PDA

View Full Version : Best Bomber Intercepter?



DomJScott
09-28-2006, 02:30 PM
OK Guys, had this one brewing at the back of my mind for a while since I did some testing on it and wondered what you guys would say is the best, player Flyable, Propeller driven Intercepters in IL2 (well IL2+addons - not including Pe2 :P). For the record my listing is :-

Top 4 :-
Beaufighter
i-185
Tempest Mk V
Bf110 with pods

I also tested :-
A20, Bf110 without pods,
FW109, Hurricane Mk11b + IIc
I-16, Me109 F-2
Me109 G-4 with pods
Me109 K-2 with pods
Mig 3, Mig 3 with pods
Mosquito, P39 N-2,
P40, P47, Spitfire MKvb
Yak 9K, Zero

Naturally some are missing, well quite a lot, so if you think I should test another do say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'll let on why I think the top 4 are as posted in a day or so and also how I did the test.

Assumptions :-
No escort fighter ( either unescorted or escort dealt with by other fighters ),
Ideal attack conditions ( altitude, speed and time all sufficient to shoot down as many bombers as possible ).
Naturally limited ammo loads etc.

Sordid_Sinister
09-28-2006, 03:07 PM
I'd say anything with a Mk-108. The more the better. I just have such a hard time downing bombers with just 20mm cannons.

Klemm.co
09-28-2006, 03:22 PM
A Lerche, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif
Well, from 4.07 onwards that is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

VW-IceFire
09-28-2006, 03:26 PM
Personally I would say that the four best interceptors of the four engined bomber variety are (excluding the jets as requested):

FW190A-8 or A-9 with wing cannons
Bf109G or K with 3 MK108 cannons fitted
Bf110 with MK108 fitted
Tempest

The FW190A-8/9 is easily best with the highest amount of firepower, the best pilot protection from a head on, and the most durable engine.

The Bf109 is second because of the high speed at altitude and a large armament possibility. Its not as good as the FW190A-8/9 because its engine is far more vulnerable although the pilot is still well protected.

The Bf110 again for similar reasons. Not as fast but still well armed.

The Tempest I include because of firepower. High altitude speed is not great but good and the cannons put out a similar overall destructive force as the Bf109K-4 with three MK108. Mind you the Tempest never had a need to intercept such a target.

The Spitfire XIV I would include as well if we had it...the IX not as much because the advantages are just not there. The Me-262 would be the obvious overall winner due to immense speed and firepower.

Klemm.co
09-28-2006, 03:27 PM
Anything that can fly fast up high (to dogde the fighter escort and for shorter firing time for the bomber gunners) and has some big guns e.g. MK108, MK103 or lotsa 20mm's to take out the targets fast and more than one at once.

My choice would be the Ta-152.

Doug_Thompson
09-28-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
... the best, player Flyable, Propeller driven Intercepters in IL2 (well IL2+addons - not including Pe2 :P).

Dornier 335. The only disadvantage it has compared to the planes already listed is that it can't add guns.


I'd say anything with a Mk-108. Check


Anything that can fly fast up high Check


... the most durable engine. Check. It has a spare.

I've never mastered the art of dropping the Do-335 bomb that bursts in the air that brings down bombers, but other people have. A little practice should do it and, IIRC, the 335 carries several of them.

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 03:44 PM
Altitude is the critical factor. At the altitudes at which the American heavies operated you wanted an aircraft which was still nimble and packed a whallop. My favorite is the 110G with the MG151 belly pack, but no nose MK108s. I detest the MK108---you have to be in range of the .50s to use them. The 11OG with four MG151s can stand off and rake heavies from wingtip to wingtip with those buzzsaws from outside .50 effective range.

Well---the 335 is Murder Inc with that MK103 and two MG151s. The MK103 was the finest anti-bomber gun made by the Germans because it could demolish bombers outside of .50 effective range. However, an Fw 190A-8 with them under its wings was such a pathetic dog at altitude the good properties of the guns didn't come into play.

mandrill7
09-28-2006, 03:48 PM
How about the Ki-84 with 30mm's??!! Can sure kill B-29's!

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 03:50 PM
Truly the Ki84 with 30s was the maximum solution vs the 29!

FoolTrottel
09-28-2006, 03:52 PM
Indeed, altitude is critical...

Once that issue is solved: IL2 type 3M

Steady, with big guns! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 03:56 PM
The IL-2 is a fantastic low-altitude Heinkel killer, but against German mediums I prefer a Yak-9 with either the excellent Sov 37mm or 45mm.

