PDA

View Full Version : Question about the effectiveness of rear gunners (esp 110's)



Xiolablu3
11-25-2005, 02:08 PM
Watching a program about the Battle of Britain the other day, with the BOB veteren Bob Doe talking about his first sortie, in the thick of the battle.

He talks about being convinced that he would be shot down, but anyway the battle starts and he 'finds' himself behind a 110, he fires at it and is astonished as this plane turns over and goes down into the sea.

Now another 110 had seen this and came racing up behind him firing all guns, but missed and overshot. Doe then talks about 'settling in' behind this 110 and shooting him down too. 2 planes on his first sortie.

The point I wanted to make is that in this game if you attack a 110 from behind you are very very likely to at least lose your engine if not get PKed by the rear gunner, never mind attacking 2. Plus trying to shoot down 2x110 in the game with 8x303 would be practically impossible. (try attacking 110s with 303 is does practically nothing)

Yet Bob Doe 'settles in' behind a 110 without even so much of a mention of the rear gunner, so you cant think he even got a hit on him even tho he was a rookie on his first sortie.

Maybe hits from the front damage planes a little too much and bullets in the game (both 50 and 303 should do a little more damage?) If the pilots in the bOB had the 303's we have in the game no 110's would have been shot down and we would have lost hundreds of pilots and planes to rear gunners!

danjama
11-25-2005, 02:13 PM
Maybe the 110's he was behind never had rear gunners, or perhaps the rear gunner was busy or wounded. Did early 110's have rear gunners?

Xiolablu3
11-25-2005, 02:23 PM
I thought they all had rear gunners? Not totally sure to be honest , Danjama.

But you have struck on a point there about them being 'early' 110's.

I think the 110G2 is a later 110 than the BOB one, this would have heavier armour of course which probably explains the problem of shootin it down with 303. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta
11-25-2005, 02:31 PM
All 110s had rear gunners.

But even with armor it is not hard to imagine that 8x.303 with the proper convergence would wreak havoc on any fighter.

Messerschmitt was specialized in light building and even with armor there would be plenty of chance to hit vital areas, incl. the soft targets being presented by the air crew.

Just think what a spread of .303 would do within the cockpit of a 110 if it hit at a nice angle.

Gore=1

WTE_Ibis
11-25-2005, 02:36 PM
There ia a thread here somewhere that shows gun cam footage of 190s and 109s attacking B17s and Liberators, in almost every case they attacked from the rear. To do so in this sim is to die. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

.

MLudner
11-26-2005, 08:22 AM
Defensive fire in this game is one of its critical flaws. In this game a Bf-109 of any mark is worthless as an interceptor, for invariably a round will hit the engine during the first pass and it is wrecked instantaneously. I conducted a series of experiments a while back in QMB where I attacked B-24's and B-17E's & G's in 109G10's and 190D9's. It was pathetic; 1 time out of 10 on average I downed the bomber safely. 5 of 10 it was mutual death. 3 of 10 I went down or was KIA while the bomber flew off into the sunset giving me the bird. In the 109G10 I was typically carrying Mk-108 Gunpods.
If bomber defensive fire was this lethal in reality single engine fighters would have been worthless and an utter waste of money. The USSR should have built masses of Pe-8's and Il-2's. We would have needed only a bunch of B-17's.
In the PTO I am learning to stay away from Betties and the Flying Boat of Doom, the H8K1. The only thing I feel any confidence with against them is a Me-262 with 50mm canon.
On the Ostfront Ludner has had run-ins with TB-3's three times. In the first I caught one that had separated too far from the others and shot it down by attacking from below. In the other two I watched the TB-3's shoot down an entire staffel of Bf-109F's with casual ease. In each case I was watching from the ground next to my bellied-in 109F4 as 109 after 109 attacked and either went down or limped off for base trailing black smoke. In one case we left one of the TB's trailing smoke, but it disappeared from sight still in formation.

The only possible way to attack them is head-on, otherwise you're pretty much meat.

Kurfurst__
11-26-2005, 09:31 AM
Two things. Shooting down an aircraft and claiming it for victory is often different - Bob may or may not shot down those fighters, it could be he did, or it was that the 110 escaped by diving, and he lost sight of it, assuming it was dead.

