PDA

View Full Version : Air gunnery observations



djetz
04-08-2007, 11:44 PM
I've seen a lot of complaints on this forum about AI air gunners being "too good" and "snipers" and so on.

I don't find that to be true at all, if anything they're too easy to avoid most of the time. Given the difficulties of air gunnery, though, I suppose they're fairly realistic.

Anyway, I decided to test my theory and fly as a gunner. I find Stukas pretty easy to kill and their gunners easy to avoid, so I decided to be a Stuka gunner.

I used a Gladiator II as the attacker, as it's a pretty good match for the Stuka: manoeuvrable without being too fast. I didn't want anything impossible for my first try at air gunnery. Considering my pilot was AI, I figured that was fair.

I chose the Ju87 D3, and I have to say, visibility is really bad for the gunner in that plane.

So anyway, less than 3 minutes into the QM I set up, I managed to kill the Gladiator pilot and the plane banked over and sailed off into the ground.

Looking at the screenshot below, you can see that I managed to put most of the bullets directly into the cockpit area. Pretty good for my first try at air gunnery.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q49/djetz/gunner.jpg

Anyway, my conclusion is that people who complain about AI air gunners should try taking on human controlled air gunners. I get the impression that some folks think that bomber crews should just surrender and bail out when a fighter approaches...

Of course, this won't persuade anyone who's convinced that AI gunners are immortal super snipers because they hit their targets occasionally, but I found it pretty interesting, anyway. I might try some more air gunnery, it was an interesting change of pace for me.

PBNA-Boosher
04-08-2007, 11:51 PM
I fully understand and agree with your tests, djetz, however, the amount of times I have been killed from a high 3 O'Clock approach (That's a LOT of deflection) are appalling, particularly appalling being the fact that most of those kills (by kills I mean PK's) happen at about .8 - .5 km range... not to mention the fact that the plane I was attacking (a formation of D3A's, in numerous cases) doesn't have a waist gun.

Nevertheless, a human gunner is something to be wary of too. I've shot down my share of human pilots online from gun positions in Pe-2's, Heinkels, and B-25's to know their worth. Yet, knowing also the ease at which a gunner can die in a player's aircraft, I wonder why it's so hard to kill an AI gunner.

R_Target
04-09-2007, 12:10 AM
As far as human vs. AI accuracy goes, I'm not surprised that a human is just as accurate. But the AI gunners are supposed to simulate a guy with a heavy, bucking MG/cannon in a pitching, heaving, freezing cold plane, not a person comfortably seated with a smooth tracking mouse.

djetz
04-09-2007, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
As far as human vs. AI accuracy goes, I'm not surprised that a human is just as accurate. But the AI gunners are supposed to simulate a guy with a heavy, bucking MG/cannon in a pitching, heaving, freezing cold plane, not a person comfortably seated with a smooth tracking mouse.

Indeed you are right. But my point was that I was much more accurate than an AI gunner on my first try. As I said, I can avoid AI gunnery pretty well. I can bring down a single bomber with no major damage to my plane probably 5 times out of 6. But when flying against a formation of bombers, it gets a lot harder, as it should.

Air gunners in real life did shoot down fighters. Between fighter cover and air gunners, the Luftwaffe lost a fighter for every two bombers brought down, and that's counting bombers hit by flak as well. And probably mid air collisions and bombers hit by other bombers bombs. And then shrapnel from all of the above. There was a lot of metal going every which way up there. It was very dangerous for fighter pilots as well as the bomber crews.

So, in the game, it should be really difficult to shoot down a bomber. More so than it is, in fact. Shooting down a bomber was never a sure thing, and anyone who thought it was most likely ended up in a smoking crater.

But my main point was that I just don't see the uncanny accuracy that others claim to see. Certainly I get damaged by air gunners fairly regularly, but I'm certain that happened in real life too.

That's why machine guns were invented: spray enough bullets around and some of them are bound to hit your target. I don't find the supposed super accuracy of air gunners in this game to be unrealistic. If you approach bombers the right way, most of the time you can destroy them. Sometimes you're unlucky. Just like real life.

Kocur_
04-09-2007, 01:54 AM
Between fighter cover and air gunners, the Luftwaffe lost a fighter for every two bombers brought down

Wouldn't that be about LW vs. huge formations of US 4-engined bombers with vast amount of hmg per one attacker? Those were unusual conditions, certainly NOT applicable to single bomber with one or two stations firing at the same time situation.