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 03:58 PM
If you have good aim, Go-229. Its profile makes it hard too it and it only takes 1-2 hits with those Mk-103's. The Mk-103's fire at a lower RPM, but have MUCH higher velocity and less arc, so you can fire from a much greater distance. Other then that, FW-190 all the way. The Mk-103's on the 190 rattle it way too much. Or the 109Z is teh Uber bomber buster.

Ernst_Rohr
09-28-2006, 03:58 PM
Blue Side;
110 with pods
190 with pods
190 clean
109 with pods
J2M3
Ki-84c
Ki-84b
Ki-46

Red Side;
P-38 (fast, high alt, lots of ammo, good firepower)
Tempest
Pe-3bis
P-63
F4u-1c
Mig-3 2x20mm

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 04:03 PM
My only regret is that the sim didn't give us the absolute ultra 110G bomber killer---the version with two MG151s in the upper nose, two MG151s in the lower nose, and two MG151s in a belly pack. Talk about stand-off firepower!

tigertalon
09-28-2006, 04:03 PM
My choice would depend a lot on whether the bombers are escorted or not.

My votes for best bomber interceptor go to:
USAAF: tie between P-63C / P47D_late
USN: F4U1-C
RAF: Tempest
VVS: I-185, IL2 in early years, otherwise La-5/7
Germany: tie between Fw190A-8/9 and Do-335
IJN: J2M3
IJA: Ki-84-1b/c
Italy: Mc202_III

Out of these I'd pick Do-335 most likely. Nothing beats nose concentrated Mk-103 +2xMG151/20 combined with extremely high top speed, a respectable climb rate and impressive altitude performance.

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 04:06 PM
One of my favorite QMBs is the Go vs B-29s at night. The twin MK103s are BRUTAL. Too bad we didn't get the bomber killer 335 with three 103s and two 151s---YIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!

p1ngu666
09-28-2006, 04:15 PM
i no particular order

mossie
beu
spitfire
p47
il2I (and the il2 isnt really stable either :S )
il2 any type
do335
tempest
big cannon yaks/laggs
f4u 1c
plus useal 190 110 ki84 etc

DomJScott
09-28-2006, 06:04 PM
Interesting load of replies. Now I confess I forgot to consider altitude in my testing so the beau will be hindered slightly at altitude however Let's look at how I tested.

Was simple really, remember I said there was no fighter escort so a heavy is viable. I simply setup a track with 10 B17's paced a few K apart approaching with the fighter at same altitude in a nose on nose approach. Each plane had it's max ammo load and I simply shot as many B17's down as I could.

the Mk108 ISN'T the best as it's comparativly low on ammo nd tricky to aim. The 4x20mm of the Typhoon is fantastic and of course the beau benefits from 6x303 too. Also the German fighers seemed to me to be unstable so often tricky to aim and thus do fatal damage or maximise ammo use ( which is limited on the heavy cannon too ).

I'll take a look at a few other aircraft tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

IMO the best fighter ( single engined ) loudout of the war was the 4x20mm the brit's used http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 06:27 PM
The Aussie Beaufighter we have in the sim is considerably more lethal than the ETO Beaus because its secondary guns were .50 cal. The Beau and the Mosquito were admirable for blasting Heinkels and Junkers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like their 20mm Hispanos do not have near the range and lethality of the sim's MG151s which have a fantastic flat-trajectory and long range.

Targ
09-28-2006, 06:43 PM
Me262 with 24 rockets and 4 108's in the nose hands down.

DomJScott
09-28-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Targ:
Me262 with 24 rockets and 4 108's in the nose hands down.

Where's the propeller? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 06:57 PM
For propceptors, Bf-109Z. Its a similar concept to P-82 Twin Mustang, which had very high performance at high altitudes, was heavy hitter, and I think the P-82 still holds the record for longest un-refueled range flight of a fighter; about 5,000 miles -- Hawaii to New York. I would imagine the 109Z if produced would not have had the normal 109~esque range limitation.

Targ
09-28-2006, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Targ:
Me262 with 24 rockets and 4 108's in the nose hands down.

Where's the propeller? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inside the jet engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
09-28-2006, 07:02 PM
Well, all I know is the best bomber interceptor during WWII didn't have white stars on it, unless it was captured and being tested by the Americans. The US just didn't have the same need for a bomber interceptor and AFAIK never really developed a really good on during the war.

DomJScott
09-28-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Well, all I know is the best bomber interceptor during WWII didn't have white stars on it, unless it was captured and being tested by the Americans. The US just didn't have the same need for a bomber interceptor and AFAIK never really developed a really good on during the war.
You say that but the A20 is an amazingly good bomber intercepter. Came 5th in my tests and with cannon would have beaten the 110.

