How to Make High Altitude Interesting

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

With the next expansion being Bodenplatte, I feel like this discussion needs to happen.

 

In the game's current state, the focus of the battle is at low altitude, for three reasons.

 

1: Objectives are on the ground

2: Russian fighters perform best at low altitudes against German fighters

3: Most people would rather dive bomb from 1-2k than climb to 5-6k for level bombing

 

Which is fine, it works for the game's current plane set.

 

However, with Bodenplatte we are getting fighters like the P-51D, the P-47D (let's be honest this thing is going to be used mostly for ground attack), and the FW-190D. These fighters are optimized for high altitude, high speed fights. The two former were designed to escort bombers at high altitude. The latter was designed to intercept those bombers, at high altitude.

 

This brings me to the topic at hand: something needs to be done to move at least part of the battle to high altitude, so that these fighters can really shine. Anyone who tries to fight a competent K-4 pilot in a P-51 or P-47 below 2k is going to get creamed. Similarly, anyone who tries to fight an LF Mk. IX in a Dora at low altitude will, once again, get creamed.

 

Thus far, I have one idea: Use the AI B-25's. On multiplayer servers, part of a mission could involve a flight of AI B-25's spawning from the edge of the map, going to bomb a specific target. Allies would be tasked defending the bomber flight, Axis would be tasked with intercepting and destroying it.

 

This is just what I have thought of, and I would love to hear any other ideas. On the other hand, if you think that we don't need to make high altitude more interesting, I would like to know why :).

[Gambit21]

Yes we'll be making good use of the B-25.

We've talked about this before - not much else to say right now really.

[[CPT]Crunch]

There isn't going to be a high speed, high altitude fight if the visual contact distance isn't increased.  By the time you spot and attempt maneuver to merge, they'll already be out of the bubble and gone.

[Y-29.Silky]

6 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

These fighters are optimized for high altitude, high speed fights. The two former were designed to escort bombers at high altitude. The latter was designed to intercept those bombers, at high altitude.

Anyone who tries to fight a competent K-4 pilot in a P-51 or P-47 below 2k is going to get creamed.

 

 

This War Thunder myth needs to die.

 

American fighters were high altitude because that's where the bombers were. Bodenplatte happened on the deck.

With that said, high altitude, contrail dogfights are the most enjoyable but the only reason it's going to be a race to high altitude is to counter Me-262's.

 

 

[Gambit21]

Crunch - I don't have that issue - not sure if the 4K monitor is the reason...

I can spot aircraft well before engagement is possible.

 

I really don't see the problem 

[Eicio]

In Bobp I doubt things will change:

 

The objectives are on the ground (airfield strafing) 

No heavy bomber, without them nobody has a reason to go to space, it'd be pointless.

[Horna]

B-25 would be a dream, I wonder how costly it would be to develop it, as we have the A-20 now. It would certainly give more incentive for higher alt flying, but probably would need air spawn for bombers aswell. It would certainly fit most possible theaters too.

[Wolfram-Harms]

37 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

By the time you spot and attempt maneuver to merge, they'll already be out of the bubble and gone.

 

In real war, the pilots were told where to fly, before they even saw the bomber flight - long before.
That can be done also in the sim.

[Poochnboo]

51 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

7 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

Anyone who tries to fight a competent K-4 pilot in a P-51 or P-47 below 2k is going to get creamed.

 

  There were a bunch of guys flying Blue Nosed P-51's out of a field near Asch Belgium, code named A-29, that would probably argue with ya about that. 

[Max_Damage]

Correction D9 will absolutely dominate the spitfire lf9 at low alt.

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

I realized that Bodenplatte was the Germans' operation to gain air superiority by destroying airfields, but that doesn't change the fact that 5 of the 10 planes we are getting in Bodenplatte were designed specifically for high altitudes, and it would be a real handicap to relegate these aircraft to low altitude operation simply because that's the meta.

 

Also: 

1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

  There were a bunch of guys flying Blue Nosed P-51's out of a field near Asch Belgium, code named A-29, that would probably argue with ya about that. 