OD_79
04-09-2007, 02:07 AM
It might have been a fairer test if you had used an aircraft capable of shooting you down and wasn't made of fabric and wood as well. Maybe a Spitfire would have been a better choice.

OD.

djetz
04-09-2007, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Between fighter cover and air gunners, the Luftwaffe lost a fighter for every two bombers brought down

Wouldn't that be about LW vs. huge formations of US 4-engined bombers with vast amount of hmg per one attacker? Those were unusual conditions, certainly NOT applicable to single bomber with one or two stations firing at the same time situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, which I said in the first paragraph. How often, in real life, did a single fighter meet up with a single bomber? Pretty rarely, generally only when the bomber was already damaged enough to separate it from the formation. That was the "unusual condition" - standard bomber tactics was to fly in a group, so that the massed firepower of the air gunners would make attacks by fighters difficult if not impossible.

Single combat between a fighter and a bomber was extremely rare in real life. If you look at the Battle of Britain, they lost plenty of fighters attacking German bombers. More to fighters, but the bombers claimed their share. It wasn't just the outnumbered Luftwaffe in 1944 that lost a lot of fighters attacking bombers. Everyone did.

All I'm saying is that attacking a bomber should not be a safe mission, and it was never a forgone conclusion that the fighter would always win. If you get shot down by a bomber, that's not unusual, it's normal. It's unusual if you win every time. Extremely unusual.

Realistically, you should expect to get shot down, or damaged enough to break off the attack, one time in three. Those are the averages. If you're doing better than that, it isn't realistic. (Of course, in the game we don't die and can learn from our mistakes.)

So when people claim that getting shot down by air gunners is not realistic, it's their vision of reality that's at fault, not the game.

djetz
04-09-2007, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by OD_79:
It might have been a fairer test if you had used an aircraft capable of shooting you down and wasn't made of fabric and wood as well. Maybe a Spitfire would have been a better choice.

OD.

I can shoot down Stukas flying a Gladiator. Done it many times. That's one of the reasons I chose that line-up: to see how it looked from the other side.

Kocur_
04-09-2007, 02:43 AM
How often, in real life, did a single fighter meet up with a single bomber? Pretty rarely, generally only when the bomber was already damaged enough to separate it from the formation.

Indeed! Killing a US Viermot AFTER it got separated from the formation was even less valued than forcing said separation. Yet in the game a single bomber, even armed with single mg is able to defent itself very often - not saying it shouldn't happen, especially, if attacker is making it easier, say by flying all the time in gunners's fire zone and straight.


All I'm saying is that attacking a bomber should not be a safe mission, and it was never a forgone conclusion that the fighter would always win. If you get shot down by a bomber, that's not unusual, it's normal. It's unusual if you win every time. Extremely unusual.

Well, I belive that accidents, like hitting fighter pilot's head from several hundrets of meters and at large deflection and/or through armoured glass is beyound even "extremely unusual" - yet it happenes often... And thats what botheres me - not possibility of a fighter gettin damaged by gunner(s), especially if the former makes himself a practice target.

F19_Ob
04-09-2007, 03:46 AM
I'm mainly concerned about the ai gunners poor performance online, where they too often shoot up the ammo on thin air, ground and sea instead of the enemy.
I find me constantly jumping to the gunnerseat to prevent the ai to use up the ammo on nothing wich leaves the gun empty in tight spots. Usually the ai only good for giving a warning, although it comes very late.

My ai gunners have quite many times been falsely accused for being over-modeled snipers when I was to blame.

Unfortunately too few of the fighter guys have ever been in a bomber, or have read accounts of bomber-gunners to be able to relate. I suspect this is because they simply aren't interested in so inferior planes, and how many spend money on books they're not interested in?

tools4foolsA
04-09-2007, 04:30 AM
If they hit a lot of air online then I think that's OK...

From my reading gunners didin't hit much except if it was close and represented a good target.

Snipers hitting at 5-600m with first burst?
Nope.
AI gunners are made of steel as well; Try shooting up your buddies in a TB-3...

Remember that AI fighter plane is not very good shooter either, so sure you will perform well in comparison.

It is easy to exploit AI gunners weakness (not being able to predict flight path and therefore not hitting target changing flight path all times), but it is easy to predict AI fighter approach as well and therefore shoot him up - specially combined with the fact that AI fighter is lousy shot. Human flyer attacking from dead six on straight flight path is easy to get too...

What settings did you use anyway?

How about if you try to shoot down a B-25 with a Oscar. And put the B-25 at least on average?