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 07:12 PM
The earlier versions of the A-20 were used as night fighters in the Pacific until the vastly superior P-61 came available.

p1ngu666
09-28-2006, 07:33 PM
some a20's had quad 20mm hispano for uk and russia http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

there was the mustang with 4 20mm too...

there was several interesting concepts too, like the bell thingy with turreted 37mm's

plus there was interesting mockups by the british...
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///uberspit.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 07:46 PM
My vote for best prop bomber interceptor of the war which is in the IL-2 ETC series: Do 335.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 07:51 PM
Do'h! I forgot about -335

Okay, that's probably the best propceptor, at least somewhat kinda produced anyway. Don't know about -335 range but that's really important for escort fighters.

CUJO_1970
09-28-2006, 08:11 PM
The FW190A-8/A-9 are hands down the best bomber killers that are in widespread use in the sim, and were historically used in large numbers as well.

I wish we had the Me-410 Hornisse modelled with the rocket loadout - those aircraft were actually formation destroyers.

The Me-262, Go-229 and Do-335 are all unrivaled bomber killers in the sim as well.

Doug_Thompson
09-28-2006, 08:17 PM
Don't know about -335 range but that's really important for escort fighters.


No problem there. It could fly 1,000 KM and back while carrying a 1,000 KG bombload.

Also, the last known extant Do 335 is now on display, though not at the Smithsonian. It's at the National Air and Space Museum facility near Dulles Airport in Washington, according to this link (http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/udvarhazy/artifacts_air.cfm)

CUJO_1970
09-28-2006, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Don't know about -335 range but that's really important for escort fighters.


About 1,336 miles on internal fuel alone at 6,000m.

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 11:13 PM
The A model fark wuffens were too wobbly at the very high altitudes the American heavies preferred to merit high marks. If I had to go mano a mano with heavies in a single seater prop, I'd want to be in a clean 109 with no blasted underwing cannon, or a 190D, or a Ta of either flavor, and high side the Yanks with a dazzling display of high speed control and perfect timing. As for the Japanese heroes facing the 29s high up, I'd want a Ki-84.

Badsight-
09-29-2006, 02:10 AM
only one plane in this game is capable of the 10,000 point sortie

but alas its the props that are being discussed

i would go with the A8 FW-190 as my pick

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 02:29 AM
Ok I've done some more testing using suggested aircraft. Now as mentioned at the top of the thread we're trying to shoot down as many B-17's as possible in a head on attack. Head on of course being the safest and most ammo economical aspect.

Remember also the German aircraft HAD to attack heavies. The Allies never did thus the aircraft remembered as bomber intercepters but doesn't mean they where actually the best. Both the 109 and 190 where unstable aircaft - which is great in a dog fight where G-Forces help and your manoveuring but doesn't help trying to line up a bomber for a long burst to kill it.

The top 4 manage 8 with ammo left or 7 but I cocked up the 8th ( but out of ammo ).

The Ki84 runs out of ammo at around 4-5 kills.
The FW190 I got 6 and it starts running out, it's a very unstable aircraft so not an ideal bomber killer and limited ammo.
The Do335 is interesting, struggled a bit as I kept mid-airing due to needing to shoot from closish range due to the weaponry. 6 is doable but the nose cannon runs out and hard to finish off with just the top cowl guns.

So whilst the 3 suggested are fairly effective, they lack the stability and ammo capacity to challenge the top 5 (5th was the A20). The mossie incidently also has ammo problems.


The notes I made where :-

Beaufighter, 8 B17's with ammo left.
i-185, 8 B17's with ammo left
Tempest Mk V, 7 B17's, 8th damaged. No ammo left.
Bf110 - 7 - ammo left, 8 possible.
Bf110 with pods - 7 - ammo left, 8 possible.
A20 - 7 - 8th damaged, ammo left.
Mosquito - 5 - out of ammo
FW109 - 5 max
Me109 G-4 with pods, 4 B17's - out of nose and wing pod cannon ammo.
P40 - 3 - 4 damaged out of ammo
I-16 - 3 plus 4 damaged, 4 possible.
Hurricane Mk11b - 3, 4 damaged, out of ammo
Me109 F-2, 3 B17's, damage on all but nothing serious, nose cannon out.
Me109 K-2 with pods, 2 B17's - more possible but kick from wing pods makes it hard, 4 max.
Spitfire MKvb - 2, 4 damaged, out of ammo
Yak 9K - 3 - out of ammo
P39 N-2 - 3 - out of nose ammo
P47 - 3 - out of ammo.
Zero - 2 - ran out of cannon ammo
Mig 3 - 2 - out of ammo
Mig 3 with pods - 2 - 2 badly damaged.

