seowhq.net

Hi all,

I'd like to take a moment and explain to those who don't know what is considered as dive bombing and skip bombing. I will use screenshots from the server track of mission 2 in Crete.

The former method is valid and encouraged in this campaign and the latter is not allowed.

Dive bombing



Skip bombing



My sincere salutations to Laurie, Geoff and Marty for a very well done and effective dive run. It is a shame that you guys weren't registered as ship killers in the stats, because you really deserved it.

The rate of loss from ship AA for the skip bombers was not worse or better than for the dive bombers, with only a slightly better hit ratio.
Honestly, I think that pilots who performed skip bombing would have done just as well if they abode by the rules of the campaign and went diving instead. So I see no reason whatsoever for them to continue breaking the rules.

My good friend Cmirko has a very wise phrase in his signature:

"Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit".

Something to think about.

Sorry Gentlemen but this is what is defined Skip Bombing:

"...Since there is a slight delay between hitting the release and the bomb falling away, our bomb will depart between 100 and 150 feet off of the water in a very shallow ballistic path. It’ll do one hop over the water and strike the ship at the water line..."

1 - 50 foot altitude, 300 mph, 140 mils in sight.
2 - Pull into vertical, releasing bomb.
3 - Bomb spashes then skips.
4 - boom!







I dont see nothing similar in Jg-54 attack who performed only a frontal dive (non skip (jump) of bomb in water).

If you don't allow also this attack, please specify the minimum angle of diving admitted (30° 60°) but in any case we are discussing about DIVING, NOT SKIPPING.
The skip tecnique is like above...



DEFINITION

Skip bombing was a low-level bombing technique developed by Italian pilot Giuseppe Cenni flying German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka aircraft during attacks on Allied ships off the coast of North Africa, between May and October 1941. After Pearl Harbor (December 1941), it was used against Imperial Japanese Navy warships and transports by Major William Benn of the 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group (Heavy), Fifth Air Force, United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific area theater during World War II. General George Kenney has been credited with being the first to use skip bombing with the U.S. Air Force.

The first time skip bombing was used by U.S. pilots was at the base of Rabaul on New Britain. The United States 5th Army Air Force used B-25 bombers to attack and destroy Japanese ships. It proved to be a highly effective method and received growing popularity. The only drawback was that it took a lot of skill to perfect; sometimes the bombs would detonate too soon, or in some cases, sink.

The bombing aircraft flew at very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)) at speeds from 200–250 mph (320–400 km/h; 170–220 kn). They would release a "stick" of two to four bombs, usually 500 lb (230 kg) or 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs equipped with four- to five-second time delay fuses at a distance of 60–300 ft (18–91 m) from the side of the target ship. The bombs would "skip" over the surface of the water in a manner similar to stone skipping and either bounce into the side of the ship and detonate, submerge and explode under the ship, or bounce over the target and explode as an air burst. All outcomes were found to be effective. Unlike "Upkeep" or "Highball", this technique used standard types.

You post makes me smile.

1.) Skip bombing requireds a bomb to skip on the water.
If a bomb crashes into the turrets or the deck it can hardly be called skipbombing.
On the photo that you declare as "Skip bombing", one can see a Ju-88 in the moment of the bomb drop. What you can´t see is the high speed approach and the angle of the plane to the gound.
The bomb on the photo hits the deck or the turret.
And if the ship weren´t there it would dive into the water.

2.) In the Axis part of the forum you have been discussing why and how not to attack ships.
After the 1. cruiser sunk you introduced the Skip bombing rule

No skip bombing against ships is allowed for any plane type.
Admin will review the tracks to prevent any abuse.
In case of abuse the ships destroyed in such a way will be resurrected and the naval rate of fire will be increased.

I instantly asked you for clarification as the 3 explanations given by you earlier on Axis forum are contradictory.

II/JG54_Emil wrote:

102nd-YU-devill wrote:Campaign rules update:

1. Skip bombing
No skip bombing against ships is allowed for any plane type.
Admin will review the tracks to prevent any abuse.
In case of abuse the ships destroyed in such a way will be resurrected and the naval rate of fire will be increased.

Now which one is it?
1. no bombing below 500m vs ships
2. no bombing below 500m vs ships, but Stukas or Ju-88 may are ok
3. No skip bombing against ships is allowed for any plane type.

So far no clarification was given.

But after the second cruiser is sunk, you declare it a skip bomb kill, which it is not.

"Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit." goes both ways, doesn´t it.

@Cipson,

What you describe is toss bombing with the bomb skipping the surface. This is not the only way you can skip bomb.

