PDA

View Full Version : Return of the snipers



XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:11 PM
My flight path was perpendicular to the b-17s when the rookie destroyed my engine with several hits although I was over 400 meters behind him.

I cannot in any way be convinced that that is a realistic thing.

I'm trying to stay positive but I must say that it spoils some of the fun for me.

It is a great sim in fantastic many ways but that detail is buggin' me.

The accuracy of the gunners is probably not off that much but I have a feeling that the gun recoil, if it is there, is too weak when it's the AI shooting.

I know people have said this over and over again but I can't help saying it again : something should be done about those gunners

Swiftwing

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:11 PM
My flight path was perpendicular to the b-17s when the rookie destroyed my engine with several hits although I was over 400 meters behind him.

I cannot in any way be convinced that that is a realistic thing.

I'm trying to stay positive but I must say that it spoils some of the fun for me.

It is a great sim in fantastic many ways but that detail is buggin' me.

The accuracy of the gunners is probably not off that much but I have a feeling that the gun recoil, if it is there, is too weak when it's the AI shooting.

I know people have said this over and over again but I can't help saying it again : something should be done about those gunners

Swiftwing

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:17 PM
Another extra-smart fighre jockey whining.... *sigh*

Don't take it personal son, it's just that I have read too many threads from guys who usually tend to fly right into the gunners arms....

Look in here and tell me what you think:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=ztqyk


S!



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:34 PM
I'll throw in my whine while this is here. Yes, stupid pilots get killed quickly by AI gunners. But what really upsets me is that the AI just don't quit at all, and that nothing spoils their accuracy.

Case in point: I dove on a B-17 and just unleashed a rain of mk108 fire upon him. I split the big bird in half and it spun towards the ground.

Right after my pilots received 4 progressive hits to the cockpit which eventually killed him. I mean I literally saw each shade of red and then black. Luckily externals were on so I jumped out of the pit and saw that yes, the B-17 was spinning away... but the AI were STILL firing on my 109!!!

I can bite off on the explanation that they are mad and want to take me with them, but the laws of physics that would prevent them from firing their guns, much less aiming, seem to be ignored.

I fly in the back of a big 4 engine prop aircraft for a living. I am very well aware that the slightest bump, turn, or G force can easily throw you off your feet. I can't imagine how anyone could fire a gun while their plane is falling apart.

<html>
<body>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.ghostskies.com">http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif
</body>
</html>


<html>
<body>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.ghostskies.com">http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 09:21 PM
Crash_Man wrote:
- I can bite off on the explanation that they are mad
- and want to take me with them, but the laws of
- physics that would prevent them from firing their
- guns, much less aiming, seem to be ignored.
-
- I fly in the back of a big 4 engine prop aircraft
- for a living. I am very well aware that the
- slightest bump, turn, or G force can easily throw
- you off your feet. I can't imagine how anyone could
- fire a gun while their plane is falling apart.

I agree... with the plane spining the crew would be plastered to the nearest surface by the G-forces and it would take all their strength to move, never mind shoot accurately.

Sounds like what the Pe-8s used to do when IL-2 first came out. I seem to recall that the gunner behaviour was changed to stop them firing when a bail-out was in progress.

I had not noticed this in FB though. Is it just the B-17 or are other planes with gunners doing the same?



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 09:25 PM
I just keep telling myself: It's a beta. Maybe they haven't gotten to this part yet.

<html>
<body>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.ghostskies.com">http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 09:47 PM
Good points, Crashman.

Even if the gunner did manage to fire in a B17 going down (assuming he was strong enough to hold on the gun and mad enough not to care about dying) the shots would be wild and all over, he`d still miss any way. Or maybe have a 1/1000 chance to hit!





"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).


Message Edited on 11/28/0308:49PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 09:53 PM
i harassed a B17 in my G6/AS with 20mm the other day on the pacific map all the way to its target and back - making perhaps 10-12 high-speed slashing attacks from above, high 12, high 6, and from 3/9 without getting a single hit to my plane - the B17 was a mess when it landed but i guess i shoulda had more guns in order to destroy it.

point is - the B17 gunners are not snipers - they are only deadly when facing a group of B17s - and if you keep your speed up and use slashing attacks from well though-out angles - you will be fine even if they are a few of them together.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:06 PM
I have made slash attacks and gotten away, and with making the kill. But never without harm. They always score hits. And thats fine. That doesn't bother me. My concerns are with the unrealistic attributes I mentioned before.