On the 110, the Bf 110C participated in the BoB, in the game we have much later and improved variant, the 110G.

For example the 110C had a single 7,92mm MG 15 rear gun which fired 1000 rounds/min, but the 110G we have here has a twin 7,92mm MG 81Z - that fires 2x1600/min = 3200/min... that's triple the firepower. Moreover like many defense guns of the era, the 1940 MG15 was drum-fed from a 75-round saddle magazine, and had to be replaced after it run out after a few seconds of firing. The MG81Z what we have is belt fed and can be fired continously.

I am also fairly certain our later Bf 110G have better armor protection for the crew.

LStarosta
11-26-2005, 09:33 AM
Kurfurst, we have Bf-110C's

FinnBird
11-26-2005, 11:17 AM
I too find the bomber gunners very deadly.

But (without any boasting) I find Me-110 no problem, thou I'm not any ace really,

Attack from below 6, and you can easily pop one engine or light his wing tank - the gunner can't get you so easily. very often the 110 spins out of control if you get one of the engines hit well.

The C-model in special is vulnerable. I have many times killed 3-4 110's offline with my La-5 and once in the Mig-3 campaign I downed two within a minute. And the mig-3 has quite a bad armament, IMO!

Jaws2002
11-26-2005, 11:24 AM
I'll agree with Kurfust. Mg-81 Z that is installed in Bf-110 and Stuka D5/G is one of the fastest firing guns of the war. 3200 r/min. In BOB the 110's did not have this weapon. They had a single Mg-15. Mg-81Z is a completely different animal.


Mg-15:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Bordwaffen/mg15-1%20he111h.jpg

Mg-81Z:

http://www.luftarchiv.org/waffen/ju87_mg81z.jpg

MEGILE
11-26-2005, 02:01 PM
p1ngu is number 1 gunner eva!

Xiolablu3
11-26-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Two things. Shooting down an aircraft and claiming it for victory is often different - Bob may or may not shot down those fighters, it could be he did, or it was that the 110 escaped by diving, and he lost sight of it, assuming it was dead.


Bob Doe is a very modest man, he wouldnt 'beef' up his report, you can just tell by the sort of man he is.

His exact words were, 'I was astonished when it turned over on its back and went straight down into the sea' <-I would say thats a kill.

He had 2 confirmed kills in his first sortie. Two 110's.

I agree with you about armour Kurfy, Towards the end of the Battle Of Britain, British pilots were finding it took more and more gunfire to shoot down the german planes. The Germans were adding more and more armour plate to their planes, and the .303's were having an increasingly hard time shooting them down, to the point that it was taking all their ammo load to down one plane.

This is when it was decided 303 just wasnt enough and the next major varient of Spitfire after the Mks 1 and 2 MUST have 20mm cannon. The 110G we have in game, will have much heavier armour than the 110C.

han freak solo
11-26-2005, 06:47 PM
Rear gunners in the game are definitely deadly. Even the PBY(PBN) will get you if you sit dead six. And it's "rear" gunners are the waist gunners.

Real? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I think it works for this game though. That way it is more challenging than just approaching from behind and shooting. Learning to execute shooting passes from various angles is another thing that makes this sim worthwhile. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Kuna15
11-26-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
There ia a thread here somewhere that shows gun cam footage of 190s and 109s attacking B17s and Liberators, in almost every case they attacked from the rear. To do so in this sim is to die. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

.

True.

Funny thing we will practically never see any huge deflection on guncam footages like in FB (they exist I remember on FW-190A6 vs P47 and P51). But they are very rare.
Usually all are from dead 6 or so.

Those shots from guncam clips are to be considered a "turkey shots" in FB. From such chances good FB player will hit at least 9 out of ten times.

About gunners they weren't effective nowhere near like in FB.

pourshot
11-26-2005, 08:19 PM
I thinks it€s funny how a 110€s(or any planes) rear gunner can easily kill an attacking fighter with a flexible MG, and at the same time 8 or 12 .303€s are to weak to kill a plane satisfactorily.

I would like a dollar for every time a 110 has flown through my hurries bullet stream only too have its gunner take out my engine or pilot with one or two hits.