Or have an ace cannon Spitfire on your Ju 87 flown by a rookie?

*****

Blutarski2004
04-09-2007, 05:51 AM
My off-line experiences - usually flying an FW190A series solo against different Russian twin-engined bomber formations of four a/c:

1. High deflection approach at high speed usually guarantees safety against bomber gunner fire.

2. Low deflection attacks from astern are absolutely asking for trouble.


My complaints:

1. Bomber gunners appear to have no arc of fire limitations.

2. Bomber gunners are able to maintain perfectly accurate fire even when their bombers are making violent high G evasive maneuvers. This cannot be fully appreciated until you have been shot by a quick squirt from the tail-gunner of a flaming bomber rapidly spinning down to earth.

3. Bomber gunners have an uncanny knack for hitting at quite long ranges (0.5-0.8 km, as someone mentioned), often on the first burst.

4. When they hit, it is far too often a Pk or engine kill.

5. I have never been able to silence return fire from a bomber. The gunners seem impervious to my attacks.

6. Bombers can perform some amazing evasions and defensive counter-maneuvers. What ever happened to the concept of flying tight defensive formations?


..... these are my accumulated impressions as an off-line flier.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the likelihood of damage and the possibility of death when attacking a bomber box. Sixteen four-engined bombers could put a lot of lead into the air with 160-odd heavy machine guns. But isolated bombers seem to have awfully effective fire from their gunners.

amilaninia
04-09-2007, 06:38 AM
Try to attack a U-2VS (Po-2) in an A-8 (Gladiator). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

djetz
04-09-2007, 07:17 AM
Well, I just don't see the AI gunners as snipers. Even on "ace" settings, they only get lucky occasionally.

Who knows, maybe if I had a more modern computer it would increase the effectiveness of the AI gunners and then I too would be complaining that they were too damn good. Could it be something as simple as that? It seems unlikely, but it's like we're describing different games here.

I don't mean to call anyone a liar, and I'm sorry if I've given offence, but I just don't see any superhuman AI sniper gunners. I don't doubt that people have experienced what they say, but I'm at a loss to explain why it doesn't seem that way to me.

I'm not much of a pilot, but a fairly good marksman. Perhaps my erratic flying confuses the AI and my decent shooting in moments of stability works in my favour. I fly funny but I shoot straight.

Whatever it is, from my own experience of the game I see nothing to complain about in terms of AI gunnery.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-09-2007, 07:31 AM
IMO, there are a few AI gunnery positions in particular aircraft that seem to be intrinsically better marksmen than others. but knowing the actual pilot is likely to be back there instead of the AI causes me to typically focus on THAT particular position instead of some other vulnerable part of the AC, like their engines or wing roots.

As a result, PK's come by the handful.


TB

SithSpeeder
04-09-2007, 08:31 AM
As I said, I can avoid AI gunnery pretty well. I can bring down a single bomber with no major damage to my plane probably 5 times out of 6. Not to hijack the point of your thread, but "care to share" your tactics?

* _54th_Speeder *

Jaws2002
04-09-2007, 09:44 AM
I don't find ai gunners too much to worry about unless they are on ace. Even then a fast pass with high deflection will get you in and out of gunner's range with little chance to be hit.

I find human gunners much better at hitting you in a high angle pass.

If you don't belive me go attack Thrud's or Pepper's B-25 on Historia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

They chew me up all the time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I rarely make it out whithout damage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

When they fly formation (most of the time)forget it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
04-09-2007, 10:10 AM
Why do you guys do this when I'm at work? This MY pet peeve.

First of all, let's separate ˜mixed' AI/Human crews from ˜pure' AI crews. A human pilot simply cannot match an AI pilot for providing a smooth predictable ride; the AI are always perfectly trimmed to the point that they don't even get that little ˜bump' when they go over rivers. The pure AI crew is a whole; every move made by the pilot is immediately known and compensated for by the gunner portion of the program. By contrast the human pilot wobbles and bounces all over the place, his gunner cannot predict his next move and must react to his every miscue, rather than center on and fire at the (hapless) target.

When you add in the AI pilot's perfect awareness of the attacking aircrafts' position and vector, well, the contest gets a bit uneven.

In a mixed crew, the human gunner benefits from the perfect AI piloting and his greater ability to predict the attacking fighter's next move. THIS is why the human gunner is more effective than the AI gunner in the mixed situation. The AI gunner is badly thrown off by the human pilot flying a realistic FM with a delayed trim response, and ends up being far less effective than the ˜pure' AI crews.