What was done in this mission is far from an attack angle of 30 to 60 degrees which you consider a dive. What was done was a near level run at ship mast height or just above. To my knowledge there is no other defined bombing technique that corresponds to this in reality. The closest one is the skip bombing as it is defined.

Historically, what the Italian guy who is credited with inventing this did was dive his Stuka to a point near the ship, level out at the last moment and release the bomb so that it skips and hits the side.

What russians and americans did from 1943 onwards was yet something completely different and involved many aircraft attacking in unison; some strafing the ship to suppress the flak, and one or two making a long steady low level run similar to a torpedo run but with planes approaching the ship much closer in order for the bombs to reach it when released. This was also done coming in from the low morning sun and aiming to surprise and blind the crew so that they can't fire effectively.

So, again what you are doing in IL2 has nothing whatsoever to do with historical methods. I am not aware of an attack method that JG54 is using being using historically against a warship task force.

Moreover Cipson, you need to decide which side you will support in this argument. Maraz and you agreed that these kind of methods will not be used. If you are talking about honor all the time don't be going off looking for loop holes but enforce the honor of agreement.

@Emil
1. What you are saying is not true. You can clearly see your attitude in the picture. You are almost level and at mast height. Call it what you want, but you have employed a typical skip bombing approach; you only did it very close to the target so your bombs didn't need to skip the surface.

If Maraz's original realistic bomb mode was still used, your bombs wouldn't activate since I believe he enforced a 4s flight time. Due to the public moaning on the banana forums the TD have cut this down to 2s and therefore you are able to do it, but in my mind this is no different than if the bombs skipped.

After the 1. cruiser sunk you introduced the Skip bombing rule

Ok Emil, I have explained to you and everyone else on the axis forums that this is not true. This rule has been agreed to the week before the mission 1. Either you don't want to understand this or you don't believe that what I am saying is true.

Which one is it? In both cases it is obvious that we have a problem.

@Both,

I suggested a rule of not dropping bombs from less than 500m alt unless in a typical (read: 60+ degrees) dive attack by dive brakes equipped aircraft.
That was designed to force a historical attack pattern with level bombers, which you are using to skip bomb. It is impossible to enforce a strict attack profile since I have no means of checking whether it has been specifically respected. This is why I proposed this 500m which is much more robust way to prevent extremely low level and dive attempts with planes which weren't designed or used for that.

You guys frowned upon that because it is not historical, yet use use attacks which as just as far from historical.

Basing your arguments on historical facts while disregarding other historical facts which aren't simulated in this engine is, in my opinion, pissing into the wind.

For anyone who claims to know history or aviation of this period it is quite easy to know and understand what are the attacks patterns used. Here it is just for the sake of being clear:

If you are a dive bomber, point your nose in a high angle dive (60-90) from medium altitude (1500-3000m), pull out brakes, steady your sight and release your bombs while in this attitude from any altitude between the minimum needed for pull out and maximum altitude needed for precision.

If you are a level bomber go to any medium-high altitude you believe is good for you, level out your plane, go into the bombsight and use the appropriate parameters to drop your bombs. Unfortunately in IL2 this is also possible from a very low altitude, since you don't risk your real lives and AI gunnery is what it is, therefore I ask that you respect the way it was really done and not exploit IL2 weakness and do it at least from 500m.

If you are a torpedo bomber it is pretty much straight forward, and I believe there is not much room there for any exploits.

There, in my opinion this is rather simple. As I said before, but unfortunately none of you seem to have noticed it, your results with a historical approach are not at all worse than with your extreme low level attacks. So what is the point of forcing this issue? Is it just that you want to prove the admin wrong and you right? I am sorry but you are not right in this issue. Nobody who advocates IL2 skip/low level bombing is right from a historical point of view since too many other factors are missing in this game.

Another issue that we are facing if you are employing these kind of attacks is that you force ships to fire on each other by flying so low. Is that historical? I don't believe so.

So, I am sorry guys but you have to understand that the campaign depends on these kind of compromises. These are not one sides mind you. The reds are also affected by this, and you can imagine that for them it would be much easier to skip bomb your unarmed transport full of panzers. The reds also don't have any dive bombers, so they are forced to do this only by level bombing or torpedo attacks.

Lastly, during the campaign design I was advised by people from the axis side to reduce the naval rate of fire. I did this, but this is not tenable if you employ IL2 engine weaknesses. However, due to other issues (such as ships firing directly onto other ships) I chose to listen to them and at the same time agree that no low level skip bombing stuff will be used.

If I put the ROF as 100% this will not prevent skip bombing, but will make life much more difficult for historical bombing techniques like a Stuka dive or an SM79 torpedo run. This is another reason why I would like to ban skip/low altitude bombing and convince you to use regular historical attack methods.