 

I said a competent 109 pilot. I wouldn't say that most of those 109 pilots were competent, not at that point in the war.

[Gambit21]

The 352nd flew bomber escort missions from Belgium when they were not tasked to other duties by the 9th Air Force.

They took off from Y-29 or Cheivres, met the bombers over Belgium, escorted into Germany and parted ways again when the bombers were back over friendly territory...which was again Belgium.

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

What bombers?  Closing speeds of a 262 vs Mustang full out at altitude is what?  1000 ++ Kph, you have a few seconds to spot and do something before you lose sight, than good luck trying to find him if he don't want to be found. 

[Finkeren]

7 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

There isn't going to be a high speed, high altitude fight if the visual contact distance isn't increased.  By the time you spot and attempt maneuver to merge, they'll already be out of the bubble and gone.

 

Unfortunately I’ll have to agree with this.

 

Current draw distances for objects is incompatible with high altitude, high speed operations.

 

15km draw distance would be acceptable, 20km would be optimal.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

What bombers?  

 

Heavies from Britian - same as always.

[Ehret]

2 hours ago, Finkeren said:

15km draw distance would be acceptable, 20km would be optimal.

 

Even more for spotting contrails when weather is good. 

[Finkeren]

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Even more for spotting contrails when weather is good. 

 

Draw distance for contrails is already a lot longer than for objects.

[Wolfram-Harms]

3 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Closing speeds of a 262 vs Mustang full out at altitude is what?  1000 ++ Kph, you have a few seconds to spot and do something before you lose sight, than good luck trying to find him if he don't want to be found. 

 

I don't think they chased after the jets. They were there to protect the bombers.
Best way to do that was to fly high enough to have some good speed gain in a dive on the attacking jet.
I guess there was a slight chance to get close to a jet, which pulled up while the Mustangs came down.

A very slight chance though.

[hames123]

Why do Americans always talk about Y-29 when trying to show the supposed "Supremacy" of the USAF fighters. I am not a Luftwaffle, but at the same time stomping a bunch of barely trained pilots is not exactly a great example. 

 

And then you get the people who say that 50 cals can kill a Tiger or that the P-51 can "fly circles" around a Spit. Why?

[sevenless]

16 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

There isn't going to be a high speed, high altitude fight if the visual contact distance isn't increased.  By the time you spot and attempt maneuver to merge, they'll already be out of the bubble and gone.

That´s true. We need a 20 km spotting distance for this. With 10km distance this doesn´t make much sense. Well they increased the horizon to 150km, maybe they have an idea or two about this also? Future will tell.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, hames123 said:

Why do Americans always talk about Y-29 when trying to show the supposed "Supremacy" of the USAF fighters. I am not a Luftwaffle, but at the same time stomping a bunch of barely trained pilots is not exactly a great example. 

 

And then you get the people who say that 50 cals can kill a Tiger or that the P-51 can "fly circles" around a Spit. Why?

 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, hames123 said:

Why do Americans always talk about Y-29 when trying to show the supposed "Supremacy" of the USAF fighters. I am not a Luftwaffle, but at the same time stomping a bunch of barely trained pilots is not exactly a great example. 

 

And then you get the people who say that 50 cals can kill a Tiger or that the P-51 can "fly circles" around a Spit. Why?

inferiority complex? Seriously read what Christer Bergstrom has to say about Bodenplatte:

 

From: Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen12650-12662). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

"Overall, Operation ’Bodenplatte’ actually allows itself to be described as the War Diary for III. Gruppe/ Jagdgeschwader 3 put it, as the Luftwaffe’s last major victory. Without doubt, the operation gave a dividend that probably can be considered significantly higher than what might have been expected given the average poor standard of the participating pilots—no doubt the result of good and professional planning on the German side. It produced, in Hajo Herrmann’s words, ’a result that was not possible through air combat.’ While it may not have been quite as Pierre Clostermann put it, that the entire tactical aviation was almost paralyzed for more than a week—during the following week, more bad weather was what mainly kept the Allied tactical aircraft on the ground—the losses on the Allied side of course gave the German ground forces in the Ardennes a certain relief. The final verdict is that ’Bodenplatte,’ like the Ardennes Offensive, after all, may be considered as the most rational move on the basis of Hitler’s perspective. It is difficult to see how the II. Jagdkorps could have been more effectively used at the turn of 1944/1945; the objection that ’Bodenplatte’—or for that matter the Ardennes Offensive—failed to bring about a new turning point in the war is senseless: Overall, the most rational from the German people’s perspective had neither been to concentrate forces on the Western Front or to the defense in the East, or to despatch all fighters against the American bombers, but it would have been to make peace as soon as possible, because the war was irrevocably lost. However, this could not have been the Nazi dictator’s perspective."

