PDA

View Full Version : B-17: Turret turnrate too slow, strange new DM



Future-
03-21-2004, 11:57 AM
I'm normally not the kind of guy to easily start complaining, but it seems now I got a reason:

The changes that were made to the B-17G Flying Fortress bomber with AEP.

1.) Turret turnrate: I noticed that now turrets take almost forever to turn around and aim for a target. While a slow turret movement was more beneficial for aiming, the turrets are now completely unable to quickly react on target heading changes or targets approaching from the sides/ flying at the sides.
From what I know, the B-17's turrets were capapble of muchmore faster turns than they can do now.

My request is that their turn rate is set back more towards the old speed as it was in 1.22.


2.) Damage model changes - I noticed that the engines and especially the fuel tanks get a lot easier damaged/on fire now. This is inconsistant with historical data that clearly pictures the overall durability of the B-17 was much better than it is now on it's wings.

Just like with the turrets, I recommend that the damage model is set back mostly to 1.22 settings.


Now, once again one could say that the B-17s aren't meant to be player controlled, but these changes not only affect the online use of the Fortress, but also the Co-Op and single player experience.
As it is now, the B-17G truely is not much more than a big floating target... just as many whiners here wanted it to be.
But facing a Fortress, even a single one, should be dangerous. Mind this, dangerous, not always deadly. I don't want it to be a flying gun battery, but if I see an A6M flying in from dead 6 on the B-17, and this guy just unloads half his ammo before the gunners even have aimed and start firing, this just can't be right.
If I could manually fire the aft guns on the B-17, the enemy would quickly see how stupid such an attack is, but with the clumsy ai, anything goes now.

Now, at least the turret problem wouldn't be much of a problem if there would be an option to set the ai experience level manually for online games. But since these still get randomly set, it's truely now more and more happening that the B-17 is nearly defenseless even against the dumbest attacks.

I'm no specialist for WW2 planes, but I dare to say that I know a lot about the Fortress and it's capabilities, as well as the factors a game creator has to think about when creating such a plane for a simulator.
It clearly appears now that you, Mr. Oleg Maddox, obviously "nerfed" the B-17 too much.

If you and everybody else wants proof, I can go ahead and record a few engagements, both with AEP and 1.22, and send them in. But I think that by now, I'm not the only one who noticed the changes to the B-17.

Remember, I just want to have a bomber that can defend itself (at least for a short time), and not a C-47 with bombs and gun imitations as the B-17 is often now.
Facing all those fancy fighters with missiles and 30 mm guns, the defensive capacity should be a "little" more efficient than that of a Ju-52.

Thanks for reading, I hope you understood me correctly.

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Future-
03-21-2004, 11:57 AM
I'm normally not the kind of guy to easily start complaining, but it seems now I got a reason:

The changes that were made to the B-17G Flying Fortress bomber with AEP.

1.) Turret turnrate: I noticed that now turrets take almost forever to turn around and aim for a target. While a slow turret movement was more beneficial for aiming, the turrets are now completely unable to quickly react on target heading changes or targets approaching from the sides/ flying at the sides.
From what I know, the B-17's turrets were capapble of muchmore faster turns than they can do now.

My request is that their turn rate is set back more towards the old speed as it was in 1.22.


2.) Damage model changes - I noticed that the engines and especially the fuel tanks get a lot easier damaged/on fire now. This is inconsistant with historical data that clearly pictures the overall durability of the B-17 was much better than it is now on it's wings.

Just like with the turrets, I recommend that the damage model is set back mostly to 1.22 settings.


Now, once again one could say that the B-17s aren't meant to be player controlled, but these changes not only affect the online use of the Fortress, but also the Co-Op and single player experience.
As it is now, the B-17G truely is not much more than a big floating target... just as many whiners here wanted it to be.
But facing a Fortress, even a single one, should be dangerous. Mind this, dangerous, not always deadly. I don't want it to be a flying gun battery, but if I see an A6M flying in from dead 6 on the B-17, and this guy just unloads half his ammo before the gunners even have aimed and start firing, this just can't be right.
If I could manually fire the aft guns on the B-17, the enemy would quickly see how stupid such an attack is, but with the clumsy ai, anything goes now.