Badsight-
09-29-2006, 04:21 AM
ok now you got me really interested , to take you seriously id like to see what your avg/max predictions are for the Me-262

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
ok now you got me really interested , to take you seriously id like to see what your avg/max predictions are for the Me-262
All 8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - Took a 262 with the rockets and got all 8 with ammo left over ( enough probably for 1 more ). So would be 8 and no ammo left without the rockets.

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 05:46 AM
Oh just tested one more - the P38L with gunpods.. Got 7, damaged 1 and had ammo left ( so 8 is feasable ) - nice bomber killer.

Friendly_flyer
09-29-2006, 06:59 AM
The A-20 is amazingly stable and nice, yet it is nimble, allmost like a fighter. If feels like dogfighting a Mig-3 is allmost withing range. If the A-20 had decent guns, it would have been a world class "sniper" in the sky, and a very capable bomber destroyer.

han freak solo
09-29-2006, 07:06 AM
I took the reverse point of view last night. In QMB, 16 Bettys against 4 FM2s, 4 F4Fs, 4 Hurricanes, and 4 P-36s.

I didn't fly, I took tail gunner position in a Betty. I can get 3 fighters with that 20mm before running out of ammo. After that, you might as well bail out then and there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The A-20 is amazingly stable and nice, yet it is nimble, allmost like a fighter. If feels like dogfighting a Mig-3 is allmost withing range. If the A-20 had decent guns, it would have been a world class "sniper" in the sky, and a very capable bomber destroyer.
Agreed, highlights how badly modelled the Mosquito is because I'm certain the A-20 ought to not fly as well ( it's heavier for starters ) but handles very nicely.

JFC_Rautaristi
09-29-2006, 08:26 AM
I find the FW-190 A8 quite nice with 20mm pods.

Easily (in regard of ammo) destroyed 8 ace B-17s, just aim at the wings. With one or two passes it trails heavy black smoke, move on to other one. In the end, i had plenty of ammo left.

Accuracy is the key, shoot the wings and don't spray until the wing is off, just until it smokes. Then the target is doomed.

Monty_Thrud
09-29-2006, 08:35 AM
The Beaufighter and Mosquito were good bomber killers.

p1ngu666
09-29-2006, 09:22 AM
the beau and mossie both lack abit of ammo
both should have 287 rounds of cannon ammo, and the mossie had 1000rounds for each 303..

i certainly want your game tho, if lw planes are unstable, mostly on mine allied planes are *hugely* worse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

mortoma1958
09-29-2006, 09:56 AM
Believe it or not, I find the J2M3 Jack to be an excellent bomber interceptor. Flying offline career against B-29s in it I've had tremendous success!! I have flown about 10 missions and have downed about 5 B-29s. Probably in game better than it was in real life, cuz I don't think there were many Japanese pilots that downed so many Superfortresses in so few missions. Some of that I think has to do with the AI escorts ( usually P-51 ) not defending them very well but getting drawn away. But in game the Jack is marvelous. Those twin 20mm cannons eat up B-29 wings and engines. Plus it's maneuverable enough to scissor and slash around, thus avoiding the ungodly defensive guns on the B-29. Also fast enough to keep up with and get ahead of the bomber stream, which is important for an bomber interceptor, otherwise you spend too much time behind them on their six. That of course is deadly. Hard to make the safer slashing attacks if you can't get ahead.

leitmotiv
09-29-2006, 10:26 AM
At which altitude are you using the Raiden, mortoma?

Xiolablu3
09-29-2006, 10:43 AM
Anyhting with 4x20mm or Mk108

FW190
Tempest
Raiden
Me262

Ki84 not so good becasue the bomber Mgs make it flame up too easy.

Fighterduck
09-29-2006, 11:14 AM
beaufighter, j2m3 , tempest, bf110....really dont like the mosquito.

JSG72
09-29-2006, 01:10 PM
Bomber killing was the reason I bought game in the first place.

And as it was to fly "Sturmbock" I elike the FW 190. Although unlike the Real thing We don't have the Armour.
The 109Z (I Know Fantasy) however is undoubtably the best though With 4x108s and a 103!!!. Range, Fast and flighty enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Brain32
09-29-2006, 02:05 PM
I would recommend avoiding engaging bombers in ME109's...