Compared to the real life gunner's job, the game favors the gunner by a wide margin over the pilot. Gunners on the real bombers of WWII had by far the most difficult and unappreciated task of the air war, and they flew on a vastly less stable platform than even a good human pilot can achieve in this game. Real life heavy aircraft of that era literally did a mild corkscrew through the air; never fully stabilizing in a truly straight and level flight. Naturally, none of them coordinated their corkscrew pattern with each other even when flying in tight formation. Hitting a single engine aircraft (about the size of a full sized pickup truck or SUV in a headon silhouette) 100 meters away was a major accomplishment, and became even greater the farther the angle was off the axis of flight.

Late war American daylight bomber formations achieved a semblance of self protection by flying tight formations and depending upon the sheer volume of fire provided by multiple guns from multiple aircraft firing in the general vicinity of an approaching fighter. Even so, it was absolutely necessary to provide a significant fighter escort, or a massacre was the inevitable result. Even late in the war, with better formations, superior training and improved gun positions, an attack on a formation by prop fighters in the absence of an effective escort usually proved disastrous for the bombers.

By comparison, every other air force's bomber and attack aircraft were buck naked under fighter attack. V type formations, pintle or ball and socket mounted rifle caliber guns were more effective as dissuasion than as an actual effective deterrent. Wellingtons over German defended airspace in daylight were easy meat for 109D and E-1 fighters armed with 4x7.9mm guns. How much easier for cannon armed E-4s and 110s were the much lighter armed Hampdens, Battles, Potez, and SBs early in the war?

Consider how quickly the Stuka was pulled from the Battle of Britain after it encountered effective fighter opposition in the form of the lightly armed RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires, or how ineffective the 110 was found to be against faster and more maneuverable single engine fighters, despite the rear gunners (who could never HOPE to match their AI counterparts in this game) defending their vulnerable hindquarters.

And let's be clear here. The real life fighter pilot of the time approached from a few degrees above or below a six o'clock position more than three fourths of the time and was practically UNTOUCHABLE until he was within 100 meters, especially if he had been hammering his target from 350m in.

A human being able to ˜match' what the AI do in the game does NOT make the AI's gunnery more valid; it simply proves that the gunnery model for the defensive gunner is wholly unrealistic.

Cheers

horseback

tools4foolsA
04-09-2007, 11:20 AM
I agree with you, horseback.

- It is possible to evade the AI gunners simply by constantly moving your plane left and right and up and down - AI gunner can not predict/guess flight path and won't hit that way (But that doesn't mean automatically AI gunners are modeled very good). As soon as one flies smooth or worse straight, one's dead meat.

Blutarski has some very good point too. If you sneak up under a bomber with no belly gun the pilot knows you are there; he throws the plane in a turn, of course the right direction, so that the top gunner can shoot down the side. This top gunner naturally eaxactly knows where you are even if you are in the last 1/100th part of his entire field of view. And he got his gun turned right on that spot as well...

Yep, AI crew is difficult to kill. very difficult.

And yes, I found the evasive formation flying ridiculous. I can see one bomber weaving back and forth to try to throw off a fighters aim and give his gunners a better shot, but a whole formation doing that simultaneously in combat? No way...

And it depends very much with what plane you go up against what plane.

If you take a Gladiator with MG's it doesn't matter what level you set him, with the Stuka's rear MG (I assume you use D-5 saying bad visibility, B- 2 is much better but has only one gun) you will get the Gladiator most of the time. Simply because he attacks always the same, maybe 3 different was only. You can predict that and voila, you will hit him with a bit of practice. In top of that he's very slow, so he approaches very slow, gives you plenty of time to aim.
And even if Gladiator hits it's not the end of the world, your 87D can take quite a few MG hits. Gives you more time to hit that Gladiator.
And AI fighter hits not very well either...