<html>
<body>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.ghostskies.com">http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:16 PM
Good point Crash, I have to admit that the behavior you mentioned is quite inadequate, even by FB standards.

And although I think it should be corrected (along with the B-17 bail bug), I sure would miss the occasional funny moments this behavior creates - I'm going down, spinning and burning, shot by a fighter jockey, but with their last few shots, my gunners kill his pilot - double K.O. .
Happens rarely, but happens. Unrealistic? Sure, by far.
Funny? Hell yeah! (at least, it is when both participants think it is! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 11:46 PM
I posted this on another thread but I want to support changing the accuracy and effectiveness of all fixed gun positions.

Someone asked if I was confusing rifle calibre and the U.S. Browning 50 (this was in the other thread). No! I have fired a Browning in familiarization courses and qualified on the M-60.

My point was that the "even" rifle calibre fixed guns on planes such as the Stuka are way too accurate and effective. For example, I can down 2 or 3 109s in a Hurricane Mk IIc (I think I have the Mark right) only to get taken out by perhaps the second Ju 87 I attack from the rear and low.

Certainly, guys were killed by rear gunners on JU 87s, Vals, Devastators, etc. but I would much rather be in a dogfight than attack a bomber.

I only fly offline and almost always against "average" AI. The guys who take on 4 ace level AI and win have my admiration. I can usually beat one "Ace" in a late model FW 190 if I am in a LA 7.

As someone else pointed out, the B-17s and B-24 losses were very heavy when the Germans caught the bombers unescorted. And they had 12 or 13 50's each. A bunch of unescorted Stukas was a gift.

Even a box of B-17s caught by heavy fighters (109s with gun pods, Fw 190s, ME 210s) should expect a loss ratio of 1 to 1 or worse.

Perhaps my favorite history of the 8th Air Force is "To Command the Sky" and McFarland and Newton report that in 1-week (if I am reading this correctly) in September of 1943, the U.S. lost 148 bombers and the Luftwaffe between 80 and 125 aircraft. The bombers made claims for about 700 fighters.

Of course the B-17s and 24s did much better against the Japanese because the Japanese planes had little armor and generally less firepower and were not as aggressive in attacking bomber formations.

My point is simply that the effectiveness of fixed guns should be reduced (I would argue for a factor of 3 to 5).

IMO, Michael

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 12:10 AM
Future- wrote:
- Another extra-smart fighre jockey whining.... *sigh*
-
- Don't take it personal son, it's just that I have
- read too many threads from guys who usually tend to
- fly right into the gunners arms....
-
-
Apparently you've never watched actual gun and training film. Very few pilots were capable of deflection shooting, let alone setting up slashes.

Game has it backward, the guys in fighters should have all the advantages, stable gun platforms and targeting choice.

Gunners had neither, they couldn't tell which bomber was being targeted out of a group by any one fighter, point your sight on one out of a group in game and see what happens to you if you use any of the stability, lights out buddy.

Your robbed of any chance to use your gun platforms stability advantage to get an accurate first shot in.

You can keep the sight off, stay off balance on all three axis, and set up the fast slash through the sight for a brief fraction of a second shot, but don't pretend it was the norm, or a standard tactic.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 02:39 AM
I have a friend who has some German camera footage of Me410's attacking B17's. (downloaded off the net)
These guys just got in behind the bomber, and started hammering. Tracer flying all over the place past them,but they just hung in there, pumping cannon rounds into the B17's until they went down. The german fighters received no damage that you could determine from the film, and flew away intact enough to get home and develop the film!

If you look at the undulating streams of tracer bullets, it's pretty obvious that there wasn't any precision shooting going on.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:28 AM
Budanova wrote:
- I have a friend who has some German camera footage
- of Me410's attacking B17's. (downloaded off the
- net)
- These guys just got in behind the bomber, and
- started hammering. Tracer flying all over the place
- past them,but they just hung in there, pumping
- cannon rounds into the B17's until they went down.
- The german fighters received no damage that you
- could determine from the film, and flew away intact
- enough to get home and develop the film!
-
- If you look at the undulating streams of tracer
- bullets, it's pretty obvious that there wasn't any
- precision shooting going on.

