so .. give it some time & you will understand what i mean,

all in good time.

ElAurens 01-20-2011 06:05 PM

JoeA, I am only saying that the current situation with bomb fusing as implemented in the 4.10 patch is every bit as bad as it was before the patch. Just in a different way.

And I know there will be issues with Cliffs of Dover, but because that is all I will be flying, IL2's issues will no longer matter to me.

MD_Titus 01-20-2011 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 214378)
JoeA, I am only saying that the current situation with bomb fusing as implemented in the 4.10 patch is every bit as bad as it was before the patch. Just in a different way.

And I know there will be issues with Cliffs of Dover, but because that is all I will be flying, IL2's issues will no longer matter to me.

this is entirely correct.

it was wrong and inaccurate before, and apparently it is still wrong and inaccurate, just in a markedly different way.

so, is this "realism" option going to be a selectable difficulty option, or are each kind of bomb going to get their correct fusing?

either do them all, or leave it be imo.

Seeker 01-20-2011 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz (Post 214280)
Practice makes perfect. I am sure that a large percentage of those who tried skip-bombing in WWII failed also.

Are you going to publish your practise maps and how they're used? Tracks would be nice.

robtek 01-20-2011 06:49 PM

As at least 95% of the bombs in ww2 had a arming time of at least 0.9 sek and usual around 4 to 5 sec. the patch brought definitively a improvement.
Just take the challenge and stop pointing at the minority of bombs which had no arming time.

WhiteSnake 01-20-2011 07:34 PM

Problem is the minority of bombs that dont have an arming timing are the little ones wich where droped from relativly low altitude in real life and now can not be droped from that altitude anymorte because of this.

A lot of bombs also had an option to set the arming delay, so i hope on the small bombs and bomblets the arming delay can be removed completly, and for some bigger boms maybe it would be a nice option to set the arming time of the bomb between 1 and 5 seconds.

btw, the FritzX has No Arming Delay on it at all, it blows up if you drop it while parked at base or flying verry low, so should be a really easy fix to remove the Arming delay on the smaller bombs.

Wolf_Rider 01-21-2011 11:13 AM

if the bombing at spawn place was such a problem, why not have just locked the culprits' sorry ass out of the server?

JoeA 01-23-2011 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 214395)
As at least 95% of the bombs in ww2 had a arming time of at least 0.9 sek and usual around 4 to 5 sec. the patch brought definitively a improvement.
Just take the challenge and stop pointing at the minority of bombs which had no arming time.

Well whines will never stop...people whind back in the day when only Olg and team could make changes, when the sim was hacked and mods could be made some whined about the mods and it will never end.

TheDawg 01-24-2011 03:07 PM

this guy sure looks like he ignored the new bomb fusing completely!




http://axisofinfo.com/wp-content/upl...a-japanese.jpg

robtek 01-24-2011 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDawg (Post 215997)
this guy sure looks like he ignored the new bomb fusing completely!




http://axisofinfo.com/wp-content/upl...a-japanese.jpg

And from what to you deduct that???
Comparing the sizes that plane is 100m to 200m above the ship(300ft to 6ooft)
So he could easyly have dropped his load (multiple bombs by the way) at 100ft and pulled up afterwards.
As usual the people see what they want to see. (me included, still trying to lessen the influence, though)

Wutz 01-24-2011 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDawg (Post 215997)
this guy sure looks like he ignored the new bomb fusing completely!




http://axisofinfo.com/wp-content/upl...a-japanese.jpg

Oh there are several such pictures which must be as of TDs 4.10 patch absolutely wrong. But it is pointless argueing as know it alls like robtek the jack of all trades & master of none know it simply better.
But with CoD coming out, I think the amature tampering will stop for a whole while.

W32Blaster 01-24-2011 04:27 PM

wutz you are my number one when it comes to polemic.
Why don´t you just give it a try and adopt to the newly implementad bomb fusing instead of wasting your time in giving pointless arguments over and over and over again.

Just a little straight forward attitude and your problems would be solved.

No intention to be derespectful, just lack of understanding for your position, i guess.

Wutz 01-24-2011 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W32Blaster (Post 216046)
wutz you are my number one when it comes to polemic.
Why don´t you just give it a try and adopt to the newly implementad bomb fusing instead of wasting your time in giving pointless arguments over and over and over again.

Just a little straight forward attitude and your problems would be solved.

No intention to be derespectful, just lack of understanding for your position, i guess.

Because it is Bull that is why! There are charts showing German bomb fuses.
What next because some one decides lets have a 10 min delay everyone just adapt right on.
That is why 4.10 was deleted, and will stay off my computer, and will not be needed for CoD
But W32Blaster you fit the picture, as you just mindlessly repeat what others say with out giving it some thought.
But I know arm chair experts know it all!
Sorry for that kind of hot air I have no use what so ever.