Now habout giving your opponent ACE fighter pilot, plus a much faster plane and 4 cannons?
As a ace he at least should hit the lame 87 sometimes and if those cannons hit there goes you 87. And he moves in much, much faster. Plus a Tempest can take some hits (well, the Glad actually too). Ace Tempest/87 is much more difficult than Gladiator but you still have one big, big advantage - even the ace tempest attacks only 1-3 different ways and on very predictable path...

looking at stories from fighter pilots who got downed by bomber gunners it's all stories where the fighter got hit at close range and most times when closing in from directly behind. But even then it wasn't the norm getting hit instantly - at least not at range.

in 'tail gunner' a 109 attack is described on a Halifax. Tail gunner shoots at 109 hits nothing. 109 hit halifax constantly. 109 closes in, still hitting. Tail gunner wonders why he still is alive with all the hit around him; continues firing, hit nothing. finally 109 gets closer and closer, still firing and hitting, but he finally succeeds and hits 109. 109 flips over and plunges down, smoking.
He looks around and entire tail plane is shot to pieces.
Obviously 109 missed vital parts (including tail gunner) and halifax crew was lucky in that; well still enough damage that it crashed afterwards.
If in Il-2 you attack a Halifax alike bomber from dead six closing in and closing in more you will be dead in seconds...

The few gun cam vids I have seen on attacking bombers mostly fighters attack from rear and quite straight. still they get not hit. In Il-2 they would be dead quick.

Other adavantages for Ai (and human) gunner - G forces do not exist; not only that they have an influence on your aiming but they will have an effect on your MG on a flexible mount as well. Flex MG's and turrets can be turned and elevated in split-seconds with mouse - not very realistic either.
Gunners do not need to change drums either in Il-2...

It's not easy to shoot a bird with a shot gun. And its gonna be a even lot less easy if you have to shoot out of a car who goes 60km/h...on a bumby road on top of it...

*****

Blutarski2004
04-09-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Late war American daylight bomber formations achieved a semblance of self protection by flying tight formations and depending upon the sheer volume of fire provided by multiple guns from multiple aircraft firing in the general vicinity of an approaching fighter.


..... My impression is that that defensive fire from a bomber formation was historically far less "aimed fire" than it was the creation of a more-or-less random danger zone of 500-600 meter radius around the formation. A long time back, I once looked into bomber formation ammunition expenditure versus real kills (for which reliable and accurate data is REALLY hard to put together!) The result approached randomness, i.e. estimated considerably less than 1 pct hits.

horseback
04-09-2007, 03:04 PM
German accounts indicate that flying through the formations was terrifying, and often resulted in some aircraft in a schwarme being hit/damaged, but their loss statistics show a very low actual loss rate. No doubt the intimidation factor was enormous, especially when you consider that being hit by a single .50 round often resulted in a horrific death or loss of a limb.

On any pilot's priority list, getting back to base in one piece had to be the number one thing, and you can bet that any unexpected thump or bang, especially if the aircraft starts acting 'funny' in some way, would lead to an immediate RTB for most sane men.

The real problem was never the effectiveness of the gunners, but the fear factor. The actual danger was, in order of probability, from weather, takeoffs and landings, collisions, escort fighters, friendly fire (flak or friendly fighters mistaking you for a Jug or Mustang), THEN defensive fire from the bombers.

However, for sheer visual imagery it's tough to beat speeding through a box of huge bombers spitting thousands of half inch steel jacketed rounds at your personal aircraft.

Hey, it scares the sh*t out me just picturing it, but then, MY personal experience is limited to dealing with the deadly AI gunners in this game.

cheers

horseback

Ishmael_Herman
04-09-2007, 08:44 PM
There's another test for this debate besides switching the human component. It's AI vrs AI. And I know that the main reason I quit playing this game years ago (but recently started again) was dissatisfaction with the rate at which my off-line, AI squad mates died while attacking bombers!

I was all set up to immerse myself in a WW2 Adventure -- keeping track of my kills and the successes of my squad mates -- and then said squad mates just started dropping like flies! What was the point in checking the roster when everyone was dead within four missions???

Every time we flew against a bomber formation, I would lose even the highest scoring aces. I cringed watching them drive straight up the *** of an enemy bomber and then roll over -- dead. Fighter after fighter after fighter. Dead.

This is just the kind of thing you get when Engineers build a Flight Sim!

Really!

Flight Sims are not about shiny graphics and accurate flight models. That's like saying a Lamburgini is about four wheels and an accelerator pedal!

Flight Sims are just a means by which we can build a kind of tunnel through time to re-live some experience we have -- in some way -- romanticized.

If the sim has no romance, it's dead.

But with regard to historical accuracy, I'm no WW2 Grognag. I have, however, seen the movie Battle of Britain.

In that film, a huge flight of German bombers comes in from Norway in the east without fighter cover. In the film, every single bomber is shot down without an apparent loss of even a single fighter.

Forgive me if I assumed this was a recreation of an historical event. If the portrayal was inaccurate, I would like to know as I am afraid it has indeed colored my expectations.

