Wirbelwind tank -1 reply

Please wait...

Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#21 12 years ago
Komrad_B;3544208The key word here is ''could''. Adding a pair of 250kg bombs under your fighter is going to make it worthless (or at the very least, much less effective) in a dogfight. Because of this, most fighters were used in their role, that is of shooting other planes down. If fighters can't be made to react realistically while carrying an heavy payload, then fighter bombers just shouldn't be made available.[/QUOTE] There is also another reason why fighter/bombers wherent used oftenly. Ground attacks where risky and losses where high. [QUOTE=Schlang]BUT I also must say, you guys realise that almost all fighters in WWII carried about 2-6 100 - 250kg bombs? The bf109 could carry 4 250s and the supermarine spitfire could carry tons o rockets! almost all of the planes of WWII could carry some sort of power armament.

The Bf109 couldnt carry four 250kg's. It could only carry a single 250kg bomb or four 50kg bombs or a droptank.




It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

21st October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#22 12 years ago
Komrad_B;3544208The key word here is ''could''. Adding a pair of 250kg bombs under your fighter is going to make it worthless (or at the very least, much less effective) in a dogfight. Because of this, most fighters were used in their role, that is of shooting other planes down. If fighters can't be made to react realistically while carrying an heavy payload, then fighter bombers just shouldn't be made available.

Actually they were. The British didn't develop an effective dive bomber before the war. The RAF thought the battlefield was an 'improper' use of air power. In typical British fashion, the Germans spectacular successes with tactical air power initially did little to dissuade them from the 'proper' use of air power. (As an extreme example, when the British were getting pushed out of Greece, the RAF insisted on using their meager bombers on (useless) attacks against strategic targets in Italy. The hysterical cries from the Greeks and the BEF for air support were ignored as being requests for the incorrect use of air power.) North Africa was a fortunate opportunity to rub the British noses in all of there pre-war misconceptions. Eventually they came around, and found that their fighters actually made excellent fighter-bombers. The problem with fighter bombers in FH is that they perform like fighters allowing high accuracy with bombs. I would suggest offsetting this by reducing the splash damage from the bombs. You can drop them more accurately, but this is offset by the fact that you must be more accurate.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#23 12 years ago
Killed in First Minute;3544497North Africa was a fortunate opportunity to rub the British noses in all of there pre-war misconceptions. Eventually they came around, and found that their fighters actually made excellent fighter-bombers.

Can you post some sources for this, Killed? Aside from that, i find it rather difficult to believe due to the fact that the biggest danger of ground attack planes is ground fire and pilots of these planes generally came back with alot of holes in their plane.

That is aswell one reason why planes the Henschel 129 where heavily armoured because it doesnt really matter how fast your plane is when you perform ground support missions, you'll get hit anyway.

The problem with fighter bombers in FH is that they perform like fighters allowing high accuracy with bombs. I would suggest offsetting this by reducing the splash damage from the bombs. You can drop them more accurately, but this is offset by the fact that you must be more accurate.

No, the problem is they excell at both roles regardless of the fact the payload they carry so there is no reason to use a normal ground support plane. It doesnt matter if they carry a 250kg or a 1000kg bomb it doesnt affect them in anyway, rather unrealistic because jabo's ejected their payload when they where engaged by enemy planes.

And reducing splash damage doesnt do alot as bombs are way too accurate anyway. Accuracy, flight performance, and the damage need to be adjusted. Same thing with rockets. In real life they had problems with the attack angle. Not in FH. Same thing with accuracy.




It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

21st October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#24 12 years ago
Pietje;3545023Can you post some sources for this, Killed?[/quote] I'll see what I can do, they will likely be text sources though... [quote=Pietje;3545023]No, the problem is they excell at both roles regardless of the fact the payload they carry so there is no reason to use a normal ground support plane. It doesnt matter if they carry a 250kg or a 1000kg bomb it doesnt affect them in anyway, rather unrealistic because jabo's ejected their payload when they where engaged by enemy planes.