Now, at least the turret problem wouldn't be much of a problem if there would be an option to set the ai experience level manually for online games. But since these still get randomly set, it's truely now more and more happening that the B-17 is nearly defenseless even against the dumbest attacks.

I'm no specialist for WW2 planes, but I dare to say that I know a lot about the Fortress and it's capabilities, as well as the factors a game creator has to think about when creating such a plane for a simulator.
It clearly appears now that you, Mr. Oleg Maddox, obviously "nerfed" the B-17 too much.

If you and everybody else wants proof, I can go ahead and record a few engagements, both with AEP and 1.22, and send them in. But I think that by now, I'm not the only one who noticed the changes to the B-17.

Remember, I just want to have a bomber that can defend itself (at least for a short time), and not a C-47 with bombs and gun imitations as the B-17 is often now.
Facing all those fancy fighters with missiles and 30 mm guns, the defensive capacity should be a "little" more efficient than that of a Ju-52.

Thanks for reading, I hope you understood me correctly.

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

crazyivan1970
03-21-2004, 12:24 PM
AI aircraft is not meant to be flown in 3rd person view. As AI B-17s are doing their job just fine.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

NegativeGee
03-21-2004, 12:59 PM
Oh no, not the "nerf" word.

Please send it back to whence it came....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_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

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Korolov
03-21-2004, 01:00 PM
Bombers are not meant to fly alone. Why do you think the germans had a tactic to force a break off of one B-17 so they could easily pound it to dust, away from the flock? One B-17 is a target, four or five is suicide.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

The_Red_Spoon
03-21-2004, 02:42 PM
Heh - I just took on four ACE B-17s with a 109-K4 (using swift dive from altitude deflection tactics); I shot down one, and damaged two before I got too and over-confident and got hit. Unfortunately, their first hit set my engine on fire... 10 seconds later... boom!

Getting bombers right is tricky because their firepower becomes more than the sum of the individual aircraft when they are all bunched together. However, I think the defensive strength and structural integrity of the AEP B-17 has been under-modelled. Attacking a group of four B-17s isn't easy, but it is far from suicidal.

Hartmann.
03-21-2004, 02:45 PM
some1 shoot him please? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The_Red_Spoon
03-21-2004, 02:49 PM
Who? Me?

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

GAU-8
03-21-2004, 06:04 PM
future is correct.
he is right on the actual TURN RATE... not the firepower, not the accuracy.. but the TURN RATE itself... it has been slowed down.

tracking with a ball/ top turret was quick/er.

as stated before ..we are not asking for a floating impervious gunship... it was was dangerous though. yes there is a problem still with the AI sniper. but going against a ship with multiple stations (average 2 can be on you at any point..X2 guns each) is inherently dangerous.

accuracy by saturation. thats what its about.. but now our "saturation" effect is off because of slow turn rates. hence, big fat castles with tons O guns... yet any non tactical noob can take out several in one pass. ..

(not refering to SPOON...didnt mean YOU!) but actual on-whinage with "lesser" aircraft

clint-ruin
03-21-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GAU-8:
future is correct.
he is right on the actual TURN RATE... not the firepower, not the accuracy.. but the TURN RATE itself... it has been slowed down.

tracking with a ball/ top turret was quick/er.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't played with the bombers yet much in AEP, but if that's true then I can only imagine how easy they must be now. 3 / 4 bombers per pass was not totally out of the ordinary with 1.22. Oleg had mentioned on SimHQ that the turret rotation was already slowed down below their real life rates back in 1.21.

Yeech..

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Fennec_P
03-21-2004, 08:31 PM
Also, you'll notice that the B-17 has the outer wing "Tokyo tanks" that can be ignited.

The early version of the B-17G, having never been to Tokyo yet, should not have these tanks.

Future-
03-22-2004, 12:09 AM
BUMP! for Oleg to read this, hopefully coming up with more than Korolov and Crazyivan replied

- 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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Magister__Ludi
03-22-2004, 03:24 AM
I'm sorry Future, but fires were the main weakness of B-17.
B-17 was packed with fuel tanks (and cells) from wing tip to wing root. It could also carry fuel in additional tanks mounted in bomb bay. Total capacity in wing tanks alone was almost 3000 gallons!! compare this with the 100 gallons fuel tank of a Bf-109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Just hit the wings a few times and you should get a nice camp fire.