But more than that, I'd just like to see my high-scoring squad mates survive more than three or four flights.

djetz
04-09-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Ishmael_Herman:

But with regard to historical accuracy, I'm no WW2 Grognag. I have, however, seen the movie Battle of Britain.

In that film, a huge flight of German bombers comes in from Norway in the east without fighter cover. In the film, every single bomber is shot down without an apparent loss of even a single fighter.

Forgive me if I assumed this was a recreation of an historical event. If the portrayal was inaccurate, I would like to know as I am afraid it has indeed colored my expectations.

I can't say whether the Germans lost an entire bomber fleet on one mission or not. It's possible. I know that the model of He 111 that flew in the BoB carried only 3 machine guns, and the Luftwaffe upgraded both the calibre and the number of guns on later models directly because of losses of the earlier model in the BoB.

The real question should be: if the RAF destroyed a whole bomber fleet in one mission, how many fighters did they lose doing it? Possibly someone who knows can fill us in on whether this incident actually happened and - if so - what the actual ratio of losses was.

I'm not going to argue any more about the accuracy or lack of it from AI air gunners. I already said my piece earlier. Either my particular setup and/or my particular skills (or lack thereof) mean that air gunners are fairly realistic when I play... or some people have unrealistic expectations of how lucky they think they ought to be.

I do not see the same magic skills that others see with regard to air gunners. It does not happen to me. That's a fact. Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I have skills I don't even know about. I don't know why I'm seeing something different to what is described here. I just do.

DooDaH2007
04-09-2007, 10:10 PM
I found that changing 'arcade=0' to 'arcade=1' in the conf.ini showed that they do not only hit you in the engine or body, but they ALSO hit you in engine or body...

There os so much lead flying through the air, yet you only see the tracers...

tools4foolsA
04-10-2007, 02:12 AM
djetz,

as said AI gunners are very predictable - all you have to do is keep on jerking your plane all over the place, move it up and down, left and right. Because AI can do only one thing, shooting at something going nice, linear, steady. It can not precalculate a flight path and shoot where the plane will be in a a moment.
It is not your skills that have you not hit. It is exploiting a weakness of the AI gunner.

So by flipping around you are safe. But that does not mean that AI gunners are REALISTIC.

As soon as you don't do that you are hit. That's where the AI excells unrealisticly. Plus it doesn't matter for him really how far away you are as he is shooting at a location known to him rather than at a tiny spot in the air. He can do that at pitch black night and in the clouds as well. How about that?
he can because he is not shooting at what he sees, but at what he knows exactly where it is - he even knows you are there if you are outside of his arc of visibility!. Fortunately he can not precalculate abrupt manouvers and so there is a way getting away without being shot up. But has NOTHING to do with skills - or even luck. It is simply using the knowledge of what he is capapble of and what not - and both are not very realistic.
And that's not realisitc.

Shooting a flying bird out of driving car is sure very difficult. But shooting a sitting duck out of a MOVING car is still difficult, shouldn't be a guarnteed hit.

Likewise shooting down AI planes is no big feature - especially if you are in a D5 with twin MG and have a lame duck AI Gladiator coming up to you. Nice, slow and predictable, always coming from same direction, 3 variations at the most.
With Betty 20mm tail gun I score over 50% against P-51D. Now that's realistic to you? Me crappy tailgunner shooting down the best of fighter jocks at 50% of times at least?

It's too easy for human gunner as you don't get thrown around, have to change ammo, etc, etc.

And taking that BoB movie as 'facts' is just plain stupid, btw. Maybe that's why a lot of people think german planes should explode as soon as shoot at too.
It's a movie, boys, just a movie!

Oh my god.

Dunno which He-11 was most widely used in Bob but it doesn't matter if it had 3 or 6 MG's.
Prewar some people thought that fast unarmed bombers could make it; proved wrong as fighters were always faster. Daylight bombers were not able to defend themselves. Never. Even not the boxes of US heavies. They needed escort despites all their 0.50 caliber guns.

*****
edited for two small errors which would change the meaning of sentence...
*****

ViktorViktor
04-10-2007, 04:01 AM
Tools4foolsA writes
So by flipping around you are safe. But that does not mean that AI gunners are REALISTIC.

This is true. I might add that one doesn't even have to jerk the fighter around in order to not be hit - as long as you fly (short of point-blank range) in such a manner that the AI gunner must pull some lead in order to hit you, you are safe cuz he fires at where you are, not where you're going to be.