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Fighterduck:
beaufighter, j2m3 , tempest, bf110....really dont like the mosquito.
I'll take a look at the J2, agree on the rest. The Mossie OUGHT to be up with the beau but seems to have less ammo and is overall a big disapointment.

@JFC nice flying, my passes where nose on nose so short bursts if they hit are a guaranteed kill, just found the FW ( and 109 ) tend to be hard to fly straight and level.

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 02:18 PM
Ok Revised top 3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Beaufighter
Tempest
J2M3

I managed off the bat 8 B17's with the J2 but ran out of ammo on the last one wherase the beau and Temp had ammo left. Lovely aircraft though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

tigertalon
09-29-2006, 03:40 PM
Well, is it bomber interceptor or bomber destroyer we are discussing here?

Because for the former, rate of climb, level speed and alt advantages are cruical (besides, obviously, armament). Beaufighter is below average at climb and alt performance and around average with speed (but has superb guns).

How do you perform tests? Do you simply place yourself in the vicinity of bomber formation, or do you take off from an airfield and climb like spanked monkey towards them just to be able to catch them before they unleash hell on the targets? I don't think you would insist on beaufighter in this case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

cawimmer430
09-29-2006, 03:47 PM
For me, the best bomber killers on the German side are (in no particular order):

BF-110 with MK-108's
Me-262 with rockets
Go-229
BF-109G6 upwards with MK-108 nose cannon or wing pods
K-84lc

I don't like the FW-190 that much since I'm a Messerschmitt guy and I like firepower as this suits my style. The FW-190 equipped with extra power (wing pods) flies like a pig in my experience. Your speed is heavily decreased and the thing feels twitchy as hell.

Doug_Thompson
09-29-2006, 04:09 PM
Well, is it bomber interceptor or bomber destroyer we are discussing here?

Because for the former, rate of climb, level speed and alt advantages are cruical (besides, obviously, armament). Beaufighter is below average at climb and alt performance and around average with speed (but has superb guns).

Good question.

Jaws2002
09-29-2006, 04:16 PM
It can be only one:

Me-262 A1 with rockets

Me-262 track (http://download.yousendit.com/28FB82D13EF601C0)

DomJScott
09-29-2006, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Well, is it bomber interceptor or bomber destroyer we are discussing here?

Because for the former, rate of climb, level speed and alt advantages are cruical (besides, obviously, armament). Beaufighter is below average at climb and alt performance and around average with speed (but has superb guns).

How do you perform tests? Do you simply place yourself in the vicinity of bomber formation, or do you take off from an airfield and climb like spanked monkey towards them just to be able to catch them before they unleash hell on the targets? I don't think you would insist on beaufighter in this case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Fair observation, bomber destroyer.. but working on a test to do intercepter would be interesting.

What warning would people say was appropriate? Let's say bombers coming from the UK, to a target in south normandy. Intercepter lifting off from Carp.. Bombers at 20000ft?

I'm guessing Bombers at 20000 at mission start just north of the uk island on the map, intercepter obviously doing a ground start.

Intercepter has to climb and intercept the bomber formation before it reaches the target.

Now one concern I do have is the fact an intercepter is more liable to have to run the guns of the bombers whereas my destroyer test was specifically ideal intercept conditions (nose on nose eliminates bomber weaponry). I'll work on this as a starting point and am open for suggestions to tweak it.

Badsight-
09-29-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
All 8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - Took a 262 with the rockets and got all 8 with ammo left over ( enough probably for 1 more ). So would be 8 and no ammo left without the rockets. ive managed 22 without rockets

ive seen 25 done by another

woofiedog
09-30-2006, 12:06 AM
Quote... *Also fast enough to keep up with and get ahead of the bomber stream, which is important for an bomber interceptor, otherwise you spend too much time behind them on their six. That of course is deadly. Hard to make the safer slashing attacks if you can't get ahead.*

Me-163... You can make Head-On attacks with the speed with this Bird. Flying straight in and out the the other side of the Bomber Stream and circle around for another Head-On. With a Good enough ammo load for at least three bombers.

This would be a Great Bird to have if we could fly back to base and Refuel and Rearm and fly back up to the fight. Catching the Bomber Streams going into the target area and fly back up again while the bombers are coming back out.

DmdSeeker
09-30-2006, 05:20 AM
All this just goes to show how seriously IL-2's FM's are porked; as none of these were succesful bomber interceptors. After all; the 8 th airforece still came through.

Four years earlier; however; the LW heavies were beaten back from Britain by the Hurrican; the only _truely succesful_ interceptor.