Air gunners are one of this games weakest links

hugohugo37
11-26-2005, 10:36 PM
I've been flying a New Guinea offline campaign these days and most of the missions are Betty intercepts. You simply cannot get on a bombers six without getting hit. Don't even bother trying to take out the rear gunner. He will get you first. It is kind of fun trying various approaches to bring them down but I still end up gliding to Earth with oil all over my windscreen most of the time. I wonder how many fighters were actually taken out by Bettys during the course of the war?

neural_dream
11-26-2005, 10:51 PM
I think rear gunners are ok. If you don't like the difficulty of AI you can decrease it.

I play only DiD and attacking bombers is my favorite type of mission, the only that I will certainly come back safe (the jabo missions are the worst btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif) and may even shoot down some in the process. I only have to get to altitude in time and then dive on the bombers. Rarely I attack from below if I have too much energy, and also rarely from behind, but again only if I am at double the speed of the bomber and ready to shoot in a 0.5s window and then start crazy evasive manoeuvres. Not really worth it.
It's all a matter of patience and experience in intercepting IMO. If you park at the bomber's six you will of course get shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Zaku_907
11-27-2005, 12:22 AM
If you want to see how easy it is to be shot down while on the six of a 110, IL2, etc, be a gunner on them and see how easy it is. Planes coming in on a dead six are easy to shoot down, while yes, they'll score damage on you, but realize that you'd be the AI and that pilot would be you. Remember, coming in from the six means you take your speed, subtract from the target's, and thats how fast you are going towards him. A 6'oclock attack doesn't require anything fancy to shoot back at. If you're going to attack anything with a gunner, fire at its blind spot or come in so fast and firing well and early enough to score damage that it won't matter.


On another tangent, I think it'd be great if gunner death was much more easily done, nailing an IL2 at the gunner position with 30mm's and seeing that gunner smile on firing isn't a help.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2005, 02:49 AM
On some longer range fighter bomber missions by 110s in BoB the rear gunners were left behind to save weight.

msalama
11-27-2005, 03:39 AM
If you want to see how easy it is to be shot down while on the six of a 110, IL2, etc, be a gunner on them and see how easy it is.

That depends on the plane you're the gunner on. I did some rear gunnery training in a Mitchell a while back - y'know, just QMB 1-on-1s against anything with you manning the rear turret - and yes, I got pretty much everything down after I got my s**t sorted out. Easiest by far, BTW, were Biffers - a couple of direct hits and that was they minus their engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

OTOH, it was just hopeless when manning a Sturmovik's rear seat - got me a**e handed to me every ruddy time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But maybe that's just me?

But as regards AI rear gunners - yeah, well, they DO feel somewhat overmodelled. But I still wouldn't put too much weight on RL guncam footage to prove that, because hey, what happened BEFORE those Fw's got into those dead six positions isn't there for us to see... right?

LeOs.K_Walstein
11-27-2005, 03:43 AM
Rear gunners are endeed dangerous.

I tend to take coffee brake every now and then and spend 8-12 min in QMB/Smolensk map. There I fly either a late Bf109 or the Me 110G - sometimes even the Me 262. As enemies I have 6-9 units of bombers and sometimes mixed like "Flying Fortresses", "Liberators" and Pe-8:s together.

I play this way: In the beginning I climb as much as I can. Then dive for a head-on attack. Then I turn to south and finally south-west and climb. The bombers are now at my 1-2 o´clock.

Next I wait until they turn to back. They turn to south which allows me to catch them in good position from above. So I dive again and shoot and turn then to general direction of 90 degrees. Now they are on their way home and I am hanging around.

After these two head-on-attacks I keep attacking the enemy from sides. The bombers fly to directions between 75-90 degrees and I fly between the 3-4 groups there. Now I start to make slight dives against the enemies from sides. It is more difficult to aim, but on the other hand one short burst blows up the machine if it hits the fuselage.

Now I keep on attacking from sides until we get to enemy base. Usually I shoot down the last enemy there.

I have some of the bombers as veterans while the others remain average. I find it fun and as much "real-like" as I can imagine since I can´t attack from stern.

Have a nice day,
Wallstein

blindpugh
11-27-2005, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Watching a program about the Battle of Britain the other day, with the BOB veteren Bob Doe talking about his first sortie, in the thick of the battle.

