seowhq.net

I like the Classics idea. I dont think that anything needs to be forbidden. When we did Crete seow I didnt like baning skip-bombing.
Techniques are diferent from pilot to pilot not to mention airforce to airforce and so on.

Better make it rather hard and and not worth it then ban it completly!

In realism we trust.
Skip bombing in not realistic, it was not a bombing procedure in Mediterranean 41-43, so in my opinion, skip bombing had to be forbidden.

22GCT_Aquila wrote:In realism we trust.
Skip bombing in not realistic, it was not a bombing procedure in Mediterranean 41-43, so in my opinion, skip bombing had to be forbidden.

Thats fine for me, dont get me wrong its not a bad idea plus it will not mind to us because we do no boming at all

But, I am more afraid of restricting things,why? Because people dont like to be restricted and like to have the freedom to use their machines as they want. This is very similar in one way of having a rule that Tomahawks should go no higher the 4k, because as you said realisticly they didnt climb higher and they were fighting at low-medium altitude

22GCT_Aquila wrote:In realism we trust.
Skip bombing in not realistic, it was not a bombing procedure in Mediterranean 41-43, so in my opinion, skip bombing had to be forbidden.

It is not completely true; I should only remember a certain Giuseppe Cenni who was probably the first to do skip bombing and was flying on italian Ju87.
That's apart I am of the same opinion of Classic and Jack it's better to make something harder to do than forbid it at all.
Just my 2 cents.

Thank AStore for the news, I did not.
I read on wikipedia that Major Giuseppe Cenni (Stuka/Picciatello and RE 2002 pilot) devised ( mise a punto) a technique to skip bombing., but we do not know if it was actually used in military action, I never read about it.
However, it seems contradictory to make a historical context, a realistic planeset a realistic loadout and then not use the correct and realistic procedures bombing.
At this point, then I would be free to use a SM79 in skip bombing, which actually seems a little absurd.
All this is obviously just my opinion purely for the sake of argument.

From what I know Major Cenni did not make a skip bombing exactly as we are used to see in SEOW, flying Stukas/Picchiatelli he made the usual dive but he did not aim directly at the ship, instead he finished his dive at the flank then he leveled the plane and did the skip bombing and, always from what I know, he used this technique during the balkan campaigns.
However, it's true we start from an historical situation but we are also here to see if we can change the history, if not, blue side should be always destined to loose the game and it is not an encouraging perspective for the pilots, isn't it?

II/JG77_Jack wrote:I like the Classics idea. I dont think that anything needs to be forbidden. When we did Crete seow I didnt like baning skip-bombing.
Techniques are diferent from pilot to pilot not to mention airforce to airforce and so on.

Better make it rather hard and and not worth it then ban it completly!

AMVI quote II/JG77 !!!

An example of skip bombing on hearth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kky9PBtsLwI

A trial of the tecnic :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcoBw1Gb_Ik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKt_SQuqQug


... as usual movies of those who lose the war can not be found ...

but one i found too :

Go to minutes 5:00 , take an eye at 6:00 and 6:55

this removes all doubt :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgpIxwtjJNI


S!

22GCT_Aquila wrote:However, it seems contradictory to make a historical context, a realistic planeset a realistic loadout and then not use the correct and realistic procedures bombing.
At this point, then I would be free to use a SM79 in skip bombing, which actually seems a little absurd.
All this is obviously just my opinion purely for the sake of argument.

That is very elitist, you cant or shouldnt tell other people what they will or will not do. (Obviously I dont mean clear rule breaking and unfair playing).
What are you saying decreases enjoyment and training/practicing aspect in which a lot of people enjoy. Point of it is find the best solution on how to achieve your goals. You cant forbid one or the other technique of attacking or flying, its just wrong.

At the end of the day, go ahead and try skip bombing in SM79, you will not have a good time
I am just saying that most of these planes are designed for the purpose you are forcing (realistic technique), while only a few (maybe) can perform "unrealistic" attacking patterns as you say.

Again, like Astore said, we dont even need to fly the campaign if we are to set everything like it was. I think the idea of all squads need to be to do better then in the real thing, therefore changing the end result.Thats what it makes it fun, nothing else.

As per my experience in Crete, I believe it is very hard or very unpopular to ban certain modes of flying and fighting in IL2.

Therefore, I would put the naval rate of fire to the maximum and let people do whatever they wish to do. So, in my opinion, impose no rules and set ROF on at least 2, or if less must be used due to server load put all ships to ACE status.

102nd-YU-devill wrote:As per my experience in Crete, I believe it is very hard or very unpopular to ban certain modes of flying and fighting in IL2.

Therefore, I would put the naval rate of fire to the maximum and let people do whatever they wish to do. So, in my opinion, impose no rules and set ROF on at least 2, or if less must be used due to server load put all ships to ACE status.

Very nice suggestion.

First post updated.

Interesting discussion!

I would have just a few more words about subs.

I`m awared about issues that are connected with subs in SEOW, but my personal opinion is that the speed of 2kmh when submerged is rather too low. If I`m not completely wrong, average cruising submerged speed of subs was something about 4kmh. I think that is just right speed for submerged subs, becouse that would still solve subs assotiated issues, and they will not be completely useles when submerged, which could be the case with speed of 2kmh.

102nd-YU-Mornar wrote:I would have just a few more words about subs.

I`m awared about issues that are connected with subs in SEOW, but my personal opinion is that the speed of 2kmh when submerged is rather too low. If I`m not completely wrong, average cruising submerged speed of subs was something about 4kmh. I think that is just right speed for submerged subs, becouse that would still solve subs assotiated issues, and they will not be completely useles when submerged, which could be the case with speed of 2kmh.

The system is build such that you will need to move on the surface if you want to get there "fast" and when submerged, you will travel very slow.
2km/h over 2h15 missions will let you move about 6-7km (depending on weather too).

Being able to move too quickly submerged will make subs too effective and, remember, they are vurtually indistructable when submerged.

All this should promote moving a sub to a location and then leaving it there in the hope of catching a convoy.

Yes, I understood your point, I just thought, maybe 4kmh isn`t too quick. Naval commander still have to go on surface for long range marching, in order to put his subs in ambush. But where I see problem is that if the commander, in one mission, see that the ambush will miss convoy route for more then 6km (quite possible concidering the map size) then there is no way to correct subs position in next mission and try to engage the convoy since the transports are pretty fast. Of course, this kind of correction should be done in submerged regime or ambush will lose element of surprise.
With the speed of 4 kmh, these small corrections could be made since the subs could move for 8-9km (or less) during the mission, and this is more then enough. If commander miss the convoy for more then 10-12km he will just have to move them surfaced.

Hi Mornar, I know what you mean and I think the current setting allow for those small corrections. Basically, you want to have more margin to intercept while I don't want to give you that margin

This is not going to change mate.

Cheers,
Petr