What is wrong right now is that you cannot set the B-17 on fire from bigger distances than 250m, unless you hit it way too many times. Incendiary and HE rounds of any caliber should have no problem in penetrating the tanks from 500m (30mm shells are ok though).

Magister__Ludi
03-22-2004, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Red_Spoon:
Getting bombers right is tricky because their firepower becomes more than the sum of the individual aircraft when they are all bunched together. However, I think the defensive strength and structural integrity of the AEP B-17 has been under-modelled. Attacking a group of four B-17s isn't easy, but it is far from suicidal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If attacking bombers was suicidal nobody would have sent fighter pilots to attack them. They would have developed other means to counter the bombers. In reality there were pilots that got 30-40 heavy bombers, some in Bf-109.

I bet if you have encountered in real life the opposition B-17 AI puts right now you would have considered the mission suicidal. I saw 40 min of attacks against B-17 on gun camera, and almost all were from 6 o'clock and the gunners put little oposition - mind you after the first run against a bomber many bomber crew members will be wounded and the rest would try to give them the first aid. There will be at most one gunner to opose the fighter on the second run. Read bomber crew member acounts, see how terrifying were the fighter atacks.

Future-
03-22-2004, 04:07 AM
Mainly @ Magister_Ludi:
There are also several reports from german pilots that described having a dogfight with british fighters was almost relaxing compared to the dangers of attacking a B-17.

Besides, I think you read up a little good old propaganda... because it is highly doubtful a single fighter could wound "many bomber crew members" in one pass.
I also have a few guncam tracks here, and on most of them, you can see the attacker aiming for the wings and engines, which even at close range took damage, but didn't immediately light up like they do now in AEP.

Of course, those guncam tracks are nice, but you only get to see the few tracks of completely SUCCESSFUL attacks. You certainly won't find any track recording of a german fighter that got smoked by the gunners, or at least damaged to some degree.

And one more thing, oh bright one, what else than fighters should have been used to intercept bombers?
Even the massive AAA concentrations only were able to score lucky hits/kills, and at the time the massive allied day bombing raids started, there simply wasn't anything else available than fighters.
I think you're trying to see this from an all too modern point of view, not fully realising what it was really like back then.

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

dahdah
03-22-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I'm sorry Future, but fires were the main weakness of B-17.
B-17 was packed with fuel tanks (and cells) from wing tip to wing root. It could also carry fuel in additional tanks mounted in bomb bay. Total capacity in wing tanks alone was almost 3000 gallons!! compare this with the 100 gallons fuel tank of a Bf-109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Just hit the wings a few times and you should get a nice camp fire.

What is wrong right now is that you cannot set the B-17 on fire from bigger distances than 250m, unless you hit it way too many times. Incendiary and HE rounds of any caliber should have no problem in penetrating the tanks from 500m (30mm shells are ok though).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry Ludi but the B-17 was not packed with fuel tanks from wing tip to wing tip (and from wing leading edge to wing trailing edge). There was no fuel tank outboard of the 6th rib past the landing light and that tank was the Tokyo tank.

port wing:
engine #1 fuel tank - 425 USgal(between engine #1 and #2)
engine #2 feeder tank - 214 USgal(behind #1 tank)
engine #2 fuel tank - 215 USgal(inboard of #2 tank)
outer wing tanks(Tokyo tanks) - 540 USgal. in 9 cells

starboard wing for engines #3 and #4 simular.

total possible wing fuel - 2810 USgal

provisional overload - 2 tanks in bomb-bay with total of 820 USgal. (no room left for a useful bombload, if carried)


Before people start complaining about the rotational speeds of the turrets why not find out what the speed was in real life. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Future, Flak made ~46% of the German kills on Allied a/c in the west. Goring even asked once why he had the LW fighters when he he had the Flak.

Future-
03-22-2004, 06:27 AM
Well, all you need to do is watch the movie "Memphis Belle" - they shot it using about 5 REAL B-17 bombers.

