Bombs on fighters : air rape ? -1 reply

Please wait...

Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#81 14 years ago

MkH^Certain lines caught my eye on those pages, regarding some of the eariler posts..

"The Ju 87B was armed with two forward firing machine-guns, one machine gun in the rear cockpit for defense, four 110lb-bombs under the wings, and one 551lb-bomb under the fuselage in a clutch"

"The pilot regains consciousness and control, and resumes normal flight. He would use his bombs under the wings for other targets. "

Check that MKH^ but not all websites are dependable sources when it comes to correct information.

Divebomber pilots did not lose contiousness pulling out of a dive for example. That autopilot was just a safety device in case they did.

Maybe i am even mistaken and the Stuka really could pull extreme G's with lighter bombs still attached. It had quitte thick inverted gull wings and a strong internal structure built to resist G forces climbing out of steep dives.

But that doesn't mean a Hurricane or any fighter for that matter can too, fighters are built to be light and nimble with very good power/weight ratio's wich means their structures are built as light as possible. Fighter bombers were strengthened versions of fighters, but were heavier, slower and less agile.

I think when players really want to have fighter bomber versions, they will have to suffer disadvantage when fighting against a pure air supriority fighter in air combat. ( ignring the fact fighterbombers with a load had to drop it first to be able to engae in air combat at all.....but it is still a game )




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#82 14 years ago

Yes, well, I haven't really taken much research on this issue. It just caught my eye..

And yeah, that's exactly why I (not taking the credit from Ohioan) suggested this in the first place; for the actualy bomber/ground attack aircraft to get an edge over figher bombers.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#83 14 years ago
Beast of WarDivebrakes were to slow down the bomber enough so that it could pull out of the dive, but not with bombs hanging on it's wings :uhm:

"One of the attractions of the dive bomber was that the whole aircraft was aimed at the target, thus making accuracy of bombing much easier to obtain. Without using the aircrafts dive brakes a steep angle of dive resulted in a high descent rate requiring more air space in which to recover from a dive. In this condition it was necessary for the pilot to initiate recovery much sooner and bombing accuracy suffered as a result. When the dive brakes were used they checked the aircrafts diving speed, thus enabling a lower level to be reached before the dive was terminated. This led to greater accuracy, a slower recovery, a less shallow recovery radius and lower G forces on the crew. When a aircraft pulls out of a dive both pilot and plane are subjected to a centrifugel force which varies according to the steepness of the curved path taken by the machine. The human body can withstand only so much of this stress, the effect of which is to make the human body seem heavier. With a force of 1G for example, the body appears to be twice as heavy as normal. A force of 4G's can be tolerated for 4 to 5 seconds - which proved to be ample time for a Stuka pilot to level off. At 6G's a Stuka pilot usually blacked out after 5 seconds and at 12G's they were unconscious within 2 seconds." - page 15

The same book mentions tha tthe dive brakes slowed the plane from 650kph in a dive to 450kph in a dive whihc made aiming easier.

It is also stated that in the face of intense AAA fire the Stuka pilots didnt always use the dive brakes to make targeting of them harder.

"A bomb release button on the control column enabled the pilot to drop all the bombs together or seperately." - page 20

It seems that the crutch was only released just before the bomb release to allow the bomb to swing clear of the prop.

On occasion, however, it was expedient to to break away inorder to concentrate the Stuka's own machine gun against the attackers. In the earlier days this revealed a snag because the Ju-87's tail unit was in the field of fire when the gun in the rear cockpit was traversed. (The problem was later overcome by fitting a bullet repeller to the tail). - page 18

So dont feel too bad FH gunners, it was a problem in real life as well.

Quotes are from the book "Stuka JU-87" by Colonel A.J.Barker, Bison Books Ltd.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#84 14 years ago

Anlushac11

On occasion, however, it was expedient to to break away inorder to concentrate the Stuka's own machine gun against the attackers. In the earlier days this revealed a snag because the Ju-87's tail unit was in the field of fire when the gun in the rear cockpit was traversed. (The problem was later overcome by fitting a bullet repeller to the tail). - page 18

So dont feel too bad FH gunners, it was a problem in real life as well.

That tailgunners shoot their own aircraft was a very bad call by DICE patch 1.3.

From that day on bombers were unessesarely damaged in game or even shot down by their own gunner instead of the attacking fighter........

Bomber gunner is a high skill requiring position ( probably the most difficult skill in all of bf1942/FH ) and most casual players will do more harm then good in that position.......that cannot have been the objective seen bomber gunners were always hard to come by wich is a huge disadvantage for a bomber and it's chance to survive ( and be of use for the team deploying it ) for a longer period. And skilled bomber gunners are even extremely rare.

Then there is little bugs in FH wich make you damage your own aircraft when that is not even possible.......that happend to me firing the nose mg of a B25 at some angle.......that mg can never point at the aircraft, but yet it managed to damage the B25 itself. :uhm:

It is my opinion bomber gunners shooting their own aircraft ( and for that fact battleships shooting their own ship ) should be turned off.

Now Anlushac found out in reality some aircraft obviously had deflector plates, damaging your own aircraft turns out to be unrealistic aswell. You can bet not only Stuka's had deflector plates in vulnerable area's........deflector plates were already used in WWI on propeller blades before the synchronised firing mg through a propeller were invented....and even then they still had deflector plates incase the gun misfired....

Now before people say "turn damaging own vehicle off can't be done" some other mods already did that......




[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#85 14 years ago

"2With a force of 1G for example, the body appears to be twice as heavy as normal. " that`s 2G,TWICE normal g-force.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#86 14 years ago
'[CoUkniu']"2With a force of 1G for example, the body appears to be twice as heavy as normal. " that`s 2G,TWICE normal g-force.

I was curious about that but I copied it as it was written




[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#87 14 years ago

Beast is right,websites cannot be entirely trusted:D




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#88 14 years ago
'[CoUkniu']Beast is right,websites cannot be entirely trusted:D

Its not a website.

"Quotes are from the book "Stuka JU-87" by Colonel A.J.Barker, Bison Books Ltd."

It could just be a typo. If one typo invalidates the work then the whole of written word in human history is suspect. I have read few books that were mistake free.




[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#89 14 years ago
Anlushac11Its not a website. "Quotes are from the book "Stuka JU-87" by Colonel A.J.Barker, Bison Books Ltd." It could just be a typo. If one typo invalidates the work then the whole of written word in human history is suspect. I have read few books that were mistake free.

sorry,missed that you quoted a book,was on my way to work. And no,it`s not totally invalidated by a typo. But errors in written text is very common regardless if it`s on paper or in electronic form,and the good thing about the net is that it can be corrected at any time,by anyone.




Kingrudolf

Fan FH Mapper

50 XP

9th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,345 Posts

0 Threads

#90 14 years ago

You know, the MIG3 is just the best airplane evar built! It's just too enjoyable on Kharkov. But anyway, you'll still have 50% chance of surviving when attempting to attack with a Fighter. Theres always Flak around, if not mobile. Like on Sector318, the Allies often get killed by the Ostwind, as long as you can aim and hide, no plane will come even near.