So, I guess that means Me-210 and Bf-110 gunners should be super ace snipers while B-17 gunners should be totally green rookies?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 04:18 AM
Just a quick point.......if you are 400m behind a bomber (not at all a good place to be BTW), travelling in the same direction at say 200 mph, any round fired from the tail position of that bomber that hits you has travelled a lot less than 400m...ie you are flying into the bullet stream.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 06:30 AM
Oh, oh, I got a good story! How about this one:

Me in a 109G with Mk108 cannon dives from 1.5 km advantage on a Il2 on the deck. Almost within gun range he does a hard break turn to the right, and I overshoot. I fly by at breakneck speed, and at impossible range the gunnery, perhaps energized and with eagle eye from the high G break turn pops off 3 rounds, two of which hit their mark and make my engine vomit all over the a/c and me make a crash landing. Long live the Russian Olympian Tailgunners!

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 12:29 PM
BluedogKG200 wrote:
- Just a quick point.......if you are 400m behind a
- bomber (not at all a good place to be BTW),
- travelling in the same direction at say 200 mph, any
- round fired from the tail position of that bomber
- that hits you has travelled a lot less than
- 400m...ie you are flying into the bullet stream.
-
-
But I was NOT traveling in the same direction - my flightpath was perpendicular - 90 degres - to his!!!
If I was traveling in his direction I wouldnt complain at all.

also I have made slashes and attacked from all sorts of angles and lived but the situation I described in the original post is not realistic.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:45 PM
Yeah,,
The accuracy of ai gunners needs to be addressed. Everyone always says it's just that they are good. They are not human (No pun intended). The one thing I miss about the older IL2 is the more realistic firing of weapons. It really took alot at times to bring down CERTAIN planes. You just about have to avoid any frontal pass at all to avoid a sniper shot from an AI enemy. And some of these shots crack me up. Diving at 300 plus miles per hour at an angle twisting and a guy doing a frontal pass will nail the engine. I could see occasionally, but not as a high percentile.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nagle/p51dalone.jpg


Atticus

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 04:13 PM
Ok, let's make a deal: you get the less accurate gunners on planes like B-17, and I (B-17 pilot) get, let's say, 17 wingmate B-17 and 8 P-51 to fly with me.
If you're talking about realism, you can't take only the part of the cake YOU like.

How often did it occur that a Stuka or B-17 was flying ALONE? You guys claim you want the game even more historically accurate, in fact you just want easier kills!

We all know that reality back in WW2 and FB are two different things. And I agree the game should be as realistic as one can make it, but some things have to be adapted so it remains an enjoyable game for EVERYONE, not just for kill-hungry fighter jockeys.

And if I can't have a full attack flight of bombers with fighter escorts, then it is only logical that I need better gunners than their original counterparts ever were or otherwise I don't have a chance. Besides, many of you attack in a "life-disregarding" way real pilots would never have, cause you guys know "hey, if I get killed, no matter, I hit refly and within 2 minutes I'm on his tail again". Try that in real life!
You only want the facts simulated that benefit YOUR fun. And thats not realistic, it's selfish!

I almost always try to fly in a way so I can say to myself "I will survive this and bring my bird back home" (unless I get shot, of course). How many of you guys can honestly say this too? Come on, I dare you, what do you think of most of the time you fly? Do you first think about your survival, or are you just eager to kill?

S!



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 04:39 PM
If there is any one firm conclusion to be learned from WW2 air combat it is that unescorted bombers could not sustain operations against effective fighter opposition without suffering unsustainable high losses.

I will admit to some exceptions: the fast and heavily armored ground attack aircraft (e.g., IL-2), the B-29 (because the Japanese did not have an effective high altitude interceptor and the 29 was very fast compared to WW2 fighters), and the Mosquito. The JU-88 and the B-25 were relatively effective because they were fast and rugged especially against first generation WW2 fighters. But the JU 87 or the other slower older bombers were fodder. The JU 87 continued to operate on the Eastern front because the front was so large and there simply wasn't consistent fighter opposition. But the FW 190 was used to largely replace the JU-87 in (I think because I have a cat on my lap and I am not getting up to pull out a book) fall of 43 and spring of 44.