Besides, someone in here already mentioned that Oleg himself said he already had reduced the turret movement speed below their real life speed in 1.21.


While it's true that AAA scored a lot of kills, you also have to factor in the sheer amount of AAA that was necessary.

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

LuftKuhMist
03-22-2004, 11:42 AM
I have guncams from FW190 and 110s attacking various targets.

First, the guncam film isn't playing at real speed, so we have the impression that the fighter sticks on the B17's tail for 20 seconds, which isn't true.

Secondly, in those we see some occasionnal hits on the fighter. We see the camera shaking after we barely see a tracer coming our way.

Third, sorry for the B17 defenders but in a footage we clearly see a FW190A8 shooting MK108 right into the left aileron of a B17 and guess what? The wing bursts into flame.

The unescorted B17 raids were catastrophic, that's MANY B17 in a box formation. That's why they americans needed a long range escorter. Flying alone is suicidal for a B17.

Oh, and the german Flak downed more planes than the fighter force. So saying "Even the massive AAA concentrations only were able to score lucky hits/kills, and at the time the massive allied day bombing raids started, there simply wasn't anything else available than fighters." is pure B S.


In reality casualties of 30% are considered catastrophic. In IL2 I often see 90% casualties on both sides.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

The_Red_Spoon
03-22-2004, 11:55 AM
I just wish the B-17 crews would react to my presence a little more.

I never patched FB (never had time to play online), so I never encountered the FB B-17s. When I started playing with them in AEP, I expected the sky to light up with machine gun fire as soon as I got near one... but they just sit there and take pot shots at you. To get shot down by a pack of ACE B-17s, you have to do something really stupid; consequently, I'm not surprised that the Co-op/Campaign crowd are fed up.

And why do they always explode?

JG5_UnKle
03-22-2004, 12:10 PM
So basically Oleg is saying that he dropped turret rotation rates? For what exactly?

My money is on trying to tone the gunner accuracy down by simply limiting turret rotation rates http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Guess it got noticed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

MrOblongo
03-22-2004, 12:17 PM
One thing is in the game u dont attack 300 bombers with eavy escort flying in close formation, u attack with much 8 B17 with some escort, thats quite different. lol

dahdah
03-22-2004, 12:24 PM
http://www.b17bomber.de/english/formation_06.jpg

http://www.b17bomber.de/english/formation_08.jpg

As can be seen the bomber boxes were not composed of 300 a/c. There is an unending line of boxes.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 12:45 PM
http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=006236;p=2#000 056

TheMooN,

Please calculate real relative looses of German fighters and US bombers in WWII in German intercepts of US bombers....
Then you will see that we have even better picture for Germans. I mean AI vs AI.
As for me I can shot down 4 B-17s before I will be shot down myself. Please also take it in account.

Also you say about high speed. But this speed is very relative in case if the fighter fly with a bit higher speed than bomber in the same course.
The correction for the wind is experience of gunner. And if you are at six - it is almost like to shot down the stopped target for the gunner...(like sitting duck)

So here really is just experience of you... Gunners rotate in FB slowly then in real life jut by request of users....

[ 12-19-2003, 06:52: Message edited by: Oleg Maddox ]


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

GAU-8
03-22-2004, 01:05 PM
ok.lets keep it to futures original post.

i just made a call to the texas air museum in galveston, and talked to a few member devoting thier time to the 17.

now there are no HARD numbers, and im not saying IM RIGHT. (its tricky finding them) this is what they said.

"it was VARIABLE speed, it helped tracking of targets due to proximity of threat"

"you had to have a variable speed control.....if not you are going to be too slow.... OR so fast that aiming would have been untolerable due to OVER LEADING the guns across the target aircraft."

"fairly quick.." &lt;........ gee thanks for the help on that one! LOL lot of good that one does

" i think its about 4 seconds for a full rotation...it had to move to survive"

anyways, the problem in game is that we get gunners tracking an aircraft, yet the turret is barely tracking the target. just firing away while its leading up to the a/c..
or gunners on the other side of the ship are blazing away at air...

Future-
03-22-2004, 01:06 PM
Thx, Clint-Ruin, for posting this message again.