So if you dive on a bomber's 6oclock, aim for a wingtip (so that you end up flying formation behind him but a little off center), retaining your speed until you get into your desired firing range (I start at about .30). Then bank ever so slightly towards the bomber so that it 'walks' thru your gunsight' and commence firing when the first engine shows up in the sight. For a 2-engined bomber it takes about 2-3 seconds for it to walk thru the gunsight from engine to the other. By then I've flown past him and am ready to climb back up to set myself up for the next run, but have hit him pretty good.

Ernst_Rohr
04-10-2007, 09:14 AM
I find that the AI gunners are a mixed bag.

Flying up the six of ANY bomber is bad news. I have noticed though, that ANY sort of side slip really screws with the aim of any AI gunner in the game (not to mention AI flown fighters). A little rudder on the approach helps immensely against AI gunners. Against a good human gunner, it doesnt do you jack. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The other thing I have noticed is that you CAN hit bombers much farther out and take them down fairly easily. I started working on this courtesy of getting my butt handed to me flying against B-25/A-20/G4M flyers who knew what they were doing.

Shooting from high six and long, with a lot of lead, you can really whack the heck out of bombers. I had a field day with this last night against some guys flying G4Ms, I splashed all three, and only took a couple of hits of defensive fire.

One angle of attack that works VERY well against the AI (and human) gunners is coming in from the 3 and 9 positions. You dont have a lot of time, and you have to give em a lot of lead, but if you can get good at that tactic, you can maul bombers and the gunners have a hell of a time hitting you. The Betty seeems particularly vunerable to that attack, as I seem to get a lot of PK shots from that angle.

On the flip side, I like flying the bombers, and I can tell you that I have splashed a LOT of human flyers who insist on plowing on to attack from the six.

I would agree with F19_Ob, some of the bombers in this game seem to be much more accurate than others. The Stuka is pretty much an easy kill for example, but the B-25 and Betty can be bad news. At the same time, the AI gunners blow through a TON of ammo on wasted shots, and do so repeatedly. I have flow a couple of times and switched to a gunner postion only to discover my idiot gunners have shot themselves dry. (the He-111 crews seem very prone to this)

If you REALLY want to see how ugly defensive fire can be, fly against a human crewed bomber! My old coop group had a couple of runs where they crewed up bombers, and that was one UGLY mission for the attacking fighters. A couple of good human gunners who actually know how to shoot deflection from defensive positions are incredibly nasty in this sim.

I get annoyed with the AI "Golden BB" PK and engine kill shots from 800m in game, but I think that for what we have, the AI is an acceptable trade off.

Ishmael_Herman
04-10-2007, 05:23 PM
djetz:
The real question should be: if the RAF destroyed a whole bomber fleet in one mission, how many fighters did they lose doing it? Possibly someone who knows can fill us in on whether this incident actually happened and - if so - what the actual ratio of losses was.


The next important event occurred much further north where, just after midday, radar detected a large force miles out to sea off the Firth of Forth. Responding vigorously to its first threat, 13 Group was able to scramble five squadrons to intercept about 100 Heinkel 111s, escorted by 70 Messerschmitt 110s, thirty miles from the coast. A heavy toll was taken at no cost to the defenders and, although some bombers made landfall, no damage was inflicted on military objectives.

At the same time ninety miles further south, about fifty unescorted Junkers 88s were heading for the Bomber Command base at Driffield in east Yorkshire. They were engaged by squadrons from both 12 and 13 Groups but, although several bombers were shot down, thirty aircraft got through to the target to cause heavy damage. However, this was the only success for Luftflotte 5 which had suffered so severely, losing one-eighth of its bomber force and one-fifth of its long-range fighters, that it never made another daylight attack during the entire battle. FIGHTER COMMAND'S LOSSES WERE NIL. The Germans had learned the harsh lesson that bombers on operations in daylight could not hope to survive without escort by Messerschmitt 109 single-seat fighters.
-- The Battle of Britain
Important Days in the Battle: 15 August (http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/27/battleofbritain/imp15aug.htm)


tools4foolsA: And taking that BoB movie as 'facts' is just plain stupid, btw. Maybe that's why a lot of people think german planes should explode as soon as shoot at too.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/he111-3.jpg]http://w...m/images/he111-3.jpg (http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/he111-3.jpg%5Dhttp://www.warbirdalley.com/images/he111-3.jpg)
http://www.simnetwork.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_bf110-3.jpg
http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_6_25_200...3acc78cb37aLarge.jpg (http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_6_25_2004_14_44_31/junkers88.jpg66dbce3f-8ed3-4a2c-b4ad-73acc78cb37aLarge.jpg)

horseback
04-10-2007, 07:38 PM
I repeat:
A human being able to ˜match' what the AI do in the game does NOT make the AI's gunnery more valid; it simply proves that the gunnery model for the defensive gunner is wholly unrealistic.

