High-Altitude bombing way too effective

[Rusty1961]

Thank you Harley for running the test.

[joliverlay]

I think the accuracy is to high and the number of bombs required to destroy a target to low.

The following are from an article airforce-magazine.com the online journal of the airforce association. (In quotes.)

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... light.aspx

"According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2 percent probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90 percent probability of destroying the target."

actual accuracy was much worse than training and practice predicted: (this data is for bombing closer at 20,000 not 30,000 feet.)...

in practice "Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point. "Rather than dropping bombs into pickle barrels, Eighth Air Force bombardiers were having trouble hitting the broad side of a barn," said historian McFarland."

After the allied forces achieved air dominance they lowered their bombing altitude. Even thought they were using 700-1000 plane raids they needed the accuracy...."By 1945, Eighth Air Force was operating at much lower altitudes and was putting up to 60 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet of the aiming point, almost four times better than in the dark days of 1943. Radar bombing, adopted from the British, was an alternative when conditions did not permit visual delivery, but it was not a precision technique in any true sense of the word."

and also the bombs were not as destructive as expected....

"The limited yield of the bombs added to the problem. A 500-pound bomb, standard for precision missions after 1943, had a lethal radius of only 60 to 90 feet. It dug a crater just two feet deep and nine feet wide. With bombing accuracy measured in hundreds of feet, it took a great many bombs to get the job done."

I think the probability of hitting a target at 30,000 should be on the order of 0.1% per bomb or less. In practice it was 1.2% at 20,000 and much worse in actual raids.

[joliverlay]

Actually after re reading the article it was 1.2% of hitting the target at 20,000 for the entire bomb load in practice, not for each bomb. In that case the accuracy is even worse!

[Erkki]

Thanks for explaining the included effecting factors and how it generally works Harley.

I have some thoughts about this but I think I will post them another time - still havent finished them, changes by them would probably just make it worse.

One of the problems was that even when the factories were hit, the tools were often relatively intact, and the production could be continued the same day with some limitations, or a few days later when they had patched up the windows and walls, if whateevr they were producing even required that. In the long run, its not so much about how difficult the targets are to hit, I think, but to how many factories is the production dispersed, and how quick do they get repaired relatively to the ease of destroying them.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Thanks for explaining the included effecting factors and how it generally works Harley.

I have some thoughts about this but I think I will post them another time - still havent finished them, changes by them would probably just make it worse.

One of the problems was that even when the factories were hit, the tools were often relatively intact, and the production could be continued the same day with some limitations, or a few days later when they had patched up the windows and walls, if whateevr they were producing even required that. In the long run, its not so much about how difficult the targets are to hit, I think, but to how many factories is the production dispersed, and how quick do they get repaired relatively to the ease of destroying them.

Agreed. I think with the case in Schwienfurt the actual BB machines were intact and all that had to be done was remove the parts of the building which had collapsed around said machines.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: harley

The old code used a signed 16-bit integer for the altitude calculations. That left it with a maximum altitude of 32767, anything over that resulted in the code using 0 as the attacking alt. This was one of the first bugs we hunted down and killed.

As for Rusty's initial observation...

I took all the parameters from the code, and the 500lb bomb accuracy and effectiveness. I took the site details from one of the Kugelfischer sites...

The code does a unit check to see how accurate the lead bomber is. This is based on skill, cloud, morale, smoke, altitude, if it has a norden or not. This is then fed to the individual planes, which work out the accuracy per pilot based on similar factors...

I used the following parameters:

Code: Select all

 Unit XP  Pilot XP  Morale   Altitude    Norden?   Site Size
 70        70         70         33000       Yes       40
 

Then... and here's the fun part...

the code works out the accuracy per bomb dropped. Simming all this over 1000 iterations gave me the result of between 80% and 250% damage from 33000 feet. Now that looks like it justifies Rusty's issue, but...

With the destructive power of a 500lbs bomb, it takes only 7 or 8 hits to destroy the plant. So even with 250%, that's only 20 hits out of 1000 bombs.

Now this was all based on 0 cloud, 0 smoke, 0 unit disruption (no flak as Rusty pointed out). Add those figures in and things get better. But not a lot. On average the site was still destroyed.

So I think based on the raw figures, Rusty's symptom is valid - plants are too easy to destroy from High-Alt... I think the hypothesis is incorrect, as the accuracy is between 0.7% and 2.0%. I don't have an issue with that, but will listen if others have evidence one way or t'other...

For giggles I upped the size of the site. The results weren't much different. More hits, but less damage per hit. Destruction rates were similar.

Where I'd like to take this conversation now is around the power of the weapons, or more probably the resilience of the sites... 40 is just an arbitrary number. The question should be how many 500lbs bombs should hit site X or site Y to destroy it.

Discuss...

