Bomber manuever has no effect?

[rader]

To test if bomber maneuver ever made a difference in air to air combat, I set up a guadalcanal scenario and started modding Betty manueverability.

I ran the test once with manueverability = 5, and then once with maneuverability = 99! (I think you can't set it > 100).

The Betties were intercepted by P-39s and P-40s.

I of course expected that the Bettie being more maneuverable would reduce their losses. In fact, there was no appreciable effect. Each time, no matter what their manuever betwen 5 and 99, they lost about 40% of their number, or around 12 out of 30. Why woulnd't the Betties with manuever = 99 be able to avoid some of the fire?

Just wondering: did I make a mistake in my test, is this an oversight/error, or is it intentional that bomber manueverability is meaningless?

Thanks!

Andrew

[DuckofTindalos]

Working as designed.

[rader]

Ok, so why was it designed that way?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Working as designed.

[rader]

And I assume they don't use the defense rating of the pilot either?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: rader

Ok, so why was it designed that way?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Working as designed.

I'm guessing that a bomber needs to navigate to the drop point, not use wildly evasive maneuvers?

Although, if intercepted 9 miles from the drop point, a bomber would try to jink a bit. Then again, they have to keep flying towards the drop point, so it kind of defeats the evasive efforts. And, bombers fly in a group, so jinking during group flight is just asking for mid air collisions with your buddies.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: rader

And I assume they don't use the defense rating of the pilot either?

I'm guessing my guess for the previous post would apply to pilot defensive ratings as well. Part of a flying box formation? You depend on your gunners, not your evasive flight ability. anyway, just guessing.

[Alpha77]

Whow a new mircale after 2 years or so of playing that game, nice.

Maybe this one is also some kind of devs secret (tm) ? [:D]

[rader]

Boo! [:@]

I'm going to make a mod with bomber durability values normalized to reflect maneuver - and other changes - thanks for the editor [:D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: rader

And I assume they don't use the defense rating of the pilot either?

The defensive rating of the pilot reflects the defensive rating of his crew, so it will have an effect on the effectiveness of defensive armament.

Bill

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: rader

To test if bomber maneuver ever made a difference in air to air combat, I set up a guadalcanal scenario and started modding Betty manueverability.

I ran the test once with manueverability = 5, and then once with maneuverability = 99! (I think you can't set it > 100).

The Betties were intercepted by P-39s and P-40s.

I of course expected that the Bettie being more maneuverable would reduce their losses. In fact, there was no appreciable effect. Each time, no matter what their manuever betwen 5 and 99, they lost about 40% of their number, or around 12 out of 30. Why woulnd't the Betties with manuever = 99 be able to avoid some of the fire?

Just wondering: did I make a mistake in my test, is this an oversight/error, or is it intentional that bomber manueverability is meaningless?

Thanks!

Andrew

A Better test would be fighters vs. fighters. P-26's vs. zeros'. Change the maneuverability of the P-26.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: rader

Boo! [:@]

I'm going to make a mod with bomber durability values normalized to reflect maneuver - and other changes - thanks for the editor [:D]

You can do anything you want with the editor. I do.

But, I'm not sure mnv is all that useful to bombers. I don't recall any dialogue from fighter pilots that they had to deal with enemy bombers trying to evade. Bombers relied on large numbers with lots of gunners. Even small bombers didn't evade to any great extent. (USN TB's at Midway for example.) They had to keep their nose pointed to the objective, and at the end, keep the plane steady.

Increasing dur based on small size (easier to maneuver) will just make small bombers into big bombers. Definitely mod-able. But, not historic from my perspective.

[rader]

True if the bombers were hell-bent to stay in formation they wouldn't manuever. But after dropping ordinance or if far from the objective, bombers most definitely jink/dive, and try to evade fire. And there were times when bombers (mostly single engine and especially agile bombers like Ju-88s) would "dogfight" fighters if there was no other choice. Plus, a smaller bomber is just plain harder to hit

Not sure if it's 100% representative, but bomber maneuvering makes a pretty big difference in ww2 flight simulators like IL-2...