Now, that statement of Oleg was made about the time patch 1.21 for FB was out. But compared to as turret rotation speed is now in AEP, the turrets in 1.21 were moving with the speed of sound!

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

LuftKuhMist
03-22-2004, 01:18 PM
[EDIT] My post was useless.

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GAU-8:
ok.lets keep it to futures original post.

i just made a call to the texas air museum in galveston, and talked to a few member devoting thier time to the 17.

now there are no HARD numbers, and im not saying IM RIGHT. (its tricky finding them) this is what they said.

"it was VARIABLE speed, it helped tracking of targets due to proximity of threat"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I'm guessing that means there's some kind of gear-system for the powered turrets to allow various degrees of fine control/high speed depending on need. Second guess - cheek/waist gunners can move it as fast as a human can lug a pintle mount gun around, but since they're almost completely useless accuracy wise it shouldn't be a big concern.

Hmm..

edit: rude of me to forget - thankyou very much for spending the time to go checking with the restoration crew, Gau-8.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

GAU-8
03-22-2004, 01:48 PM
clint,

im assuming, that it was pressure related, but I dont know.being controlled by foot, im led to believe that its like rudder pedal activation.. the harder you push, the greater degree of movement.. so mee it would seem logical. i cant see a switch that you manually select. (still looking)

"THUNDERBIRD" is only 40 minutes away.. maybe i can talk to some of the guys for a photo/ spec session.

dahdah
03-22-2004, 02:52 PM
Martin Turret

1. General

a. Turret is mounted on the upper portion of the B-24.

b. Mounts two 50 cal. guns equipped with solenoids to fire the guns and Bell adapters to absorb recoil.

c. The turret can be rotated 360 degrees in azimuth from 0 to 45 degrees per second. The turret can be elevated from 0 to 90 degrees elevation from 0 to 30 degrees per second. A high speed switch is incorporated for slewing speed at a rate of 60 degrees per second.

d. The turret is electrically driven; the power is taken directly from the 24 volt system of the aircraft. Two amplidyne motors furnish the necessary power to the two drive motors that move the turret in azimuth and elevation. The guns are manually charged and 800 rounds of ammunition are fed to the guns by means of two booster motors. The tensionon the ammunition belts operates the booster motors. The turret is equipped with an opticalsight mounted on a sight cradle and moves in elevation in relation to the guns. A rheostat is incorporated for brillancy of the light. A gun switch closes the circuit to the guns and aslo to the sight and booster motors. Two control handles, equipped with triggers, dead man switches and potentiometers are incorporated in the control box assembly. The turret has 3/8 armor plating bolted to the main ring for the gunner's protection. A transparent acrylate resin dome is aslo for the gunner's protection. The firing circuit will be cut out at restricted firing areas by an azimuth fire interrupter and an elevation fire interrupter.

2. Sequence of Operation

The gunner in the turret turns on two switches located on the relay panel box under the seat of the gunner. These two switches turn on the two amplidyne motors. Closing the dead man switch closes a main power relay which sends electricity to the two drive motors of the turret. Moving the control handles over a system of potentiometers regulates the amount of current to the drive motors, consequently the rate the turret moves. The motor drives a shaft with a pinion gear attached to it. The pinion gear drives through a torque tube to two sector gears that move the guns in elevation. The azimuth rotation is determined by a movement of the control handle to the right or left. The azimuth motor drives a shaft with a pinion gear that rotates on a ring gear in azimuth. A gun switch is incorporated and this must be "on" in order to fire the guns. The circuit is attached directly to the lower supply so the motors do not have to be running in order to fire the guns. Depressing the triggers will energize the solenoids that cam against the rear slide, thus releasing the firing pin, firing the guns. The left trigger fires the left gun; the right trigger fires the right gun. Power clutches are incorporated in the turret to move the turret by hand. These power clutches must be engaged to operate the turret electrically.

3. Sight

a. The optical N2A and N3A sights are used and they are mounted on a sight cradle that moves in relation to the guns in elevation and revolves in azimuth with the turret. The gun switch turns on the reticle. The N3A Optical sight incorporates the ring and dot reticle. The N2A sight employs the vertical line with three intersecting horizontal lines.

b. Rheostat is incorporated on sight cradle to regulate brilliancy of the light.

c. Lateral Adjustment of Reticle - turn adjusting knob on right-hand side of sight. Be sure to tighten set screw.