And yes, against anything less than a B-17 or a B-24, one should be able to get in the rear quarter and gun the bomber down with very little chance of taking more than minor damage. Now we have bombers doing relatively high speed breaks and gunners who hit you from 300 or 400 meters.

Another example is from Korea, B-29s could not operate against Mig 15's without U.S. air superiority.

Against something like unescorted Ju-87s, the fighters should have about 1 loss for every 8 to 16 kills. Against B-17s (in formation) it should maybe be 1 loss per kill. And yes, the Me 210s, Ju-88s etc were causing very heavy causalities among U.S. bomber formations until the P-51 (and P-47, P-38 with increase drop tankage) were able to provide continuous escort to and from the targets.

It simply is much easier to aim a plane and hit something (although it is still a hard task) than to aim a gun esp if it is not in a powered mount.

Again, this is my opinion, but I think it is supported by operational history.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 10:00 PM
Leave them alone and go looking for cheap easy kills to feed ur egos in counter strike. A lone bomber in a df needs good gunners or ppl won't fly them! Learn to fly and shoot beter! BTW I fly mostly fighters and I agree w/ the bomber jocks.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 10:30 PM
The simple answer is of course not to allow AI aircraft as flyable.

But, barring this, one of the real problems is the DM of many of the fighters. To put a fine point on it, there are far too many 1 shot engine stoppages, and it becomes truely laughable in the case of the P47, which often flew home with MISSING cylinders...

Admittedly the B17's .50 Brownings were, and remain to this day, a very powerful heavy machine gun. However the 8mm Mauser caliber machineguns on German bombers are a hunting caliber, at best. To have 1 shot engine or pilot kills through the frontal armor glass and engine block is bizzare to say the least.



<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 10:44 PM
You gotta love the "canopy oilings" that happen while a Sturmo is doing an evasive barrel roll.

Attempting a six-o'clock approach at a bomber is not the smartest way to make a gun pass, but it should not AUTOMATICALLY result in one's engine being hammered.

I think the code needs some "calculation" routines for the gunner to simulate the fact that he has no idea what his plane is going to do at any one time, he's traveling backwards or sideways, and his own gun is flexible (meaning he has to train it on target).

If that were done, perhaps you'd get some more reasonable results: if a bomber is straight and level (as in, in a formation) and a fighter slowly cruises right into the fire cone...then he should get lit up. But when the pass is fast, or has 3 dimensions of movement to it, and/or the bomber takes *any* evasive (whether banking turning climbing or diving) the gunner needs to either recalculate his firing solution or guess (pretty inaccurate guesses, too).

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 11:00 PM
Do you remember in the Il-2 1.0 version(not FB) that the gunners were still firing when Their bomber was falling. I remember seeing in the readme of the patches "corrected bug-boardgunners keep on shooting instead of running for their life"/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Some things are worth fighting for...
And most of them wear mini skirts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 11:47 PM
Stiglr wrote:
- Attempting a six-o'clock approach at a bomber is not
- the smartest way to make a gun pass, but it should
- not AUTOMATICALLY result in one's engine being
- hammered.

I agree, and generally speaking with a well set up attack I find that I don't get riddled by defensive fire... but I always try to attack from above and behind and have a TAS of around 550 plus when I make my firing pass.... most of the time the rear gunners don't even fire... I just need to avoid the guys who can fire on me as I climb away (assuming their plane is still airworthy! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

One thing that is difficult to determine is just what effect defensive gunners had on attacking fighters. I suppose the best examples come from unesorted raids by the US in the latter half of 1943 where the bombers had to fend for themselves for long periods of time. In terms of losses, the bombers lost around 2-3 times their own number as they destroyed enemy fighters.

The Americans in the ETO made an attempt to determine the direction that attacks were made against B-17's and the relative successfulness of those attacks. This was based on data they collected for 3585 attacks and 441 hits that were scored on the bombers. These were then divided up into clock-face directions of attack.

First figure is % of total hits, second is % of attacks (passes) made to score those hits. 12 is head on, 6 is dead astern.