I would think maneuver would certainly have less effect in survivability than armor/durability, but under the right conditions, it could make a pretty big difference.

[LoBaron]

IIRC bomber mvr rating only is used for calculations against AAA.

[Alpha77]

]But, I'm not sure mnv is all that useful to bombers. I don't recall any dialogue from fighter pilots that they had to deal with enemy bombers trying to evade. Bombers relied on large numbers with lots of gunners. Even small bombers didn't evade to any great extent. (USN TB's at Midway for example.) They had to keep their nose pointed to the objective, and at the end, keep the plane steady.

Increasing dur based on small size (easier to maneuver) will just make small bombers into big bombers. Definitely mod-able. But, not historic from my perspective.

Well I won´t come through as MR Know it all. But...there were bombers that to a certain extent used speed+mvr as defense. Examples would be: Mosquito (well more a fighter bomber), Ju88, A20 Havoc......but granted the number is smaller than the bombers who rely on defensive arms, armor/stability and escorts [;)]

Well to quote Wiki:

- Although not the fastest or longest-ranged in its class, the Douglas DB-7 series distinguished itself as a tough, dependable combat aircraft with an excellent reputation due to its speed and maneuverability. In a report to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AAEE) at RAF Boscombe Down, test pilots summed it up as "has no vices and is very easy to takeoff and land... The aeroplane represents a definite advantage in the design of flying controls... extremely pleasant to fly and manoeuvre."[1] Ex-pilots often consider it their favorite aircraft of the war due to the ability to toss it around like a fighter.[2] Its true impact was that the Douglas bomber/night fighter was extremely adaptable and found a role in every combat theater of the war and excelled as a true "pilot's aeroplane."[3]



-] Some 133 Ju 88s were pressed into the Blitzkrieg, but very high combat losses and accidents forced a quick withdrawal from action to re-train crews to fly this very high performance aircraft. Some crews were reported to be more scared (!) of the Ju 88 than the enemy, and requested a transfer to a He 111 uni

[rader]

Yeah, plus all the Japanese bombers, especially Lilly, relied on maneuverability more than defensive fire and formation. The Japanese really got screwed on this one [8|]

[Erkki]

In real life (tm), of course, the higher speed the less time the target has to shoot back. The better speed and maneuverability the better chance the bomber has to survive the AAA fire AFTER the bombing run, if its a torpedo/dive/skip bomber, of course. The bigger the plane the easier it is to hit.

What was sever handicap to torpedo bombers in real life was the very strict drop marginals of the different aerial torpedoes. Usually bombers had to make their approach very slow, even close to stall speed, so they were both slow & easy targets and couldn't try to throw off the gunners' fire.

[vonTirpitz]

I would have to respectfully disagree on the assessment within the scope of the game.

When bombing a target the last thing a bomber wanted to do was maneuver. When up against fighters/fighter bombers (which use the mvr rating for a2a as I understand it) I believe that a bombers' manueverability was much less a factor than it's durability, speed and defensive fire. Just my 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: rader

Yeah, plus all the Japanese bombers, especially Lilly, relied on maneuverability more than defensive fire and formation. The Japanese really got screwed on this one [8|]

[rader]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

I would have to respectfully disagree on the assessment within the scope of the game.

When bombing a target the last thing a bomber wanted to do was maneuver. When up against fighters/fighter bombers (which use the mvr rating for a2a as I understand it) I believe that a bombers' manueverability was much less a factor than it's durability, speed and defensive fire. Just my 2 cents.

Less of a factor? Absolutely in most cases (not e.g., for Mosquitos). But still a pretty big factor, and especially in particular circumstances (after ordinance dropped, on aborted runs, etc.). Plus it should make a difference that an SBD isn't all that big (small target), but a B-29 is gigantic. Treating them exactly the same for targetting purposes is, IMHO, bonkers.