Vertical Adjustment - located on front bottom of sight. Loosen bolt nut and turn eccentric adjustment for raising or lowering reticle. Tighten nut.

d. Removal of bulb

(1) Unscrew four screws holding case together.

(2) Loosen nut on bolt holding top of sight to sight cradle.

(3) Raise top of sight and tilt inward; bulb can then be replaced.

4. Switches

a. The two switches that turn on the amplidyne motors are located in relay panel under the seat. Turn on FAST (otherwise switched might burn out).

b. Gun Switch - opens and closes circuit to guns.

(1) Closes circuit to the light in the sight.

(2) Closes circuit to booster motors.

(3) Closes circuit to solenoids.

c. Micro Switch - for communication with pilot.

d. Dead Man Switch - closes circuit to solenoids.

(1) Guns can fire without motors running so long as gun switch is on.

(2) Right trigger fires right gun; left trigger fires left gun.

5. Cranks and Clutches

a. No hand cranks on the Martin Turret.

b. Two power clutches. One for azimuth and the other for elevation.

c. Turret will not operate electrically with power clutches disengaged.

6. Control Unit

a. Contains potentiometers which control turret in azimuth and elevation. The amount the handles are displaced is in proportion to the speed of the turret. Reversing of motor takes place in the control unit potentiometers. Creepage Adjustment - loosen support nut and change relation of potentiometer to the arm that rides on it. When control handles are at neutral, a zero rate should be coming in upper and lower arm.

b. Contains two hand grips, two triggers, high speed switch, dead man's switch and microphone switch.

c. Contains centralizing springs that bring the control box back to a neutral position.

7. Guns

a. Two cal. 50 M2 machine guns equipped with eccentric adjustment on rear trunnion to tow in or out guns or raise or lower guns.

b. Bell shock dampeners equipped on gun cradle to absorb recoil.

c. Guns are attached to gun cradles which have sector gears that are driven by elevation motor.

d. The case ejection hopper is a part of the gun carriage.

e. The guns are fired by a solenoid camming against the sear slide which releases the firing pin, mounted on the outside of the gun.

f. Guns are manually charged with a collapsible handle mounted on inside of gun.

g. Mounting of guns

(1) Elevate guns to 80 or 90 degrees (maximum).

(2) Install bolt (head on the inside of turret) through Bell shock dampener and front mount of gun. (Be sure to put tow spacers between gun and Bell dampener.)

(3) Install rear bolt through eccentric adjustment and rear mount of gun.

h. Notes on installation of guns and accessories

(1) Remember to put large end of sear slide on same side as solenoids. (Solenoids mounted on outside of gun.)

(2) Install retracting slide and holder to gun. (Two bolts should be toward rear of gun - on hand held .50 caliber guns the two bolts are to the front on retracting slide.)

(3) Be sure collapsible charging handle is not binding. (If it is and doesn't collapse, the sight rod can be distorted and harmonization will be off.)

(4) When installing guns put bolt in front trunnion first.

(a) Don't forget the two spacers provided to take out side play.

(b) Install head of bolt on inside - if installed from outside, canopy would prevent the bolt from coming out without moving canopy.

(5) When removing take out front bolt first - slide rear eccentric slide off rear mount.

(6) Loading ammunition

(a) For left gun install double end into box, single end fed to guns. For right gun put single end into box, double end out. (Reason: Always having the smooth side of ammunition belt lying on feed pawl.)

(b) Load cans on the ground - install a wire on first cartridge and push wire up over booster motor so that ammunition can be pulled up. Load 375 rounds of ammunition and load the other 25 rounds from booster motor down to ammunition can and put a shell in link connecting the two together.

8. Preflight Inspection

a. Clean canopy.

b. Check for immediate action of response to controls.

c. Check rheostat in sight.

d. Check gun solenoids.

e. Check booster motors.

f. Check for smooth operation.

g. Check bore sighting.

h. Check for creepage.

i. See that control handle comes back to neutral.

j. In case of jumpy operation, check contact points on potentiometer.

k. Check electrical connections.