I for one fervently hope for a more realistic AI gunner model in the upcoming Battle of Britain sim, at least for the offline campaigns. Using the current model would make an RAF fighter campaign unplayable, and would no doubt lead to fierce denunciations from the floor of the House of Commons...

cheers

horseback

tools4foolsA
04-12-2007, 01:10 AM
At the same time ninety miles further south, about fifty unescorted Junkers 88s were heading for the Bomber Command base at Driffield in east Yorkshire. They were engaged by squadrons from both 12 and 13 Groups but, although several bombers were shot down, thirty aircraft got through to the target to cause heavy damage. However, this was the only success for Luftflotte 5 which had suffered so severely, losing one-eighth of its bomber force and one-fifth of its long-range fighters, that it never made another daylight attack during the entire battle. FIGHTER COMMAND'S LOSSES WERE NIL. The Germans had learned the harsh lesson that bombers on operations in daylight could not hope to survive without escort by Messerschmitt 109 single-seat fighters.

Thanks for posting.
So losses of one eight of the bombers. Out of about 100 that would be 12-13 bombers (plus 14 Me 110) to ZERO losses of RAF fighters.

Now try that in IL-2.
100 He-111 in formation. Plus 70 110's with rear gunners as well.
Shoot down a total of 25 with NIL losses to rear gunners?

As for human gunners (which can be terrific as already mentioned) I hope BoB will maek their job a bit harder by
- slower moving of guns/turrets...
- have to change the ammo drums...
- Having an effect of G-force on trainable guns plus on gunner too...

AI gunners maybe could be improved by
- simply not hitting anything at long range
- Instead of shooting accurately at the point where target plane is 'spray around' that target point; that would reduce hits if fighter approaches on a more or less steady path (maybe modified that if fighter stays all too long on steady flight path and comes to 150m range or so then AI switches back to accurate fire on target) but increase hits if someone will try to throw off AI aim by changing flight path.

So no long range Golden BB, reduced hits on somewhat steady flight path at longer ranges, good hits if you fly steady at close ranges, and somewhat random hits if you close in using non-steady approach.

*****

horseback
04-12-2007, 01:07 PM
Currently the rounds fired are tracked out to about 1000m, at which point they cease to ˜exist'. This is for all aerial guns, both fixed and flexible defensive guns, for the AI as well as the Player.

I had suggested in an earlier thread that the offline Player (and possibly on server settings for online) in BoB be allowed the option of selecting a maximum range for effective AI gunner fire. In other words, the AI defensive guns' max range could be set in the same way as the player sets his convergence, with the rounds simply ceasing to exist beyond that selected range. After that point, there could be an increasing probability of being hit by a random round based on the number of defending guns tracking the attacker and his decreasing range/angle of approach to the formation.

This would also result in hits to wings and after parts of the fuselage, instead of clusters centered on the nose and cockpit of the target aircraft.

It could be included in the difficulty settings.

However, I don't believe that it can be done in the current Il-2 '46 game engine; I think the defensive gunnery model is intrinsic to the basic coding, and cannot be changed substantially without a LOT of work. Since the game has been around for over 5 years, I think that if it could have been changed, it would have been.

cheers

horseback

tools4foolsA
04-15-2007, 01:40 AM
Good approach, horseback!

Sure enough it won't be chaged anymore in IL-2 but I hope the team will code it differently it in BOB!

Same goes for AA guns on ground and ships; we simply need (more) parameters on how to regulate their capabilities!

If nothing would change in AI gunner/AA/ship AA that would be aserious drawback for BoB in my opinion!
+++++

leitmotiv
04-15-2007, 04:38 AM
To counter these horror stories I can add innumerable ones of AI fighters engaging AI bombers of any flavor---classically standing off and hosepiping away---with the result of smoking an engine of the bomber, and the fighter flies through the return fire seemingly with a charmed life. Now if you had elected to pursue that method, the odds were you would have been killed with a round through your windscreen right off.

Deadmeat313
04-15-2007, 06:13 AM
Agree 100% with horseback and Tools4foolsA.

Well said.

T.