I only whish IL-2 accuracy were good enough to reflect this historical reality!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

DomJScott
09-30-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
All this just goes to show how seriously IL-2's FM's are porked; as none of these were succesful bomber interceptors. After all; the 8 th airforece still came through.

Four years earlier; however; the LW heavies were beaten back from Britain by the Hurrican; the only _truely succesful_ interceptor.

I only whish IL-2 accuracy were good enough to reflect this historical reality!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hehe - I actually didn't do much testing of the IIC as it's weapon loadout matches the Tempest. The MK I suffers from the Rifle grade ammo - however I bet a lot of HEIII's at least where turned back by shattered glass in the nose (with minor injuries to the crew) which isn't modelled in IL2. Ironically knock the nose off a B17 and it for some reason go's down.

I'd like to see a track of 22, let alone 25, B17's dying to a Limited ammo, no rocket 262. Given a 262 has a MAX of 100 rounds per gun, that's a mere 4 shell burst per gun - or a 0.3s burst. Some serious flying if it's been done.

Not saying 8 is the max, however for an average pilot I think my shootdown amounts are fairly accurate.

Incedently the Tempest has twice the number of shells and in theory could shootdown more aircraft, as could the Mossie, Beau etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
09-30-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:


I'd like to see a track of 22, let alone 25, B17's dying to a Limited ammo, no rocket 262. Given a 262 has a MAX of 100 rounds per gun, that's a mere 4 shell burst per gun - or a 0.3s burst. Some serious flying if it's been done.

Not saying 8 is the max, however for an average pilot I think my shootdown amounts are fairly accurate.

Incedently the Tempest has twice the number of shells and in theory could shootdown more aircraft, as could the Mossie, Beau etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I only had 24 B-17's in this mission and had ammo left on all four cannons after I got all of them.

ntrk recorded with 4.05
http://download.yousendit.com/7DBD43396181B895

Badsight-
09-30-2006, 02:06 PM
well done Jaws

on my own bomber kill training missions i am jinxed

i have been flying them for over 18 months , & Every single time i manage to get up to 22 - i get killed

but ive flowen with others who have managed the 10,000 point sortie

DomJScott
10-01-2006, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:


I'd like to see a track of 22, let alone 25, B17's dying to a Limited ammo, no rocket 262. Given a 262 has a MAX of 100 rounds per gun, that's a mere 4 shell burst per gun - or a 0.3s burst. Some serious flying if it's been done.

Not saying 8 is the max, however for an average pilot I think my shootdown amounts are fairly accurate.

Incedently the Tempest has twice the number of shells and in theory could shootdown more aircraft, as could the Mossie, Beau etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I only had 24 B-17's in this mission and had ammo left on all four cannons after I got all of them.

ntrk recorded with 4.05
http://download.yousendit.com/7DBD43396181B895 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Impressive flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Back on topic done a couple of tests and whilst the Beaufighter isn't brilliant at gaining altitude I don't think it's bad. Perhaps losing ground in terms of ability to the Tempest and 'Jack' however in my test it got to 5500m only slightly slower than a G6 109.

My test was simply to gain sufficient altitude to intercept 8 B17's with a chance to shoot down a good number before the 17's drop their bombs.

The Mission was as follows. 8 B17's flying SE from above the British Island to Argentine (sp) at an altitude of 5600m (dropped from the intended 6000m as was to hard for ANY aircraft) to drop bombs on the industrial area of the target town.

A Single fighter scrambles from Caen heads south to gain altitude then swings north and intercepts the bombers just south of Caen. The Beau and 109G6 where both able too intercept the flight within 1 minute of each other and with enough time (in theory - my bomber killing ability is a let down ) to kill the 8 bombers. The Beau was noticeable lacking speed tho so a single engined fighter is definatly a better option.

Therefore as intercepters I'd go for a top 3 of :-

Tempest
Jack
I-185

Mossie I think ought to be there too but we all know it's badly modelled.

FW190 and ME109 are close but I just don't feel their weapon loads are as good as the top 3 and as such a well flown Temp/Jack/185 or even A20, Beau or 110 will be better.

Sergio_101
10-01-2006, 07:56 AM
P-61C, very heavily armed.
As a bomber interceptor the P-61C was
very fast at 425mph, had excellent
high altitude performance (turbocharged engines)
and microwave high res RADAR for night missions.

Maximum speed: 425 mph
Cruising speed: 275 mph
Range: 1,200 miles
Service ceiling: 46,200 ft.

