The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[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]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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]

Originally Posted by vparez

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:




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...

Originally Posted by vparez

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]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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]

Originally Posted by vparez

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]

Originally Posted by vparez

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.