He talks about being convinced that he would be shot down, but anyway the battle starts and he 'finds' himself behind a 110, he fires at it and is astonished as this plane turns over and goes down into the sea.

Now another 110 had seen this and came racing up behind him firing all guns, but missed and overshot. Doe then talks about 'settling in' behind this 110 and shooting him down too. 2 planes on his first sortie.

The point I wanted to make is that in this game if you attack a 110 from behind you are very very likely to at least lose your engine if not get PKed by the rear gunner, never mind attacking 2. Plus trying to shoot down 2x110 in the game with 8x303 would be practically impossible. (try attacking 110s with 303 is does practically nothing)

Yet Bob Doe 'settles in' behind a 110 without even so much of a mention of the rear gunner, so you cant think he even got a hit on him even tho he was a rookie on his first sortie.

Maybe hits from the front damage planes a little too much and bullets in the game (both 50 and 303 should do a little more damage?) If the pilots in the bOB had the 303's we have in the game no 110's would have been shot down and we would have lost hundreds of pilots and planes to rear gunners! yes I noticed the same thing ages ago seems the rear gunners in il2 are are UBER plus the 303's arent modelled properly in il2 and never have been irrespective of whatever patch you have in game.seems to me oleg an his boys have forgotten that the battle of britain was fought mainly with 303 cal machine guns on the brit side-and with the rear gunners in il2 the battle would have been lost early on.

WTE_Ibis
11-27-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I think rear gunners are ok. If you don't like the difficulty of AI you can decrease it.

I play only DiD and attacking bombers is my favorite type of mission, the only that I will certainly come back safe (the jabo missions are the worst btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif) and may even shoot down some in the process. I only have to get to altitude in time and then dive on the bombers. Rarely I attack from below if I have too much energy, and also rarely from behind, but again only if I am at double the speed of the bomber and ready to shoot in a 0.5s window and then start crazy evasive manoeuvres. Not really worth it.
It's all a matter of patience and experience in intercepting IMO. If you park at the bomber's six you will of course get shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
-------------------------------------------
you are quite correct but I was comparing real life guncam footage to rear gunners in game and I am afraid they are not within a bulls' roar of being equal.
Don't get me wrong I love this game but some things could be improved.
Cheers. Ibis. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

.

msalama
11-27-2005, 04:30 AM
I was comparing real life guncam footage to rear gunners in game and I am afraid they are not within a bulls' roar of being equal.

Yeah, but I don't think you CAN compare RL guncam footage to IL-2 because you don't know what _preceded_ that guncam clip you saw! Hey, maybe the rear gunner of that soon-to-be-doomed Fortress was KIA already, or his guns were U/S, or whatever... You catch my drift?

That said, it's of course altogether _possible_ that our gunners are über, and it surely _feels_ that way sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif But how do you _prove_ it? That's the question right there IMHO...

But then again, there admittedly _is_ lots & lots of footage showing dead 6 positions only, and hardly anything where you see something "fancy" happening so dunno... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-27-2005, 05:00 AM
Try setting up this QMB


Put yourself in an IL-2 set to average with a rear gunner with unlimited ammo

Add 16 Ki-43-Ia (the one with the two spitball launchers in the cowling) and set them to rookie as opponents.

Fly straight and level and let the Ki-43s line up on your tail.

See how long it takes for the AI rear gunner to kill all 16 Ki-43s. Then repeat with Veteran and Ace settings for your rear gunner.

Now set it up again, this time with you as the rear gunner.

See which one takes longer to bring down all the Ki-43s.

horseback
11-27-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I'll agree with Kurfust. Mg-81 Z that is installed in Bf-110 and Stuka D5/G is one of the fastest firing guns of the war. 3200 r/min. In BOB the 110's did not have this weapon. They had a single Mg-15. Mg-81Z is a completely different animal. Rate of fire aside, you still have to be able to hit your target, and what was in reality far and away the most difficult task in WWII air combat - shooting down an attacking fighter with a ring and pintle mounted light machine gun from a moving aircraft - is stood on its head in this game, and goes beyond the ludicrous when it is the ai vs the player.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
11-28-2005, 01:58 AM
Found a quote that suggests that its not the power of the guns which is the trouble, but it may be too easy to actually hit the planes from teh rear gunner position at present. :-

--------

Johnnie Johnson later recorded how he was told to fit bombs onto his Supermarine Spitfire.