P-61 did a number on the last of the Japanese
night intruders.
while NOT a key player in WWII it certainly
was there and saw action.

Sergio

ImpStarDuece
10-01-2006, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
All this just goes to show how seriously IL-2's FM's are porked; as none of these were succesful bomber interceptors. After all; the 8 th airforece still came through.

Four years earlier; however; the LW heavies were beaten back from Britain by the Hurrican; the only _truely succesful_ interceptor.

I only whish IL-2 accuracy were good enough to reflect this historical reality!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Read some accounts of Spitfire pilots flying 4 cannon Mk Vc against Ju-88s over Malta in 1942. Would easily have to qualify as one of the most sucessful interceptors.

Same thing for the Ju-88G night fighter pilots, who had tremendous success against RAF heavies in 1943-1944.

Likewise for the 109G and 190A combination against the RAF in 1942 and against unescorted USAAF heavies in 1943 - they caused absolutely horrendous losses, upwards of a 10:1 exchange ratio until the longer ranged escorts began appearing in the final quater of 1943.

DomJScott
10-01-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
All this just goes to show how seriously IL-2's FM's are porked; as none of these were succesful bomber interceptors. After all; the 8 th airforece still came through.

Four years earlier; however; the LW heavies were beaten back from Britain by the Hurrican; the only _truely succesful_ interceptor.

I only whish IL-2 accuracy were good enough to reflect this historical reality!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Read some accounts of Spitfire pilots flying 4 cannon Mk Vc against Ju-88s over Malta in 1942. Would easily have to qualify as one of the most sucessful interceptors.

Same thing for the Ju-88G night fighter pilots, who had tremendous success against RAF heavies in 1943-1944.

Likewise for the 109G and 190A combination against the RAF in 1942 and against unescorted USAAF heavies in 1943 - they caused absolutely horrendous losses, upwards of a 10:1 exchange ratio until the longer ranged escorts began appearing in the final quater of 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JU88 is sadly not in game so for this test not an option. The 109G and 190A did do pretty well BUT the likes of the Hurricane and Spit where no less effective and the Tempest is better than all. The Vc is indeed a good intercepter.. but again the Temp is better.

VW-IceFire
10-01-2006, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
All this just goes to show how seriously IL-2's FM's are porked; as none of these were succesful bomber interceptors. After all; the 8 th airforece still came through.

Four years earlier; however; the LW heavies were beaten back from Britain by the Hurrican; the only _truely succesful_ interceptor.

I only whish IL-2 accuracy were good enough to reflect this historical reality!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hehe - I actually didn't do much testing of the IIC as it's weapon loadout matches the Tempest. The MK I suffers from the Rifle grade ammo - however I bet a lot of HEIII's at least where turned back by shattered glass in the nose (with minor injuries to the crew) which isn't modelled in IL2. Ironically knock the nose off a B17 and it for some reason go's down.

I'd like to see a track of 22, let alone 25, B17's dying to a Limited ammo, no rocket 262. Given a 262 has a MAX of 100 rounds per gun, that's a mere 4 shell burst per gun - or a 0.3s burst. Some serious flying if it's been done.

Not saying 8 is the max, however for an average pilot I think my shootdown amounts are fairly accurate.

Incedently the Tempest has twice the number of shells and in theory could shootdown more aircraft, as could the Mossie, Beau etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the game does it right...the Tempest has more punch than the Spitfire Vc, Hurricane IIC, and the F4U-1C as the Tempest has four Hispano Mark V which fire quicker and thus place more possible strikes on the target in the same amount of fire time.

Kuna_
10-01-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
ntrk recorded with 4.05
http://download.yousendit.com/7DBD43396181B895 I can't see the track. I'm running 405 and it gives me ERROR: Track file "Record/bombies6.NRTK" not included section [$$$record]

I'm surprised on how you guys can preview it and I can't.

edit
It isn't really a contest that Me-262 vs. B17. I just had one run on realistic settings and shot down 17 of them on ACE settings. It is really pitifull. They never hit me, not once.
Funny thing about that matchup; it isn't about how many ammo you got it is about fuel.
I was foolish enough not to select 100% fuel and so I hadn't have a chance to destroy zillion of them, 400xMk108 is probably enough for several B-17 squadrons. It takes only few rounds to down one fortress.

tigertalon
10-01-2006, 12:41 PM
360. 100 rpg for upper and 80 for lower pair of Mk108s. Not nitpicking, still valid point.

While at it, how does skill level affect bomber behaviour? Are gunners better or what?