I would love to see that too, bombers or fighter/bombers that are jumped would be forced to drop their payload and try to evade. I asked for it once, the Dev's replied that it was not possible with the BF or BF2 engine. I would not be in favour of just decreasing the performance of fighter/bombers regardless of their payload. That would simply be creating a slow dive bomber that did not exist. Fighter bombers did perform as fighters if they dropped their payload. That was one of their strengths, they could defend themselves. I think the lesser evil is keeping their performance and not forcing them to drop their bombs. (They are easily replaced in FH anyways.)




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#25 12 years ago
Killed in First Minute;3545515I would love to see that too, bombers or fighter/bombers that are jumped would be forced to drop their payload and try to evade. I asked for it once, the Dev's replied that it was not possible with the BF or BF2 engine.

Then we will have to look for a different solution. :)

I would not be in favour of just decreasing the performance of fighter/bombers regardless of their payload. That would simply be creating a slow dive bomber that did not exist. Fighter bombers did perform as fighters if they dropped their payload. That was one of their strengths, they could defend themselves. I think the lesser evil is keeping their performance and not forcing them to drop their bombs. (They are easily replaced in FH anyways.)

Is it not possible to give them the performance of a normal fighter plane after they have dropped their bombs until they reload?

If thats not possible then im afraid i really dont see any other option then leaving them out of FH2 or limiting to one or two maps. Its extreme, i know.

Otherwise you will end up with a rather unrealistic plane that makes both fighters and bombers pointless.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#26 12 years ago
Killed in First Minute;3545515I would love to see that too, bombers or fighter/bombers that are jumped would be forced to drop their payload and try to evade. I asked for it once, the Dev's replied that it was not possible with the BF or BF2 engine.

Then we will have to look for a different solution. :)

I would not be in favour of just decreasing the performance of fighter/bombers regardless of their payload. That would simply be creating a slow dive bomber that did not exist. Fighter bombers did perform as fighters if they dropped their payload. That was one of their strengths, they could defend themselves. I think the lesser evil is keeping their performance and not forcing them to drop their bombs. (They are easily replaced in FH anyways.)

Is it not possible to give them the performance of a normal fighter plane after they have dropped their bombs until they reload? If thats not possible then im afraid i really dont see any other option then leaving them out of FH2 or limiting to one or two maps.

Its extreme, i know but otherwise you will end up with a rather unrealistic plane that makes both fighters and bombers pointless because it doesnt have any of the disadvantages it had in real life.




Schlang

Schlang

50 XP

6th January 2006

0 Uploads

104 Posts

0 Threads

#27 12 years ago

sorry about my earlier data but i havent read up on it recently. The Bf110 is a superb example of a fighter bomber, it was heavily armed with a few options one being 2d4 20mm and bombs. I know that it had a good rate of climb and a decent speed around 350mph give or take 20mph. but all of that is irrelavent A bomber does not fight it bombs> A fighter does not bomb (traditionaly, Although they could very well carry a payload AND fight) and a fighter bomber is in between A fighter bomber can bomb with a medium payload and then it can ground attack with a hail of highcalibre bullets. A fighter bomber is not normaly as manuverable as a fighter, but can be as fast or faster due to the twin engines. One thing that is not relavent to FH 1 or 2 is that they also had a long range.




Rumpullpus

GF makes me horny

50 XP

26th January 2007

0 Uploads

93 Posts

0 Threads

#28 12 years ago

is this really that big of a deal anyways? i mean the fighter/bombers can only hold like 1 bomb at a time and usually (atlest the last few times ive played FH) you normally only had a chance to use 2 or 3 bombing runs before you where picked off by AA fire or another fighter (although im sure the better pilots could get more runs out of it). i say if its really a big deal just make the fighter-bomber less manuverable then a normal fighter (especally when in a dive if thats possible) but with about the same amount of armor.




Schlang

Schlang

50 XP

6th January 2006

0 Uploads

104 Posts

0 Threads

#29 12 years ago

Good point, i think this has become an argument for the sake of an argument. The FH devs will probably do whatever they want anyways. The origional topic off this thread was about the Wirbelwind tank and other AA am I right?