 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, hames123 said:

And then you get the people who say that 50 cals can kill a Tiger or that the P-51 can "fly circles" around a Spit. Why?

 

Assuming long enough radius (and time) of the circle, the P-51 can fly around a Spit, indeed. However, probably it's not what they meant...

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, hames123 said:

Why do Americans always talk about Y-29 when trying to show the supposed "Supremacy" of the USAF fighters. 

 

Are you quite finished with your whining, uncalled for non-sequitur tantrum?

If so maybe you can grow up and join the actual conversation that's happening.

 

 

 

[Gambit21]

58 minutes ago, sevenless said:

inferiority complex? Seriously read what Christer Bergstrom has to say about Bodenplatte:

 

From: Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen12650-12662). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

"Overall, Operation ’Bodenplatte’ actually allows itself to be described as the War Diary for III. Gruppe/ Jagdgeschwader 3 put it, as the Luftwaffe’s last major victory. Without doubt, the operation gave a dividend that probably can be considered significantly higher than what might have been expected given the average poor standard of the participating pilots—no doubt the result of good and professional planning on the German side. It produced, in Hajo Herrmann’s words, ’a result that was not possible through air combat.’ While it may not have been quite as Pierre Clostermann put it, that the entire tactical aviation was almost paralyzed for more than a week—during the following week, more bad weather was what mainly kept the Allied tactical aircraft on the ground—the losses on the Allied side of course gave the German ground forces in the Ardennes a certain relief. The final verdict is that ’Bodenplatte,’ like the Ardennes Offensive, after all, may be considered as the most rational move on the basis of Hitler’s perspective. It is difficult to see how the II. Jagdkorps could have been more effectively used at the turn of 1944/1945; the objection that ’Bodenplatte’—or for that matter the Ardennes Offensive—failed to bring about a new turning point in the war is senseless: Overall, the most rational from the German people’s perspective had neither been to concentrate forces on the Western Front or to the defense in the East, or to despatch all fighters against the American bombers, but it would have been to make peace as soon as possible, because the war was irrevocably lost. However, this could not have been the Nazi dictator’s perspective."

 

 

I hope you're not insinuating that the only "complexes" to be found are by the Allies, or Americans etc...for I see evidence of other complexes in the immediate vicinity.

 

I also think Bergstrom needs to realize who planned Boddenplatte and for what purpose.

It wasn't the German people, and it wasn't to bring peace.

 

Just because a person wrote something down and got it published doesn't make it true - and in this case Bergstrom is quite easy to refute. He seems to have his own ax to grind, and he waffles a bit trying to hide it.

"this could not have been the Nazi dictator's perspective"

 

Well no shit - why go on about what the people would have wanted? Were they planning the war?

Did Bodenplatte achieve it's overall objective? Was it planned to slow a handful of squadrons down ( it certainty didn't slow the 352nd) down for a week? 

No - it failed in its ultimate purpose.

The Germans emerged with even fewer pilots and achieved basically nothing from a strategic perspective - sorry Christor Bergstrom.

 

If "it's written" is all that matters, then I guess .50's were killing tanks all day long.

 

Cant have it both ways.

 

And no Y-29 was not evidence of anything but extremely green German pilots, but it was nonetheless a spectacular event....especially for the ground crews who got to witness it.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Gambit21

[sevenless]

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I hope you're not insinuating that the only "complexes" to be found are by the Allies, or Americans etc...for I see evidence of other complexes in the immediate vicinity.

