Is anyone level bombing in the HE-111? - Page 4

Blackdog_kt · #31 02-05-2012, 11:25 AM

It's not too hard, just spawn in a free flight mission and follow the guides here.

After a couple of offline trial runs you can also go online on ATAG and ask specific questions on their teamspeak. There is a cadre of more or less bomber-specialized pilots there across various timezones and they are all willing to help: Jimbop and Dutch are usually handling the Blenheim, Keller is instructing people on the 111.

I'm also joining them every now and then, but i usually join late and my mic remains unused (don't want to wake up everyone in the house at 5am, shouting "bombs away!" hahahaha

), but i listen in on TS and will reply on the in-game team chat.

Generally speaking, after some collective effort there's enough knowledge to use bombers and enough people willing to "teach" it to others. It won't be an exaggeration to say that when the next patch comes, at least online play will be significantly transformed. Bomber pilots are already winning maps with bugged bombsights and despite the memory leak bug. This last one prevents people from flying in groups or with escorts and forces bombers to go in alone, in staggered runs with an advancing fighter sweep or low on the deck. And still, maps are consistently won and some people can close a target in a single run.

Imagine what happens when we can fly in groups, with escorts and debugged bombsights

ATAG_Doc · #32 02-06-2012, 06:31 PM

There is a growing nucleolus of bomber pilots that's growing larger by the day in ATAG and on both sides. A lot more blue than red for obvious reasons though. This is why we desperately need a flyable Wellington. It just has to be done.

csThor · #33 02-06-2012, 06:39 PM

The russian community is making a "People's Flight Manual". Wouldn't it be time to create a similar manual specifically for the more complex aircraft (i.e. He 111 Manual, Ju 88 Manual etc)? Just a question ...

jimbop · #34 02-06-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor

The russian community is making a "People's Flight Manual". Wouldn't it be time to create a similar manual specifically for the more complex aircraft (i.e. He 111 Manual, Ju 88 Manual etc)? Just a question ...

Hardly any point until the patch is out. At the moment it would just be filled with ways to work around the bugs. The bombsights in particular need work.

jimbop · #35 02-06-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

There is a growing nucleolus of bomber pilots that's growing larger by the day in ATAG and on both sides. A lot more blue than red for obvious reasons though. This is why we desperately need a flyable Wellington. It just has to be done.

Definitely. Ridiculous at the moment - the Blenheim is great fun but it just isn't a serious proposition in comparison with the HE-111 and 88. Just look at the way it is used on ATAG: almost exclusively used to divebomb just because level bombing is not a reliable way to hit the target.

We need a red bomber with a proper bombsight...

robtek · #36 02-06-2012, 08:10 PM

I believe we are spoiled by the accuratesse of bomb drops in 1946!!

What we are experiencing here at the moment reflects reality much better.

Bombing under combat conditions then was a arcane science, depending on luck besides the technic.

jimbop · #37 02-06-2012, 08:26 PM

Robtek, you're probably right. However, I doubt that LW bombardiers had to convert to MPH and then manually keep the sight on the target so I don't think a fix for the release calibration would spoil us too much, would it?

Also, I have no problem with the Blenheim being relatively inaccurate compared with bombers with automated sights. I would not, for instance, like the horizontal stabilizer added to the Blenheim. But I would really like to fly a red bomber that had a chance of hitting a target from 10,000 feet.

He111 · #38 02-06-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek

I believe we are spoiled by the accuratesse of bomb drops in 1946!!

What we are experiencing here at the moment reflects reality much better.

Bombing under combat conditions then was a arcane science, depending on luck besides the technic.

Agree.

You could try lower level bombing to gain accuracy, England early in the war had little AA so this shouldn't be any riskier?

One day, i'm going to have to live up to my name ..

.

jimbop · #39 02-06-2012, 11:10 PM

Sorry, I just have to nip this in the bud to avoid the devs thinking there is no problem.

If you level bomb in the HE-111 the historically correct way (e.g. gunsight fixed on target, correct altitude above target entered and TAS entered as sight velocity) YOU WILL MISS. You will hit short every single time. To hit the target you have to misuse the sight.

I would not mind seeing some randomness thrown in to better resemble wartime conditions but this should be a +/- effect, not simply minus and by exactly the same margin each time.

Blackdog_kt · #40 02-08-2012, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbop

Robtek, you're probably right. However, I doubt that LW bombardiers had to convert to MPH and then manually keep the sight on the target so I don't think a fix for the release calibration would spoil us too much, would it?

Also, I have no problem with the Blenheim being relatively inaccurate compared with bombers with automated sights. I would not, for instance, like the horizontal stabilizer added to the Blenheim. But I would really like to fly a red bomber that had a chance of hitting a target from 10,000 feet.

Well, i don't want to bring you down mate but i think all the main RAF bombers, at least until quite late in the war, used devices similar to the one fitted to the Blenheim.

Meaning, the only thing that will probably change if we get a Wellington is the available payload and maybe a more stable (and more sluggish) platform