Discuss? What is this some group therapy session? Honestly Harley, is this a bug or not? If so will it be fixed. [:-]

If you don't think it is a bug than let us know because some of us are waiting on the game wondering shall we put things on hold for the next patch or not.

If my bombing from 33K results most of the time in damage between 80 and 250% how is that not a bug??????


This discussion is not very productive buddy. [>:]

[K.Pooley]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Discuss? What is this some group therapy session? Honestly Harley, is this a bug or not? If so will it be fixed. [:-]

If you don't think it is a bug than let us know because some of us are waiting on the game wondering shall we put things on hold for the next patch or not.

If my bombing from 33K results most of the time in damage between 80 and 250% how is that not a bug??????

Harley wants views on just how damaging the bombing should be at different altitutes. Some of us complain that we don't know enough about what goes on 'under the bonnet' of the game engine (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Now not only is Harley giving us an unprecedented view of the bombing model's mechanics, he is asking us to get involved in a dicussion on the best ways to model this aspect of the reality that the game seeks to represent.

If we don't get involved in the discussion we can't really complain if we don't like the result [;)].

This discussion is not very productive buddy. [>:]

Wrong! (see above)

[Nicholas Bell]

As I said before in another thread, "garbage in, garbage out."  Play the game within historical constraints and you won't run into the problem.  Just because the program allows you fly missions at 33 K and then gives you stupid results, doesn't mean you have to do that.  Stay below 26k (about the normal historical max altitude - usually lower actually) and you won't have any problems.  If you opponent doesn't agree to this, tell him to take a hike and find someone less interested in exploiting the program weaknesses.  As far as waiting for Harley to patch this, we've been waiting for him for what, 6 months now to fix the much more serious raid turn around bug and he's not indicated he's any closer. 

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

As I said before in another thread, "garbage in, garbage out."  Play the game within historical constraints and you won't run into the problem.  Just because the program allows you fly missions at 33 K and then gives you stupid results, doesn't mean you have to do that.  Stay below 26k (about the normal historical max altitude - usually lower actually) and you won't have any problems.  If you opponent doesn't agree to this, tell him to take a hike and find someone less interested in exploiting the program weaknesses.  As far as waiting for Harley to patch this, we've been waiting for him for what, 6 months now to fix the much more serious raid turn around bug and he's not indicated he's any closer. 

That's a big, huge negative Nicholas. I don't mind flying at 33K, as long as the results are historical/believable.

I shouldn't have to put artificial constraints on my play.

I'm not asking much, but you're right, we've waited 6 months with no indication that a patch is forth-coming.

I'm not here for group-therapy. I'm here to see if this is a bug or not and what they intend to do about it.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: K.Pooley

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Discuss? What is this some group therapy session? Honestly Harley, is this a bug or not? If so will it be fixed. [:-]

If you don't think it is a bug than let us know because some of us are waiting on the game wondering shall we put things on hold for the next patch or not.

If my bombing from 33K results most of the time in damage between 80 and 250% how is that not a bug??????

Harley wants views on just how damaging the bombing should be at different altitutes. Some of us complain that we don't know enough about what goes on 'under the bonnet' of the game engine (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Now not only is Harley giving us an unprecedented view of the bombing model's mechanics, he is asking us to get involved in a dicussion on the best ways to model this aspect of the reality that the game seeks to represent.

If we don't get involved in the discussion we can't really complain if we don't like the result [;)].

This discussion is not very productive buddy. [>:]

Wrong! (see above)

Look, Harley is a smart guy and has access to all the documents from the Strategic Bombing Survey that cover how effective or ineffective said bombing is.

And yes, it is beyond maddening to be talked to like I'm in some Monk episode. [:-]

[K.Pooley]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Look, Harley is a smart guy and has access to all the documents from the Strategic Bombing Survey that cover how effective or ineffective said bombing is.

And yes, it is beyond maddening to be talked to like I'm in some Monk episode. [:-]

I'm afraid the cultural reference went straight over my head, were you complaining about me or Harley?"

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Discuss? What is this some group therapy session? Honestly Harley, is this a bug or not? If so will it be fixed. [:-]

If you don't think it is a bug than let us know because some of us are waiting on the game wondering shall we put things on hold for the next patch or not.

If my bombing from 33K results most of the time in damage between 80 and 250% how is that not a bug??????


This discussion is not very productive buddy. [>:]

Is this a bug? - Harley has explained in detail how bombing accuracy works and the fact that it is indeed decreasing with altitude. There is no bug or fault in the program in that sense, however you might believe the degree of drop in accuracy is not enough with altitude. This is precisely what Harley has asked us to discuss. They aint gonna change the game just to please one person.

In regards to Nic's reply - I would have to agree that its the same in most games. Let's look at one of the Air combat issues they have in AE, the "Stratospheric sweeps":

- Players get a bonus if they're fighters bounce the enemy from above.
- Players can order they're fighters to fly at any altitude from 100 foot upto the A/C's service ceiling.