'At this time the Spitfire IX was the best air fighter in the world. In my view it was not suitable for beating up the ground targets because its Merlin engine was cooled by a liquid called Glycol, which was held in a small tank just below the propellor. This Glycol tank and the radiator were always exposed to ground fire, at which the Germans were very adept. A single machine-gun bullet through either the radiator or the Glycol tank meant that the engine caught fire or seized up within a matter of a very few minutes. After four years of air fighting, and still remaining sound in wind and limb, the prospect of being shot down by a few rounds fired by some half-baked Kraut gunner did not appeal to me in the least!

The first time I saw my lean and graceful Spitfire with two 500 lb. bombs hanging beneath its slender wings, it seemed to me that she was intolerably burned, and that the ugly blunt bombs were a basic contradiction of all the beauty and symmetry of the aircraft. It was like seeing a beautiful racehorse harnessed to a farm cart.'


It Suggests that it was quite easy to bring down a spit with a MG if it got hit in the right place.

Remember there is no recoil at all modelled in to the gun positions, you can just stick the cross on the attacking plane and press a button.

Aiming a big heavy MG which is kicking about when you fire, whilst you naturally close your eyes seeing the tracer flying past you from the attacking Spit, would be a very different and much harder experience http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 02:15 AM
do rear machine gun on simple mount(ie d3a, sbd) have recoil/dispersion as should be much inacurate than turret type defense gun?

Sturm_Williger
11-28-2005, 04:49 AM
I think that the problem with AI gunners is not merely that they are superhuman shots - as many have pointed out, human players can be as good or better.

For me, the problems are a combination of :
1) No separate modelling of gunner skill as opposed to pilot - this would be handy as you could lower the effectiveness of the air gunnery without necessarily having the plane flying like a muppet.

2) No modelling of recoil and fear ( closing eyes when shooting ).

3) No desperate pilot ( RL pilot would throw the plane around, AI pilot with human gunner is rather more sedate ). I wonder what the scoring is of human gunners when flying with AI pilot vs when flying with another human pilot ? I would be inclined to think that the success rate is higher with an AI pilot, but hopefully real bomber gunners can produce some opinion on this. )

4) Hit boxes of AI gunners is ridiculously small - Many guncams show attacks from 6 on bombers and NO defensive gunnery in evidence. In game, killing AI gunners is absurdly difficult - many times I have pounded ( for eg. )the tail section of a B17 with 5-10 20mm cannon hits, or 2-4 30mm hits. AI gunners calmly continue to return fire. Hit box must be the size of a dormouse !

5) AI gunners are able to use "impossible" angles. ie. try approaching a Ju87 from low 6. Somehow, the rear gunner is able to depress his weapon to bear on you ( not possible simply by the siting of the gun ) AND fire through his fuselage down at you ( in reality, the rear fuse and empennage is in the way ).

As far as I'm concerned, if 4 & 5 were ( had ever been ) addressed, the actual accuracy wouldn't matter so much, as countermeasures would be possible ( approach angle / incapacitating gunners ).

neural_dream
11-28-2005, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
5) AI gunners are able to use "impossible" angles. ie. try approaching a Ju87 from low 6. Somehow, the rear gunner is able to depress his weapon to bear on you ( not possible simply by the siting of the gun ) AND fire through his fuselage down at you ( in reality, the rear fuse and empennage is in the way ).
really? Is that true?

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 05:24 AM
sbd like shot when 6 low and no able hit or sea you but fire anyway

Grue_
11-28-2005, 05:34 AM
Look what a quick burst from an IL-2 rear gunner did to a group of Ki-43's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/flyingscampi/ki43woe.jpg

Xiolablu3
11-28-2005, 06:21 AM
Its not just the AI gunners, If a plane comes straight up behind me and I am in a IL2 or bomber, its pretty easy to hammer him and get a PK or engine streaming smoke.

I would say its around 60/40 in favour of the fighter who comes off 'winning' which is clearly far too little.

I would say it should be around 75/25 in favour of the fighter, or maybe even more.

We would have to examine sorties of bombers and how many fighters the gunners shot down.

