Also, get on the fucking Discord, because I don't like explaining things twice.
This is not a Discord Game. It's a game, here, on the Bay12 forums. If you're going to use the Discord channel as a reason to exclude people, I'm going to petition Sensei to shut it down.
There's also Hs 293, BV 246, GB-8, Azon and LBD Gargoyle,, SS.10, Feuerlilie, Rheintochter and Rheinbote, Henschel Hs 117 Schmetterling, Henschel Hs 298,
Enzian, Wasserfall, Funryu, Ki-147 and Ki-148, Ke-Go, UB-2000F "Gull", Gorgon,, BQ-1, BQ-2 and BQ-3, Interstate TDR and Interstate XBDR, JB-4, KAN Little Joe, SAM-N-2 Lark, Republic-Ford JB-2, VB-3 Razon, ASM-A-1 Tarzon, GT-1, and metric fucton of more clandestine and not well known things like the https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hellmore.jpg]Helmore Projector.
Shotgun argumentation is inherently fallacious.
I don't have the time to go through all these. If you have 1 example that was :
1) Within our tech level (no postwar designs)
2) Widely deployed
3) A radio guided glidebomb
Post that one.
The Japanese fighters WERE a large advantage, yes. But AAA is still very deadly against TBs and, to a lesser extend, DBs, because they move directly at the target for extended periods of time. And remember: The game does not calculate every hit and miss, instead Sensei says "They have an antiaircraft cruiser. Aircraft that rely on getting in close lose effectiveness" according to his abstracted point system.
Which is a bigger argument against your glidebomb than against the Torpedo Bombers and Dive bombers.
Remember, you're not dealing with self guided ammunition here. You're dealing with a simplistic, radio guided divebomb. In order to work, you need to keep the plane stable and pointed at the target at all time. If you loose sight of the bomb, you miss it. There's no option for evasion.
Meanwhile, a Torpedo bomber and divebomber will come much closer with much higher relative velocity. This means that the guns have to adjust their aim much more often, instead of slowly zeroing in on the near standstill distant plane.
The closer you are, the faster you go, the harder it is to aim.
It IS, however, a surprise if the bomb is dropped from extreme range and then glided in. I don't care if it has to look like a glider to do it, or pack half a dozen rocket motors. It can do it from long range. Then it stops being "loitering recon aircraft" and turns into an attack from out of range.
It can't. It simply, can't.
Our radar has 30 km range. The enemy is similar. 30 Kilometers of range is beyond effective visual range, making a gliding bomb suprise non functional. Oh, and if the enemy sees a big plane loitering near them, they're going to shoot it. Our big planes are too much of a target not to be shot at.
We don't need to be hard-wearing if we can deploy dozens of Reckless Effects at high altitudes while simultaneously attacking them with Haasts. Their fighters will concentrate on the immediate threats much more than anything else, or they'll let the TBs through at much-reduced casualty rates.
Except we can't do that.
The Reckless Effect is noted for it's low fuel reserves. Coordinating a strike with a carrier based force will be nearly impossible, as the Reckless Effect has no staying time (if it can even reach) and must come flying in a long time before.
Is it easier to jam? Jamming does not destroy the signal, rather it makes it impossible to pick out amidst the noise. However, there are ways to bypass it. For instance, if our controls come in in a set number of patterns (Think morse code: If your computer does nothing but look for dot-dot-dash-dash-dot-dot-dot, it'll be more likely to get around the jamming. Again: Jamming creates noise. If you think of it as visual "noise", you're looking for a red flag being waved in the middle of a bunch of not-red-colored flags.) we can see it through the jamming...usually. You might get the odd signal picked out from the jamming, but it's not likely, and the signals we're sending are not very complex.
Jamming is easier, well, sometimes. You have to create a system that blanks ALL FM FREQUENCIES, since they don't know which particular frequencies we use. Also, it must create enough power to generate a zone of noise thousands of feet in diameter. Otherwise the missile can still hear it. And, even better, if we make it a relatively directional antennae on the missile (Dish style, maybe? Pointed backwards/upwards in vague fashion) it won't even "hear" the jamming. That'd likely be a neat additional design to improve our tech (Directional targeting practice, basically. Applications in radio and also gunlaying) and make it almost immune to jamming. Of course, it'd have to follow the circling aircraft.
Any issue can be solved, but it will mean spending ever more time and resources we do not have on this design.
The Nazi's spend 6 years to make guided missiles. The Allies had an effective jamming system in 6 months.
Whaddya mean, agile? Their Khornes and Victorias are about as agile as barn doors, and we're using GUIDED MUNITIONS. I don't care if it's got small correction windows, we can fix those if necessary. And not-very-agile doesn't mean "Unable to fly in general direction from long-distance based on radio contacts from spotter aircraft".
You're dramatically overstating the capabilities of course correction that your bomb will have. It's not going to be enough to be droppable from a cargo plane.
Fly steady? Whaddya mean, steady? The aircraft has to loiter, yes, but that does not mean "Fly straight path and ask to get shot down pretty-please".
Except it does.
The bomber was vulnerable to fighter attack as well as ship-based air defense weapons while maintaining a slow, steady course so the bombardier could maintain visual contact to guide the bomb
In the end, your glidebomb is a weapon that can only be used by 2 planes.
One outdated and shortranged bomber, the other a cargo plane never intended as a bomber.
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 591021 times)