12: 20.2/15.6
1: 12.5/9.3
2: 5.9/6.7
3: 4.5/3.9
4: 5.7/4.0
5: 9.1/9.2
6: 15.6/20.7
7: 6.6/8.9
8: 2.7/3.8
9: 2.9/3.9
10: 3.9/3.7
11: 10.4/10.3

Data collected January-May 1944. Obviously this is from bombers that survived attacks and could return to base for analysis.

This is from a time when the Luftwaffe had had opportunity to work out operational tactics to use against the heavy bomber formations. There is not a great deal of difference in the favoured choice of attack direction: 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock are the prefered approaches. However, attacks from the front have produced more hits per attack than those from the rear. You can then speculate why this was- attacks from the rear were more likely to be disrupted by the defensive fire from the bombers?

Anyway, thought that may be of interest.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 03:03 AM
Just so you guys get to see that I'm not just concerned about "my" plane, here's this:

I agree with ElAurens regarding the DM issue. Some planes just get their engines damaged too easy.

And I also agree on the idea that the gunners behavior should be altered so they do more reasonable shooting, for example, as said, when an enemy makes a close pass in a relatively straight line, and the plane the guner is on doesn't change it's heading much or adapt to get closer to the enemy's flight path, then the gunner should blast the living shi* out of the fighter.
But when a fighter makes a highspeed attack, or the bomber takes massive evasive action, the gunner should NOT be able to score sniper hits repeatedly. I think it would be more appropriate if the gunner trys to shoot, but only does little shooting, and scores hits only by blind luck or good guessing.

See, if I'd be gunner aboard a B-17 in FB, not affected by G-forces, but still having to deal with plane movement, you can bet I'd at least fire a salvo on an incoming plane, even if the chances are low that I could hit it.

For example, I once gunned down a Bf-109 G2 with the forward defensive gun in a He-111 H6. The pilot of that plane didn't expect that I would attack, or that I would be able to do real damage, and that was my luck. In a final strike, I shot his right wing off.
Now, I think you all know the gunners in the He-111, especially that lazy ai guy at the forward gun. I often maneuvered my 111 into a good position behind an enemy fighter/bomber, but most of the time the forward gunner didn't even aim for the target, no thinking about shooting either.
Now, imagine what a good player could do with the guns aboard the B-17G - especially the top turret and lower ball turret. But that is some other story.....


Hell, I'm tired now. See ya later.

S!


- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 04:43 AM
NegativeGee wrote:
- You can then speculate why this was-
- attacks from the rear were more likely to be
- disrupted by the defensive fire from the bombers?
-
- Anyway, thought that may be of interest.
-
-
Analysis flawed, no accounting for such things as lack of frontal armoring and more vitals to kill up front. Adding up the side angles for 8 to 10 o'clock and 2 thru 4 and it's clear that not only were these angles more difficult, fewer attacks, but also more dangerous, almost one to one kill. And there's a reason, if you know even anything basic about gunnery it's obvious.

Pure frontal and rear aspect moving shots present a more complex sighting and ranging problem for a human gunner to solve. It's easier to nail a slasher crossing at a side angle closure than it is a guy comming straight on.

Who's actually presenting the better target picture, guy comming in straight from behind a bomber moving at 300 while he's doing 650 or the fighter approaching from 90 degrees with the same speed. So which guy is really sitting in the gunners sight longer in his approach?

Guy in a straight angle is using all 350 in excess of the bomber for closure, guy using extreme angles can't, he's the same speed but has split it in more planes of motion, and much of it's burned to match the bombers 300 to start with leaving him far less than 350 closure.

So which guy is really easier to calculate a firing closure and range solution on? Not even going to mention which is giving you a larger silhouette./i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:44 AM
They already reduced gunner effectivness in an earlier Patch. It was really bad back then.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:54 AM
- NegativeGee wrote:
-- You can then speculate why this was-
-- attacks from the rear were more likely to be
-- disrupted by the defensive fire from the bombers?
--
-- Anyway, thought that may be of interest.

BfHeFwMe wrote:
- Analysis flawed,

I beg your pardon, but how can my analysis be flawed if I have not made one? I said you *can* speculate as to the cause of this.

no accounting for such things as
- lack of frontal armoring and more vitals to kill up
- front.