Jaws2002
10-01-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
ntrk recorded with 4.05
http://download.yousendit.com/7DBD43396181B895 I can't see the track. I'm running 405 and it gives me ERROR: Track file "Record/bombies6.NRTK" not included section [$$$record]

I'm surprised on how you guys can preview it and I can't.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry i downloaded and tried. Got the same error. Here is uploaded again at different site. Hope is ok now.

http://download.yousendit.com/0965E1817D4F4352


Yes, is too easy to slaughter bombers with the 262. Is really no challange.


Edit: Ok, File Factory sucks. Uploaded again at yousendit.com.

Daiichidoku
10-01-2006, 02:28 PM
88mm flak

ask any bomber crew

Jaws2002
10-01-2006, 02:45 PM
I did another run but I tried to do the most damage in shortest time...Did not end up too good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://download.yousendit.com/038E9E23578A53ED

Kuna_
10-01-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
but ive flowen with others who have managed the 10,000 point sortie http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/fb/fb-me262-25xb17killls.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Just flew another sortie setup 32 fortressess and I shot down 25 of them. Exactly 10k points. Normandy map, 4,500m, no AA, no advantage, default ordnance both Ai and player, ACE B-17 on 75% fuel player on 100%. Realistic settings.
Like I already said the only thing that prevents a player from maximum efficiency is rather limited time in air due to short fuel supply. And so you must press on to attack even if you didn't set up perfect chance.
That is quite dangerous as may be seen on the track I posted below, they have eventually wounded me because I was in hurry to shot down as much as I could in that moment. before disengaging due to critical fuel level.

Track. Warning track is 26MB in length isn't suited for 56k download.
http://www.filefactory.com/file/d2ec7d/

Originally posted by tigertalon:
While at it, how does skill level affect bomber behaviour? Are gunners better or what? Shortly yes. Someone posted that effective "gun" range (hmm... rather sniper range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) for ACE gunner is around 600m in game while rookie is around 300m, average somewhere in between. That is the basic difference from what I've understand, but there may be something to it more too.
If you have enogh time and patience to download my mamooth track above, you'll see just what little it takes for them to hit you, sharp starboard attack on lone fortress, he has locked me in his sights, I saw that but I continued my run because I had no time. And fortunately I only get myself light wound. He wasn't that lucky tho.

However Me-262 possess such firepower and speed that it makes even FB gunners laughable. B-17 is right on the top of my list "most deadly bombers" considering all speed, firepower and structure strength. And still Me-262 cuts them like swiss cheese. Impressive plane.
So far the ultimate bomber interceptor in game.

Jaws2002
10-01-2006, 04:23 PM
Kuna for files upload try http://www.yousendit.com/ Has much higher download speed and less spam.

Philipscdrw
10-01-2006, 05:34 PM
I like the Mosquito for bomber interception. The centrally-mounted guns saw through anything, and the pilot and gunsight don't get hit as often as in the lumbering Beaufighter.

mortoma1958
10-01-2006, 10:32 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"JU88 is sadly not in game so for this test not an option. The 109G and 190A did do pretty well BUT the likes of the Hurricane and Spit where no less effective and the Tempest is better than all. The Vc is indeed a good intercepter.. but again the Temp is better."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Huh?? Whatya mean Ju-88 is not in this game??? Not only are they in the game, they are flyable now!! The Ju-88 as a "AI only" non-flyable was in the original IL-2 Sturmovik game released in late 2001!!!!

Jaws2002
10-01-2006, 11:18 PM
he's talking about Ju-88G. 4-6 cannons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Ju88-G6-2s.jpg

DomJScott
10-02-2006, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
he's talking about Ju-88G. 4-6 cannons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Ju88-G6-2s.jpg

correct, unless I'm missing an aircraft somewhere we on't have the bomber variants of the 88, no night fighter variants.

If I was going by WWII propeller aircraft including those not modelled then the 88 would probably be high up the list. Similaraly as the Mossie is undermodelled in game that too would be high on the list. IMO a solid 2 engined aircraft is the best option as a Bomber intercepter as long as it has the speed. Thus given a list of any WWII Prop aircraft my top 3 bomber intercepters would probably be :-

Mossie
JU88
A20 ( cannon armed ).

Daiichidoku
10-02-2006, 03:38 AM
depends...88s and 217s ( and 110s and 219s) were fearsome...but only at night

DomJScott
10-02-2006, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
depends...88s and 217s ( and 110s and 219s) were fearsome...but only at night

Found the 110 to be tricky to fly compared to the 2 I mentioned, admitadly not flown the bomber 88 to get an idea of it's flight character.