W32Blaster 01-24-2011 04:37 PM

Whoohooo, what a bad boy!

:)

Wutz 01-24-2011 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W32Blaster (Post 216050)
Whoohooo, what a bad boy!

:)

What ever kiddo, I don´t go by blah blah. But by facts like this:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/243...bombenwurf.jpg

TheDawg 01-24-2011 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 216011)
And from what to you deduct that???
Comparing the sizes that plane is 100m to 200m above the ship(300ft to 6ooft)
So he could easyly have dropped his load (multiple bombs by the way) at 100ft and pulled up afterwards.
As usual the people see what they want to see. (me included, still trying to lessen the influence, though)

Wouldn't you have to know the length of the ship and the plane to be able to start that guessing?
Its an A-20 Havoc, the angle that he at at the moment of the photo allows you go figure out what alt he was when he released the torpedo?
all that other splashing is garbage flying off the ship
I was stirring the pot- like every patch since I flew the original demo, it WONT matter what is done to the planes, the cockpits, the DM's the FM's, I'll figure it out and continue to rack major points, and enjoy the game, laff at the whiners and roll my eyes at folks who have never sat in a plane let alone a 70 year old warbird. :cool:

MD_Titus 01-24-2011 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDawg (Post 215997)
this guy sure looks like he ignored the new bomb fusing completely!




http://axisofinfo.com/wp-content/upl...a-japanese.jpg

he's using the bombs to bludgeon the ship and it's crew, not blow it up. think 250-500lb baseball bat!

robtek 01-24-2011 08:14 PM

I found this document for some additional info about fuzes:

http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm

or

http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/bombfuzedata1945.pdf

there one can see that with 1 or 2 exceptions all fuzes needed at least 1.9 sec. or at least 300ft air-travel to arm.
Those exceptions are delayed bombs.
The overwhelming majority needed MORE than 2 sec and usually 850 - 1100 ft. air-travel!!!

Aviar 01-24-2011 10:34 PM

Posted by daidalos.team on the 1C forum on Jan 24, 2011:

One of the most commented features of 4.10 has been the 2s bomb arming delay. We have listened to your feedback and spent a lot of time and energy reviewing and discussing this feature inside our team. In 4.101 we have removed arming delay from ampoule loadouts only. In 4.11 - we will rework the arming delay for each individual bomb based on available historical references and within limitations of IL-2 code. Plus we will make this feature optional either via an existing or a new difficulty switch.

Aviar

ElAurens 01-25-2011 11:37 AM

What worries be about this statement is that they may combine it with another difficulty selection.

It needs to be seperate.

Too many people here feel that if you complain about this issue that you must be a wonder woman view flyer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Furio 01-25-2011 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 216371)
What worries be about this statement is that they may combine it with another difficulty selection.

It needs to be seperate.

Too many people here feel that if you complain about this issue that you must be a wonder woman view flyer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

+1

Wutz 01-25-2011 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 216371)
What worries be about this statement is that they may combine it with another difficulty selection.

It needs to be seperate.

Too many people here feel that if you complain about this issue that you must be a wonder woman view flyer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

+10

W32Blaster 01-25-2011 12:08 PM

-20

:)

Just kidding! Now Kindergarden Bombardiers have their option. It´ll be interesting to see which server will offer what configuration.

JG52Uther 01-25-2011 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W32Blaster (Post 216376)
-20

:)

Just kidding! Now Kindergarden Bombardiers have their option. It´ll be interesting to see which server will offer what configuration.

Realistic servers will probably offer a version of the game with selectable fusing options,as in real life,depending on the mission.
For people that want to fly a fantasy arcade version people can fly the stock game...
Oh and, j/k... ;)

MD_Titus 01-25-2011 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 216371)
What worries be about this statement is that they may combine it with another difficulty selection.

It needs to be seperate.

Too many people here feel that if you complain about this issue that you must be a wonder woman view flyer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

+many
Quote:

Originally Posted by W32Blaster (Post 216376)
-20

:)

Just kidding! Now Kindergarden Bombardiers have their option. It´ll be interesting to see which server will offer what configuration.

i...

sigh.

el_aurens point was lost i see.

Bussard_1 01-26-2011 12:55 AM

"What worries be about this statement is that they may combine it with another difficulty selection.

It needs to be separate."

Full real is the strident request, but when offered it's not ALL of full real that is actually desired?

Mmmmm?

orangefood 01-26-2011 02:20 AM

GET RID OF THE BOMB TIMING!!!!

I spent a freaking hour trying to land at least one bomb on a ship...that EXPLODES!!! It is not cool. I know you are trying to make the game better, but please make it an option, its a flat out pain!

Thanks

S!


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.