This point is not relevant. This data has nothing to do with kills (aircraft shot down I presume you mean). As I stated in my initial post, it was complied from aircraft that returned from missions, not those that were shot down /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Adding up the side angles for 8 to 10
- o'clock and 2 thru 4 and it's clear that not only
- were these angles more difficult, fewer attacks, but
- also more dangerous, almost one to one kill.

I state again, this data is not concerned with aircraft that were shot down. It is taken from damaged bombers that rtb, and whose damage could be analyised.

And
- there's a reason, if you know even anything basic
- about gunnery it's obvious.
-
- Pure frontal and rear aspect moving shots present a
- more complex sighting and ranging problem for a
- human gunner to solve. It's easier to nail a
- slasher crossing at a side angle closure than it is
- a guy comming straight on.

That may be a fair statement (although, by all accounts most pilots in WW2 were not very good at deflection shooting, so it is open to question), but not based upon this data. If you work out the percentage of hits scored from the attacks recorded you get this:

12: 1.29
1: 1.34
2: 0.88
3: 1.15
4: 1.43
5: 0.98
6: 0.75
7: 0.74
8: 0.71
9: 0.74
10: 1.05
11: 1.01

ie. where for 12 o'clock every 1% of attacks made produced 1.29% of the hits recorded and for 6 o'clock 1% of the attacks made produced 0.75% of the recorded hits.

By your rationale, there should be a parity between attacks made on different sides of the bomber at equal deflections. Lets compare:

11/1 : 1.34/1.01
10/2 : 0.88/1.05
9/3 : 1.15/0.74
8/4 : 1.43/0.71
7/5 : 0.98/0.74

Well, I don't think there are any particularly strong correlations there, do you? If anything, it would appear that the facing of attack is the most significant factor, as attacks made to the port side (11,10,9,8,7) of the bombers produced a noticeably better rate of hits than those to the starboard (1,2,3,4,5).

- Who's actually presenting the better target picture,
- guy comming in straight from behind a bomber moving
- at 300 while he's doing 650 or the fighter
- approaching from 90 degrees with the same speed. So
- which guy is really sitting in the gunners sight
- longer in his approach?
-
- Guy in a straight angle is using all 350 in excess
- of the bomber for closure, guy using extreme angles
- can't, he's the same speed but has split it in more
- planes of motion, and much of it's burned to match
- the bombers 300 to start with leaving him far less
- than 350 closure.

Well that depends on how well the attacking fighter can set his attack up. If he is skillful enough to predict an interception point so he can fly in at exactly 90 degrees to the bombers flight path, then that is going to present the gunners with the shortest firing opportunity possible, as all the his velocity is being used in "closure". Such an attack was rather diffcult to execute I imagine. If the attacker allows himself some angle, he will have more opportunity to correct his approach, but will expose himself to the defensive gunners for longer periods of time.

- So which guy is really easier to calculate a firing
- closure and range solution on? Not even going to
- mention which is giving you a larger silhouette

Compared to attacks from the front off the bomber, the plane attacking from the rear is presenting the more opportunity to the defensive gunners. If you look at attacks to the rear, I agree, those coming in from 5/7 and 4/8 o'clock are giving the defensive gunners more opportunity (in term of time to closure) than those attacking from 6 o'clock (assuming we do not have very skillful pilots attacking as I discussed above).

So having worked this through, my inital suggestion as to a possible reason for less hits scored by attacks from the rear is not flawed at all is it? you actually agreed with my point /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:55 AM
Then they upped gunner efficiency again this latest patch. I pretty much quit playing the offline campaign. I am sick of the sniper shooting. I posted a picture from a track I made on my squads website some while back. I asked my squaddies to guess why it says I am dead. In the picture you can only see me in external view. But not even a speck in the distance, not even visible on the screen, a tailgunner shot a single golden bb and killed me.
I got fed up with it and dont fly too much anymore.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 06:10 AM
Agreed! I usually make the bomber Rookie as this helps. But it ruins the pilot's bombing ability too.

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 10:59 AM
What's more important in my opinion than accuracy is field of fire.

Stuka's seem to have a very low rear aspect field of fire which is impossible.