Results:

1) Players order every aircraft to fly every fighter sweep at their service ceiling
2) The same players then make post such as "This game is totally ahistorical, why are my 1940's planes dogfighting at 42,000 ft" etc.

Clearly you believe accuracy at high altitude is too high.......but seeing as 8th AF B-17's Never actually flew missions at that altitude you aren't basing that on hard proven facts, just an educated guess. As such it is only right to see how others feel and what changes should be made (ie repair time, or amount of damage by each bomb or base accuracy etc.)

TBH I am a little confused that you spend several posts talking about how bombing from 33,000' is a game breaker, but then refuse to stop doing it.[&:]

[Erkki]

Dobey, its house rules. You can make them. I too have given up using the workaround to prevent my fighters and pilots getting strafed(as long as my opponent will not use the high-alt patrol exploit to kill 50%+ of landing planes).

When something is possible it doesnt mean you should still do it. In the WW2 flight sim I play I simply refuse to shoot people hanging under their chutes, landing, taking off, burning, crash-landing planes if they are not a threat or absolutely need to die(ie. supply or recon planes). I dont strafe people either, not only does it only get people pissed off about me but it also makes no sense, because all the flak around as well as potential airborne enemies, especially those that would get to bounce me if I attacked something on the ground. But thats another story.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Discuss? What is this some group therapy session? Honestly Harley, is this a bug or not? If so will it be fixed. [:-]

If you don't think it is a bug than let us know because some of us are waiting on the game wondering shall we put things on hold for the next patch or not.

If my bombing from 33K results most of the time in damage between 80 and 250% how is that not a bug??????


This discussion is not very productive buddy. [>:]

. They aint gonna change the game just to please one person.

.[&:]

One person or a hundred....they should fix the game if said person finds a bug.

I'll ask my questions, again:

A. Is this a bug.

B. Will it be fixed in the next patch.

Harley, could you clarify?

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Yep, heavy bombers' ceilings are above the German heavy fighters', Bf-110 and Me-410. Anyone knows how high they could fly with fuel and bomb load? Of course all planes ceiling would drop when carrying payload, but  4 rockets and some ammo is not even in relative weight increase any close to B-17's load, is it?

How does the bomber's accuracy(hitting probability) drop with altitude, and is the bomber type, medium or heavy, a factor? Something like experience*a*(1-b*altitude^c)?

well, since the bombers could fly higher then the 110 could, I guess that may be why the 110 has trouble reaching the alt to make an attack, there are reasons why the 110 was a dog, and was out of production (before it came back, to be a night fighter)

for the the rockets and gun pak, yes, it is, it is called drag, them rocket tubes were hated by almost every pilot who had to fly with them, off hand, each engine on the B-17/24 had about the same HP as both of the engines on the 110 together

the bombers could hit well at alt, the trouble wasn't the Alt, it was cloud cover, but in your case, I think it is luck with the roll, I see them miss more then I see them hit, when over 30,000 feet

for your uber high alt sweeps, you do know that the unit will fly at mission alt once the mission starts ?

if on a sweep, they are going to drop to the deck, FBs also dive to drop there bombs

[kaybayray]

Well I know everybody is thinkin it but not saying it so I will.


Hey Rusty,
Everybody but you is trying very hard to contribute to find an acceptable solution to an issue that you brought to this forum. I find your comments to those that are contributing very rude, obnoxious and over the top uncalled for. In all the years I have been involved with Matrix Games I have never seen Harley open the books like this and allow the community to analyze and offer input for potential changes. I believe you owe all here an appology for your behavior. I also think you should tone your provocative comments down a few notches and start contributing to the solution we all hope may result instead of just continuing to vomit on us all.

I appologize to the community for my scathing comments to Rusty. But I have raised 6 children and I just dont care to listen to his kind of rude behavior.

Regards,
KayBay

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Yep, heavy bombers' ceilings are above the German heavy fighters', Bf-110 and Me-410. Anyone knows how high they could fly with fuel and bomb load? Of course all planes ceiling would drop when carrying payload, but  4 rockets and some ammo is not even in relative weight increase any close to B-17's load, is it?

How does the bomber's accuracy(hitting probability) drop with altitude, and is the bomber type, medium or heavy, a factor? Something like experience*a*(1-b*altitude^c)?

well, since the bombers could fly higher then the 110 could, I guess that may be why the 110 has trouble reaching the alt to make an attack, there are reasons why the 110 was a dog, and was out of production (before it came back, to be a night fighter)

for the the rockets and gun pak, yes, it is, it is called drag, them rocket tubes were hated by almost every pilot who had to fly with them, off hand, each engine on the B-17/24 had about the same HP as both of the engines on the 110 together

the bombers could hit well at alt, the trouble wasn't the Alt, it was cloud cover, but in your case, I think it is luck with the roll, I see them miss more then I see them hit, when over 30,000 feet

for your uber high alt sweeps, you do know that the unit will fly at mission alt once the mission starts ?

if on a sweep, they are going to drop to the deck, FBs also dive to drop there bombs

HS, I think you didnt understand my post.

