House Rules Update

[fuelli]

Just one thing: the 50% was with respect to smart bombs. The hitprobabilty we are talking about is 5% and that is ten times lower. Beside this I agree with you it was surely tough to hit those ships in the water. Its just the point of the number of hits that we disagree. I do not think its way off. But I also think this is all speculation. Or does anyone here at the forum has a B17 ready to take off and check this out?[8D](In the WitP Forum I wouldn´t be surprised if someone has [:D] )

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

It was so difficult I´ve never read of a single carpet bomb attack against ships at sea in world war 2 or one even attempted. The closest I´ve seen is five B17 attempted to bomb the Japanese carrier force at Midway.

Not too difficult to see why. Early in the war there weren't sufficient numbers for such an attack. By the time there were, the Axis navies had either been defeated or weren't sailing into LBA range. IOW, there was never a need to practice the technique and make it more effective. Had there been the need Allied air forces would have put the necessary training in ship attacks. Whether that equates to the hit percentage that you're seeing, I don't know.

[Ike99]

The hit probabilty we are talking about is 5% and that is ten times lower.

The formula your using for your 5% hit rate is in error. I try to explain and make you see.

Bombs dropped from level bombers at altitude have a natural spacing between them. This spacing makes almost all bombs miss ships by default from level bombers because of the bomb pattern and ship size. This was recognized in one of the later patches that was done for UV.

12) Level bombers may no longer achieve multiple bomb hits against naval vessels. The number of bombs in the string does still increase the chance of hitting.

Unless the target is a very long ship (fleet carrier, battleship) and the bomb pattern falls a extremely low odds, perfecty from front to back, the maximum hits a single bomber could score from his entire bomb load is 1 or 2 hits.

So almost all bombs are going to miss anyways but this is not a true measure of the attacks accuracy.

To find the true accuracy percentage you need to understand this. I attach a picture to help explain.

Borners level bomber attack at 10,000 feet had a much true accuracy rating of at least 40% and probably closer to 50% or 60% when we realise some of the bombers probably achieved just one hit from their entire bomb load.

I hope this helps explain my meaning as to why I think your total bomb number vs hits scored formula is in error.

[xj900uk]

You also have to remember the B17's (and B24's) were using a standard type of bombing which was called 'carpet' or 'stick bombing'.  It works best with a lot of 4E bombers in close high formation, the lead being the best/most experienced bomb-aimer,  and no intereference from flak or fighters. 
Roughly speaking the 4E bombers fly in at 90 degree angles to the target, and on a signal from the lead ship, everyone releases their bombs in a delayed stick (basically say 20 bombs to be released rapidly one after the other over the space of 2-3 seconds).  The idea being that a complete 'carpet' of bombs like a staggered flat surface would be falling towards the enemy shipping with every square yard of sea-space covered by a bomb (or the effects of one).  Hopefully this way at least one hit is guaranteed out of say 100 dropped simply by every square inch of sea around teh ship and upon it being covered. 
Also you have to remember that a bomb doesn't have to hit to cause massive amounts of damage - a near miss can very easily buckle side-plates and cause catastrophic leaks - Billy Mitchell proved this with his controversial tests in the early 20's

[Ike99]

But I also think this is all speculation. Or does anyone here at the forum has a B17 ready to take off and check this out?

I think yes it is all specualation of course. I have seen some sites claiming the level bombers gained a 1% hit rate for all bombs dropped against ships in the Pacific at altitude. How reliable these claims are and their sources I do not know.

Billy Mitchell proved this with his controversial tests in the early 20's

I understand those test were staged.

But I also think this is all speculation. Or does anyone here at the forum has a B17 ready to take off and check this out?

I have IL2 and it has the Norden Bomb sight, does this count for anything?

Instructional Norden Bomb Sight

[fuelli]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

But I also think this is all speculation. Or does anyone here at the forum has a B17 ready to take off and check this out?

I have IL2 and it has the Norden Bomb sight, does this count for anything?

Instructional Norden Bomb Sight

I was often thinking of having a try at this game but then I remembered that I have always been a total looser in such flight sims. [8|]

Back to the subject: The 1% probability sounds reasonable. Taking into account that there is a high variety of possible outcomes for single events 5% still does not look way off (have to repeat this all the time I know [:)])
As I sai a very good result. But what I think makes such good results is not the initial hit probability given by the game but the increase of hit probability after the first hits on a ship. And I also would assume that the attacking bombers had crews with 80+ experience which in my point of view lead to "too good" results sometimes.

On the other points mentioned i think giving more VP for twin and four engine bombers (or even twin engine fighter) is a very good idea. Wonder if this will be incorporated in AE. One point for each engine was a proposal already made on the WitP forum long time ago.

[Ike99]

I was often thinking of having a try at this game but then I remembered that I have always been a total looser in such flight sims. Back to the subject: The 1% probability sounds reasonable.

OK, I was awake half the night doing simulated level bombing runs against ships [:D] and this is what I come up with. I think the 1% is close to reality as my opposition was alsmost zero and had perfect weather.

(Disclaimer-I´m not very good at this. I´m sure there are some others who are much better at this than me)

Simulated Runs

[fuelli]

That Video really looks good...Still thinking of trying this out....

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


OK, I was awake half the night doing simulated level bombing runs against ships [:D] and this is what I come up with. I think the 1% is close to reality as my opposition was alsmost zero and had perfect weather.

(Disclaimer-I´m not very good at this. I´m sure there are some others who are much better at this than me)

Simulated Runs

Great sim video IKE! What do you do for a living?

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

OK, I was awake half the night doing simulated level bombing runs against ships [:D] and this is what I come up with. I think the 1% is close to reality as my opposition was alsmost zero and had perfect weather.

(Disclaimer-I´m not very good at this. I´m sure there are some others who are much better at this than me)

Simulated Runs

I think in real world it would be even harder to hit, because ships try to manuever. In IL2 they don't.