Remember that even a B17 with its massive armament of 50 cals still had to use tight box formations to have any hope of defending themselves, and even then , they needed fighters to cover them as the 'bomber only' missions were a disaster.

This probability is just too farr in favour of a gunner at present.

Sturm_Williger
12-01-2005, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
really? Is that true?

As far as I've seen, yes.
I can't test again at the moment as PC died, but should have it running again in a week and I can test more then.

As Kenji said - it's not just the Ju87 either.

Another one I've seen - a friend of mine attacked a TB3, diving on it from behind and then passing underneath. The nose gunner depressed his gun 90 degrees to straight down and as soon as the fighter was directly below, Wham ! Pk in the pit from above. There is NO WAY a human could have gotten the gun into that position OR known when to fire ( as unable to see ).

A prescient contortionist is a little TOO uber IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kocur_
12-01-2005, 08:44 AM
The problem with all AI gunners is related to the way the game is generous for bombers. Their DMs are IMO too tough and they have AI gunners deadly as Terminators: very hard to kill and accurate as police snipers at 100m. And IRL that was shooting at moving target from moving and vibrating platform with simple sights.
It might be interesting to compare game experience and RL soviet statistics (from Il-2 units of 8. and 17. VVS Armies): probability of gunner death was 2-2,5 times higher than that he would defend his plane and probability that he would kill attacking fighter was 3-4,5 lower that defended plane would be shot down ("Iljuszyn I"-10" by Oleg W. Rastrenin).

Tater-SW-
12-01-2005, 08:51 AM
The flex gunner AI is rediculous. I maintain a Val is harder to approach than a B-29 for me. The guns need more dispersion due to their mounting and the fact the gunner is in a less stable platform. They alos shoot DOWN and close to the tail too well (not just the Val, all of them).

I think part of the problem is that they track you too well. You come up from below, out of sight, and yet the instant you are in their arc of fire the bullets are heading for you. In reality, they'd have a 50% chance of having the gun ready on the wrong side of the empanage.

tater

Kuna15
12-01-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
Look what a quick burst from an IL-2 rear gunner did to a group of Ki-43's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/flyingscampi/ki43woe.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-02-2005, 02:23 AM
neural::
I think rear gunners are ok. If you don't like the difficulty of AI you can decrease it.
You can't -- that decreases pilot skill also. We once asked Oleg to make AI pilot skill not linked to AI gunner skills.

Now, Oleg will come here and post we must not attack from behind. But Oleg's AI always attacks from behind, and Offline campaign results can suffer.

That said, I was reading about Spit pilots flying in The Meds and they were having a bad time with Ju-88 gunners. In fact, one Ju-88 was going down in flames and the gunner kept firing at the Spit pilot until the -88 hit the waves. So, it can happen - gunners firing when a plane is going down- from time to time. I don't think AI gunners are as deadly as they were long ago. I do recall a Patch where AI gunners were totally Porked. We did not like that either. Its a tough call for Oleg to make. This is one thing that should be made optional, and honestly I am not sure AI skill has effect on gunners. I never tested it. But this is worthless anyways until AI pilot skill is seperated from AI gunner skill -- many Bf-110 fighter pilots were very highly skilled in combat.

maddy-sad
12-02-2005, 04:16 AM
Hi guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I fly online a lot using He111, Betty, Stuka,Bf110,il2 and in the He111 and Betty am normally able to set my aircraft Level Stabilizer on between 20-50m altitude, take up the rear/upper gunners position and claim 2-3 kills,drop my payload, and possibly claim another 2 kills on return.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE ATTACKING AIRCRAFT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
If your approach against my purposely low level forces you to level out 70-80m behind me, I can hit you as easy as you could hit me from 20m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
If you attack from high 6 and get your angles wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
Come in about 60 degrees to vertical or less then I pick my aim below you and whilst firing check tracer for hits and adjust accordingly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
A few hits from my guns on you are doing more damage than your inflicting on me
I'm hitting engine, radiator,pilot,leading surfaces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Your hitting trailing surfaces,10m of fueselage,1 gunner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Change you approach
Attack high 9-3 your target includes nose area and full wingspan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
ONE cannon shell will do the trick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Rant over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

maddysad