 

I also think Bergstrom needs to realize who planned Boddenplatte and for what purpose.

It wasn't the German people, and it wasn't to bring peace.

 

Just because a person wrote something down and got it published doesn't make it true - and in this case Bergstrom is quite easy to refute. He seems to have his own ax to grind.

If "it's written" is all that matters, then I guess .50's were killing tanks all day long.

 

Cant have it both ways.

 

You know there is a difference between researched publications and memoires, don´t you? If not that speaks for you. I don´t think Bergstrom has an axe to grind, why would he. What would be his motives? He presents well researched and reasoned data. Read the publication and make up your mind.

[Gambit21]

He's a good author, don't get me wrong. I think many others disagree with the particular passage you quoted is all.

I'll leave the "why would he?" alone since last time I checked he was in fact a human being.

Going off on a tangent here but much research comes ultimately from veteran accounts is the point - but let's not go down the rabbit hole.

 

The fact that the Allies and the 9th Air Force kept marching toward Berlin while barely missing a beat is the most telling evidence that Boddenplatte didn't end up pencilling out.

 

 

[Poochnboo]

37 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Without doubt, the operation gave a dividend that probably can be considered significantly higher than what might have been expected

What dividend? What, in the long run, was accomplished? 300 Allied aircraft were destroyed. Replacements were already being flown in the next day. Ninth Air Force and 2ND Tactical Air Force were airborne the next day. 8th Air Force, of course, wasn't even afftected. Europe was experiencing it's worst winter in 20 years so much of the flying had to be curtailed, anyway. Losses or not. And if, say, the Tactical Air Forces on the Continent had been very badly hurt, 8th Air Force Fighter groups could have flown tactical missions until all of their losses had been replaced. I don't see this as a great victory because I just don't see that much was accomplished by it. 

[Gambit21]

Yep

[sevenless]

41 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

The fact that the Allies and the 9th Air Force kept marching toward Berlin while barely missing a beat is the most telling evidence that Boddenplatte didn't end up pencilling out.

 

Yep. I think the pretty good fleshed out point he makes with his book comes down to this:

 

Given the generally abysmal bad skill of german pilots (training was bad, very bad) at that point of time Bodenplatte was the best the Luftwaffe was able to achieve against the allied air forces. Would they have used the remaining available combat power against the bomber streams which were frequently covered by fighters 3:1 (3 fighters per bomber) the Luftwaffe would have suffered even worse. So Gallands plan of the "Big Blow" was unrealistic to say the least. He brings an interesting example for this hypothesis:

 

On 27 November 1944 the 8th Air Force despatched force of 483 heavy bombers, escorted by 730 fighters, against rail targets in Germany. On that day, the Luftwaffe employed every available fighter plane in a maximum effort to repel the American attack. According to Allied estimates, 750 German fighters—a record number, never to be reached again—were pitted against the American formations.44

44 Freeman, The Mighty Eighth, p. 195.

Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen12488-12492). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

The result of this massive German effort represents a devastating verdict on the capability of the German fighter aviation at this time: the German fighter pilots managed to shoot down not even one of the nearly five hundred American bombers, but were locked into bitter air fighting with the American fighter escort, which according to the German sources resulted in the shooting down of eighty-one German and only ten U.S. fighter planes.45 The American fighter pilots reported how they had ’attacked the novice [German] formations that stupidly clung together while Mustangs shot them down.’46

46 Freeman, p. 195.

Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen12492-12493). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

Interestingly the Germans were quite realistic about what could and couldn´t be achieved:

 

’The operation had a preventive nature, as a surprising tactical assault, and was well prepared… In this way we hoped to achieve an effect that would not have been possible through air combat.’41

41 Herrmann, p. 381.

Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen19081-19082). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

And then we also have Pierre Clostermanns view on the whole affair:

 

The 500-600 Allied aircraft put out of action by the Luftwaffe through ’Bodenplatte’ was a result that the Germans by this time never would have been able to achieve in air combat at a price of 280 own aircraft. Pierre Clostermann is absolutely certain in his review of ’Bodenplatte’: ’This operation had been brilliantly worked out and superbly executed. […] The Luftwaffe’s success, won at the cost of 280 or so machines, succeeded in nearly paralysing the tactical air force for more than one week’47

47 Clostermann, p. 218.

Bergstrom, Christer. The Ardennes, 1944-1945 (Kindle-Positionen12518-12522). Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. Kindle-Version.