I know the ammunition weight and the rocket tubes will slow down the Zerstörers. And drop their service ceiling. The problem was, wouldnt the heavies lose any of their service ceiling with the fuel and especially bomb load? As I think relative to empty weight the fuel and bomb load will effect the bombers more than the 110s/410s, bringing them reachable. This is not the case in game.

Of course the heavies engines had more power than the Zerstorers. But this is completely irrelevant - the absolute power means nothing, only power(actually trust) per weight. A heavy bomber might have had 4 times the engine power(I think, not quite, perhaps 3 times) of a Zerstörer, but it also had, well, how many times the empty mass? How many times mass when loaded with fuel, bombs, ammo and crew?

By the way, I finally managed to bounce P47s. I only needed 4:1 superiority in numbers and come in 10,000ft higher. Heh. my fighters managed to kill one P47s outright(first one I've ever seen go down without getting damaged at least once first) before the slugfest began, those few P47s killing 10 of my fighters without further casualties(before caught on their way home by two more 109 gruppes). From successfull bounces/attacks my 109s and 190s managed to ge vs. P47s, the P47s casualty rate is lower than heavy bombers, not counting stragglers! You'd think a burst from 4 20mm cannons and 2 machine guns needs to barely touch a fighter sized target to disintegrate it into pieces, but no. On the other side, the machine-gun armed P-47 out of successfull bounces/attacks gets vs. 109s and 190s a destroyed in 90% of cases and damaged only 10%. Half of my bounces on them end in the bouncers going down, leaving P47s intact. The relatively lightly armed(by German and British standards) plane with poor wingload and slow acceleration, that could barely out-turn an unloaded A-20 in real life, is suddenly a killing machine with heat-seeking missiles, or what?

In my allied campaign vs. the AI my P38s have kill ratio of 80:0, P47s 40:2 and p51s 55:2(one to flak) vs. mainly 109s and some 190s, flying all missions at 24,000ft or lower. I dont think this is exactly realistic results. Especially when a typical fighter unit of mine had morale between 60-70 and experience of 72.

EDIT: forgot to mention that I dont base-CAP or use sweep. All kills are protecting bombers, mainly B17s, that fly in 3-4 groups' formations. So far they have gone through the fighter screen two or three times, but the mighty 5 bombers I have lost were all stragglers(from mainly flak, I think). My B17s have kill ratio of almost 2/1, B24s 1,5/1.

[Hard Sarge]

Erkki

(tech isn't really the place for these kinds of talks, it hurts Harley trying to figure out what is going, issues and what not)

but so saying

not to be rude, but where are you getting your history info from ?

the 47 had one of the best roll rates of any plane made during the war, and at med to high alt, it was more then a match for either the 109 or the 190, it could easily out turn the 190, and was as good as the 109 in a turn, plus with it's better roll rate, besides, the fact that the Yanks, liked to skid there planes in a fight, which the LW trained there pilots not to do, also gives them a big edge

the biggest issue the 47 had, was at low alt, it was a poor climber, until the pattle blade came out, then it was dangerous at all alts

the B-17 could fly high (the 29 could fly even higher, a lot of late war work was done by the LW, to find something that could counter the 29 if it showed up)

the 110 could not, it didn't have the power, alt for the bombers is based on what the plane could do, the same with the fighters, I have many stats on the 110 that say it should only go to 26,000, some say up to 32,000, I went with the higher alt

I don't think you are thinking what happens at high alt, the bomber takes a lot of non combat damage if it flies high, and (other then for you)they have trouble hitting the target at high alt (luck or numbers, may give you a better chance)

[Peter Fisla]

How about locking the bombing altitude to 30k and be done with it  

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: kaybayray

Well I know everybody is thinkin it but not saying it so I will.


Hey Rusty,
Everybody but you is trying very hard to contribute to find an acceptable solution to an issue that you brought to this forum. I find your comments to those that are contributing very rude, obnoxious and over the top uncalled for. In all the years I have been involved with Matrix Games I have never seen Harley open the books like this and allow the community to analyze and offer input for potential changes. I believe you owe all here an appology for your behavior. I also think you should tone your provocative comments down a few notches and start contributing to the solution we all hope may result instead of just continuing to vomit on us all.

I appologize to the community for my scathing comments to Rusty. But I have raised 6 children and I just dont care to listen to his kind of rude behavior.

Regards,
KayBay

I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

I will leave this issue and not bring it up again. I didn't come to here to piss you or anyone off, just find out if this was a bug, something that is still unresolved.