The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[ElAurens]

Sorry, but it does.

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

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

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

It's not making me happy.

[Avimimus]

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

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

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

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

[Avimimus]

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

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

[robtek]

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

[swiss]

Originally Posted by robtek

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

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

[JtD]

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

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

[swiss]

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

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

[Sokol1]

Originally Posted by Wutz

4.10m shows this tactic is wrong:

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

Sokol1

[Letum]

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

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

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

OR

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

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Sorry, but it does.

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

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

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

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

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

this was a tactic that was used and worked,

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

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

Please.

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

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

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

It's not making me happy.

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

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

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

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