 

[konate]

Echo chamber.....

[catchthefoxes]

I just want to play it...

[JG13_opcode]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:30 AM, itsthatguy said:

With the next expansion being Bodenplatte, I feel like this discussion needs to happen.

 

In the game's current state, the focus of the battle is at low altitude, for three reasons.

 

1: Objectives are on the ground

2: Russian fighters perform best at low altitudes against German fighters

3: Most people would rather dive bomb from 1-2k than climb to 5-6k for level bombing

 

Which is fine, it works for the game's current plane set.

 

However, with Bodenplatte we are getting fighters like the P-51D, the P-47D (let's be honest this thing is going to be used mostly for ground attack), and the FW-190D. These fighters are optimized for high altitude, high speed fights. The two former were designed to escort bombers at high altitude. The latter was designed to intercept those bombers, at high altitude.

 

This brings me to the topic at hand: something needs to be done to move at least part of the battle to high altitude, so that these fighters can really shine. Anyone who tries to fight a competent K-4 pilot in a P-51 or P-47 below 2k is going to get creamed. Similarly, anyone who tries to fight an LF Mk. IX in a Dora at low altitude will, once again, get creamed.

 

Thus far, I have one idea: Use the AI B-25's. On multiplayer servers, part of a mission could involve a flight of AI B-25's spawning from the edge of the map, going to bomb a specific target. Allies would be tasked defending the bomber flight, Axis would be tasked with intercepting and destroying it.

 

This is just what I have thought of, and I would love to hear any other ideas. On the other hand, if you think that we don't need to make high altitude more interesting, I would like to know why :).

 

The only thing that'll improve high altitude is high altitude bombing.

 

The only way to improve/encourage that is to fix the 10 km bubble issue.  There's simply no way to bomb from altitude without it, that's why most don't even try and why you see He 111s dive-bombing and getting chewed up by Yaks.

[Gambit21]

22 minutes ago, JG13_opcode said:

 

The only thing that'll improve high altitude is high altitude bombing.

 

The only way to improve/encourage that is to fix the 10 km bubble issue.  There's simply no way to bomb from altitude without it, that's why most don't even try and why you see He 111s dive-bombing and getting chewed up by Yaks.

 

AI bombers fortunately are not hampered by such concerns, and it's AI that will be flying the B-25's.

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Out of curiosity, how many people made it a point to chase the high altitude AI bombers in Rise of Flight?  Because my experience is that most people in multiplayer just ignore AI aircraft.

[CrazyDuck]

On 20. 4. 2018 at 5:30 PM, itsthatguy said:

Thus far, I have one idea: Use the AI B-25's. On multiplayer servers, part of a mission could involve a flight of AI B-25's spawning from the edge of the map, going to bomb a specific target. Allies would be tasked defending the bomber flight, Axis would be tasked with intercepting and destroying it.

 

A neat idea - with all the tools at hand. However, those seeking air quake will just take off and blast it away at low altitudes. High alt spawn points for player controlled fighters might help.

[Gambit21]

13 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

A neat idea - with all the tools at hand. However, those seeking air quake will just take off and blast it away at low altitudes. High alt spawn points for player controlled fighters might help.

 

I made and hosted a few high alt B-17 escort/attack co-op missions back in the day.

Air start is the only way to go for those.

[Wolfram-Harms]

6 hours ago, hames123 said:

And then you get the people who say that 50 cals can kill a Tiger or that the P-51 can "fly circles" around a Spit. Why?

 

EVERYthing is BIGGER in America - even their mouths!

 

 

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

EVERYthing is BIGGER in America - even their mouths!

 

All 330 million of us are sorry.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

When in doubt resort to nationalism................................