Firstly,what was the mindset in bombing in WW1.My procedure in the Aviatak is first to set up targets so that I get a lot of them lined up in front on plane in straight line and then I come in low over target and when the first building,tent etc passes thru I release the bombs.If this is not the way they did it and they bombed from altitude then how did they aim thru the cutaway as the target you see is long gone by the time bombs impact?BTW love the tube where you drop the bombs in the Aviatak.

Also,while I have a thread open I just wanna point out there may be a bug in the Aviatak loadout.It says 8-5kg bombs but you only drop 2 bombs.

Bombing done by aircraft was highly inaccurate in WW1, and because even the heaviest of bombers could carry only a very limited bombload by later standards, bombing never had as big an impact on the fighting as it did in WW2. Bombsights for high altitude level bombing were developed during the war, but there was never anything even remotely comparable to the precision bombings of later decades. Technology and methods were simply too primitive to achieve greater accuracy.

As far as I know, the small bombs like the ones carried by Aviatiks and Rolands were mostly used in low altitude attacks against enemy troops and positions. You had a better chance of actually causing some damage with a small bomb when you dropped it from a low altitude against targets that you could see well. In 1917 and 1918, the Germans made good use of specialized ground attack squadrons that strafed enemy troops with machine guns, bombs and even hand grenades.

The Aviatik's main role was never bombing. They were mostly used for recon and arty spotting work.

I just went into quick mission and checked this out. Youre right, just two bombs.
I even used the "refill selected weapon" command, just in case the crew had to load bombs two at a time, and the refill command didn't load any more bombs.

I was Not using unlimited ammo.

Inaccurate bombing done with crazy techniques like the tube in cockpit you drop the small bombs thru,or the grenades over the sides.

Bombing in the Aviatek would of been very hard to do in real life but is actually harder in WOFF for a few reasons.The Aviatak.C1 has the observer in front(was switched in the C1A for obvious reasons)who is always standing up and hence severely blocks your view.Then the cockpit is very wide and there is a limit for how much horizontal movement with trackir so you can't look around this obstacle easily.Its inaccuracy coupled with the plane being toothless with just 2 out of its 8 bombs simulated makes it for a frustrating ride.And the other German bombers that carry the small bombs,Hannover CIII and Rumpler CIV are only getting the 2 instead of 8-5kg bombs but they are much easier to put bombs on target.If not an engine limitation I would think this should be fixed.

When I got around to the DFW.C.V though I could see why it was much loved.The huge radiator right in your face would be so annoying but when you think about attacking an airfield with guns shooting at you its nice to have a huge chunk of metal as protection.And when leaning to the left with this plane its very easy to drop the 3 massive 50kg bombs where you want them.Also,when the three 50kg bombs were carried they flew it without the observer which I would like to see that in WOFF.I think having to choose heavy damage over protection is great for immersion.

One final thing I noticed messing around with them is they seem to quickly get fuel lines severed and forcing you to land right next to airfield your attacking.I would think that these planes were designed to withstand more damage to front engine area.

I tried putting unlimited ammo to allow practice but that doesn't seem to work with bombs.Would be nice to practice with.

Jumped back to a German bomber career I had saved to do a few missions.Something stood out to me and I wonder what your opinions are about it.Firstly,I was not squad leader and so I followed along in my Aviatik C.1. When near the target I noticed that we were at 5000ft and that my squad then dropped their payload at this altitude.So what was bomber technique of the day,if anyone knows?

Another thing I wonder about is how the tactic of the day for fighters to deal with the two seaters was to not attack from the rear and instead instructed to always attack from underneath or a head on pass and diving away.Reading about this tactic for fighters I assume that the two seater planes were told to stay low as a viable tactic since this limits the enemy from only being able to do head on passes.

Wouldn't 1000ft be better tactic for bombers?1000ft is good since you can fly over no mans land with less chance of ground fire hitting you and when near the target you have a slightly better chance of hitting targets.

I have tried to Google WW1 bombing tactics but nothing I have found goes deep into the tactics.

.

As a general rule NML was crossed at an altitude of at least 4,000' to 5,000' and as the target was approached you would dive down to your bombing altitude. This was of course for the low-alt bombing tactics, 200' to 1,000' or so. The hi-alt bombing varied from about 6,000' up to heights of 14,000' to 16,000'. Gothas, DH9s, DH4s and the like operated at the very high end of the bombing alt range which kept them out of reach of most enemy scouts. For the actual 'bombers' early war bombing alts were lower, later war they were much higher due to improvements in the aeroplanes themselves and the bomb sights available. As noted by Hasse, none of it was terribly accurate.