Really, you must learn to stop at one point and try to consider the full spectrum of issues when you are arguing a problem.

I think I have now exhausted the time I can invest in writing about this.

So let me ask you again nicely: please use only the bombing methods I pointed out to in this post. If you agree on that, I am at your disposal for a TS meeting at any time to discuss and clarify any issues with regard to that.

That's the best I can do for you.

yes, "it goes both ways" until you start talking to the campaign admin and template maker (he chooses the direction of wind don't forget and he can change it anytime he wishes).

Consider, the campaign you are currently playing is Devills work, he is setting the rules (whatever they may be) and he picks and chooses who, how and when will play it.

I would say that your nitpicking about technicalities of skip bombing attacks is actually rude and not productive at all. Maybe you should just take 500m as hard limit for any of your dive bombing attacks and be done with it ?

cheers


p.s. your attack profile would not even work in real life. you would be dead as a dodo from the flak and your bombs would not even be armed in the moment when they hit the ship. Please try and fly realistic attack profiles or don't fly at all.

Gentlemen,

I engaged my honour on respect of the following:


1. You asked us no bombing below 500m vs ships - we said OK

2. You asked us no bombing below 500m vs ships, but Stukas or Ju-88 may are ok - we said OK

3. No skip bombing against ships is allowed for any plane type. - we said OK

considering what we known about the definition of Skip Bombing:

"The bombing aircraft flew at very low altitudes (200–250 ft (61–76 m)) at speeds from 200–250 mph (320–400 km/h; 170–220 kn). The bombs would "skip" over the surface of the water in a manner similar to stone skipping and either bounce into the side of the ship and detonate..."

At that point I asked to my Crews to avoid accurately the 3 points up.
And they accurately respected.


But at this point, You ask us to respect a further limitation (not well clarified before):

4) "Devill: I suggested a rule of not dropping bombs from less than 500m alt unless in a typical (read: 60+ degrees) dive attack by dive brakes equipped aircraft. "

At this point, being this new request in contrast with the point 2) there are two questions:

A) How is the Rule that we have to respect ? Becouse at this point is evident that it is a NEW request (The contrast with the point 2 is evident)
Can Dive bombers release below 500m or not?

B) Will be my Crews in condition to perform a Vertical Dive with the heavy Ju-88?

This I don't know becouse I am not a Bomber Specialist.

CONCLUSION
In any case, the answer and the eventual agreement for this NEW rule, have to be discussed with my Brave Bomber Guys, in particular with their Leader, the Bomber Commander Maraz.

Regards

Cipson

102nd_HR_cmirko wrote:yes, "it goes both ways" until you start talking to the campaign admin and template maker (he chooses the direction of wind don't forget and he can change it anytime he wishes).

Consider, the campaign you are currently playing is Devills work, he is setting the rules (whatever they may be) and he picks and chooses who, how and when will play it.

I would say that your nitpicking about technicalities of skip bombing attacks is actually rude and not productive at all. Maybe you should just take 500m as hard limit for any of your dive bombing attacks and be done with it ?

Rude is the redefinition your own rules over and over again.

Rude is to ignore clarification requests of your own rule definintions while they are unclear and then put blame participants for not arbiding by somehing that is very unclear.

Rude is to twist and rediefine official definitions of bombing technics.

Nitpicking is what you 2 guys are showing here.

Being called in as a friend of devil, is not giving more weight or credibilty to your voice.
But certainly your bullying behavior here, emphasizing that devil is the admin and can do anything he desires, is childish and an insult the culture on this forum!

Cmirko and Emil, please avoid every confrontation not strictly Technical.

The question now is only in my conclusion:

CONCLUSION
In any case, the answer and the eventual agreement for this NEW rule, have to be discussed with my Brave Bomber Guys, in particular with their Leader, the Bomber Commander Maraz.

Therefore now we have to decide only if we are in condition to accept the new request and in what measure.

Remain is not important

Cheers Cip

CONCLUSION:

Cipson you are taking my comments from the Axis forum OUT OF CONTEXT.

If you want to resolve this problem bring Maraz and Gross and meet me on TS tonight because I really don't have time to respond to the forum during my work hours.

There are NO NEW rules, the only problem is your INTERPRETATION of the rules.

Since you have difficulty with this, and we are not in agreement let us meet on TS with Viff and Classic and Cmirko, and your team and discuss this.

Cheers!

P.S. If you are not happy with my rules as the admin and designer, I have no problem in STOPPING this campaign. I see it might be necessary because you all had 2 missions of terrible hardship and no fun and I don't want to force people to suffer by playing this monstrosity of a campaign that I concocted.

102nd-YU-devill wrote:There are NO NEW rules, the only problem is your INTERPRETATION of the rules.