.

Thanks for the excellent reply Lou and wow,that's crazy that the scouts couldn't reach the large bombers when they flew at the higher end of their ceilings.Its great that they were not accurate!!Now I cant wait to see what flying the Gotha's and zeppelin's will be like and flying from both sides of the envelope.

As for the AI bombing at high altitudes with low altitude bombs I will just fly always as flight leader to clear this up.Funny,never been a bomber type in any sim I have ever played but WOFF just causes different stuff to churn in the noggin.I gotta say though that a reconnaissance flight is soooo boring!Just finished one and almost fell asleep at my chair and my body is screaming at me to get into a fighter!! I do like the bombing missions though.

Well, not so much that the fighters couldn't reach the higher altitudes, but that if they were trying to intercept from their aerodrome, by the time they got up to altitude, the bombers would be on their way home, particularly given the speed of aircraft like the DH4 or the Rumpler. It becomes a cat and mouse game, where the defenders try and guess where the bombers are headed when they cross the lines, and try to have a unit in position to attack somewhere along the way. A very hit and miss affair. Or follow McCudden's example, and spend endless hours in the air, waiting for your chance
Cheers
Shredward

.

Yes, thank you for that clarification Shredward. I did not mean that the scouts were physically capable of getting to those alts but rather they did not usually have time to before the enemy bombers had already scampered.

.

Would love to know how many bombers flying at high altitude were shot down then.Also,was wondering if they dive bombed in WW1 and found this.I guess the squad I was flying with was flying against their commanders urges and dropping at cruise alt.

Origins

It is difficult to establish how dive bombing came into being. The Royal Flying Corps on the Western Front found its biplane two seat bombers insufficiently accurate. Commanders urged pilots to dive from their cruising altitude to under 500 ft (150 m) to have a better chance of hitting small targets, such as gun emplacements and trenches.[10] As this exposed the aircraft and crew to destructive ground fire in their unprotected open cockpits, few chose to follow this order. Some recorded altitude at the top and bottom of their dive in log books and squadron records, but not the steepness of the dive. It was certainly not near vertical, as these early aircraft could not withstand the stresses of a sustained vertical dive.[11]

The Royal Naval Air Service was targeting the Zeppelin sheds in Germany and occupied Belgium and found it worthwhile to dive onto these sheds to ensure a hit, despite the increased casualties from ground fire. The angle of dive in these attacks was again not recorded.[10]

The Royal Flying Corps ordered large numbers of the Sopwith TF.2 Salamander, a single seat biplane, just as the war was ending. The TF stood for “Trench Fighter” and it was designed to attack German trenches with both Vickers .303 machine guns and 25 lb (11 kg) bombs. Whether it should be considered in more modern parlance as a fighter-bomber or a dive bomber again depends on the definition of dive. It had armoured protection for the pilot and fuel system to attack at low level but lacked dive brakes for a vertical dive. The war ended before it could see action.[12]

I do a decent near vertical dive in the Strutter but only for a few seconds with engine on idle. No clue if this historically accurate, it is just works for me in WOFF.


The bombsight on the DFW works well for me. The #%&*$# is lining up and flying straight unmolested by EA or flak.

Haven't tried the Rumpler yet or the Bisfit in WOFF.

Wow never checked the Rumpler and did just now and I look forward to flying it as it has a great cockpit.Haven't used a bombsight yet as I am stuck in the Aviatik.What I have done today though is to put ground accuracy on hard as I feel that you should be wary of it.On normal and I don't even think about it which is not good for the old immersion.Now I am debating on putting my rear gunner to accurate.Gotta test some more.

I find the WOFF version of the DFW to be more visablity friendly than the OFF version.
I'll try the Rumpler now too.

Never had OFF so I cant compare but I take your word for it.Having a blast in QC attacking two seaters in a scout.Having a not so good time while flying a two seater and getting pounced on by scouts though.They just dont fire alot and its just short bursts and then they stare at enemy until our craft explodes into flames and we fall to ground screaming like crazy.IMO two seaters would be better represented by less accuracy but much more firing of weapons.