It´s allways the others right?

The rule is: no skipbombing allowed, by any aircraft.

Skipbombing is skipping a bomb on the water.

However, what has been executed is a shallow dive (30°) attack. The bomb hit the deck or the turret, which is impossible when skipbombing.

There is no rule banning a shallow dive attack.

Banning shallow dive attacks now is basically a new rule.

II/JG54_Emil wrote: Rude is the redefinition your own rules over and over again.

Rude is to ignore clarification requests of your own rule definintions while they are unclear and then put blame participants for not arbiding by somehing that is very unclear.

Rude is to twist and rediefine official definitions of bombing technics.

Nitpicking is what you 2 guys are showing here.

Being called in as a friend of devil, is not giving more weight or credibilty to your voice.
But certainly your bullying behavior here, emphasizing that devil is the admin and can do anything he desires, is childish and an insult the culture on this forum!

I was not "called in" in any way or form. Admin of campaign makes the rules, as he pleases, if you don't like the rules, don't fly in campaign, the whole situation is as simple as that.


As admin, Devill has multiple tools to "put you in line or remove you" from the campaign. Considering above, why would you want to pick a fight with him ? This is not bullying, this is called Realpolitik and its the way all campaigns are envisioned and played in any kind of wargaming community. They who do the work necessary for others to play (read: ADMIN) define how the game will be played by players. i hope that's not too complicated for you ?

My credibility on this forum comes from 7 (or 8 now) years of SEOW and because I did help developers make the software with which you are playing this campaign (all of the software you use in this or other campaigns except TS3 ).
It also comes from at least 5 years of playing SEOW campaigns against Italian SEOW community and the respect I hold for them as virtual pilots and human beings.

Avoiding any personal confrontation, the problem remains, however has been produced or not understood:


4) "Devill: I suggested a rule of not dropping bombs from less than 500m alt unless in a typical (read: 60+ degrees) dive attack by dive brakes equipped aircraft. "


Therefore, trying to understand well, we have to decide if also our Dive Bombers (Ju-87 and Ju-88 ) have to remain over the 500 m (like the Level Bombers) and perform a vertical dive of more than 60 degrees...

In my opinon it seems an excessive limitation, but I am not an expert of bombing...

Anyway we will discuss it in TS directly.

Cipson

102nd_HR_cmirko wrote:

II/JG54_Emil wrote: Rude is the redefinition your own rules over and over again.

Rude is to ignore clarification requests of your own rule definintions while they are unclear and then put blame participants for not arbiding by somehing that is very unclear.

Rude is to twist and rediefine official definitions of bombing technics.

Nitpicking is what you 2 guys are showing here.

Being called in as a friend of devil, is not giving more weight or credibilty to your voice.
But certainly your bullying behavior here, emphasizing that devil is the admin and can do anything he desires, is childish and an insult the culture on this forum!

I was not "called in" in any way or form. Admin of campaign makes the rules, as he pleases, if you don't like the rules, don't fly in campaign, the whole situation is as simple as that.


As admin, Devill has multiple tools to "put you in line or remove you" from the campaign. Considering above, why would you want to pick a fight with him ? This is not bullying, this is called Realpolitik and its the way all campaigns are envisioned and played in any kind of wargaming community. They who do the work necessary for others to play (read: ADMIN) define how the game will be played by players. i hope that's not too complicated for you ?

My credibility on this forum comes from 7 (or 8 now) years of SEOW and because I did help developers make the software with which you are playing this campaign (all of the software you use in this or other campaigns except TS3 ).
It also comes from at least 5 years of playing SEOW campaigns against Italian SEOW community and the respect I hold for them as virtual pilots and human beings.

Oh wow more bullying and talkign down.
You may have a high credibility and may think you sit on tall pedestal.
But you mentality is embarassing.

No Cipson you misunderstood.

I wrote this in my response this morning:

If you are a dive bomber, point your nose in a high angle dive (60-90) from medium altitude (1500-3000m), pull out brakes, steady your sight and release your bombs while in this attitude from any altitude between the minimum needed for pull out and maximum altitude needed for precision.

So you don't have to pay attention to ALTITUDE as long as your flight ATTITUDE is correct for a dive bombing attack profile, which I take is usually and historically between 60 and 90 degrees.

But if you dive from 4000m down to 20m and then LEVEL out at 20m and drop your bombs, that is not OK.

So if you want to release your bombs when your angle of attack is between -10deg and +10 deg (what emil calls 30deg) then I would ask you to do it above 500m.

Cheers!

Wow! A bit too complicated for me, poor Hunter.

This is matter for our bombers specialist...

I need Maraz

Regards to everybody

Cipson