9. In Flight Procedure

a. Turn on amplidyne motors (motor generator) (two switches under seat).

b. Close dead man's switch, which will close circuit to drive motors.

c. Turn on gun switch

(1) Turns on reticles in sight.

(2) Closes circuit to solenoids.

(3) Closes circuit to boosters.

d. Track the target and depress guns.

e. Clear guns and stow them at 180 degrees azimuth and 0 degree elevation.

10. Precautions

a. Never run turret with high speed switch closed continuously. (Use high speed switch in changing targets.)

b. There are no electrical stops at the up and down limits in elevation. Don't have guns hit the mechanical stops. A burned out motor can result.

c. When entering the turret do not grasp the sight rods. (Harmonization will be off because of bent sight rods.)

d. Do not place elbows on amplidyne covers, dented covers will result, bakelite flywheels will hit dented covers and break.

e. Be sure to turn the two switches on fast on the relay panels. If they are turned on slowly, the electrical current will arc between the two points of contact causing fusing of points.

http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

Note that with the high slew rate it would take the turret 6 seconds for a full rotation.

GAU-8
03-22-2004, 05:06 PM
thx for the info.

im saw they had the operations manual for the sperry turret, but no specs on it.

from my understanding. the turret hangs only 15 inches above the tarmac..take a look at the pic with the soldier in front of his... maybe an inch or two? or it could be perspective of the snapshot. looks really low.

Future-
03-22-2004, 11:40 PM
Wow, thx Gau-8 and dahdah for all those infos...
Now, I haven't taken a time reading on the turret movement speed in AEP, but judging from what I saw and recall now, the turrets only operate with 25 - 33 % of their max turn speed.
Needless to say that this is WAY too slow to properly react and aim for any enemy that has more relative movement than the turrets.
If I also do small evasive maneuvers with the B-17 (like rocking the plane a little from side to side, or moving a little up and down), the chances to hit an enemy are almost at a complete 0 % rate, even if he's siting only a few hundred meters on my 6.

This has to be corrected, otherwise the B-17s in AEP are nothing more than a bad joke compared to their real world counterparts.

Also, I hope the DM for the wings gets a little improved again. As I already mentioned, from what I know they catch fire a little too easy.

@ LuftKuhMist: As well as there are guncam tracks that show B-17's wings lighting up in flames after a good hit, there are also numerous tracks in which both engines and wings get repeatedly hit, yet they DON'T catch fire. From what I know, fire in the engines/wing tanks happened often, but mostly NOT on the very first good hit into them as it is now in AEP.
Quite often, it took multiple good hits before those parts were on fire.

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 http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

GAU-8
03-23-2004, 01:18 AM
ITS not just the B-17..

TB3 as well. i havent tested others yet.

i was online TB3'ing and sure enuff. i got an AC on my 9 oclock, (like .25, .30 away...AND staying at 9 position) and theres the tail, and center gunner.... firing away at 6...SLOWLY turning to the 9 position... (never did hit either)

i can understand MAYBE if there was G forces involved.. .. BUT LEVEL steady flight.. and its human tracked.... whover those gunners where, there off my ship for good.. lack of physical strenth to even push a gun on a tracked circle..sheesh

DEEEEEE- MOTED

LuftKuhMist
03-23-2004, 01:22 AM
There is the wind rush which makes manning a gun pretty hard.

Don't imagine a bomber can be a match for a fighter. Douhet did imagine this... Goering followed... they both were wrong.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

The_Red_Spoon
03-23-2004, 01:51 AM
A bomber can be more than a match for a fighter if the fighter is stupid.

Future-
03-23-2004, 02:18 AM
Indeed, it still often enough happens that an enemy fighter approaches and stays at a certain point very close to the bombers, on a parallel heading. In real life, or with turrets manned by human players, he would be immediately targetted and shot to pieces, or at least take considerable damage for being stupid enough to sit right next to a well-armed bomber.

As Gau-8 and I described already, in AEP the turret gunners have been slowed down to a point at which they are almost totally useless.

LuftKuhMist, what you are saying is true, a bomber is no match for a fighter, but ONLY if the fighter pilot uses smart tactics and the advantages of his plane to the best.
But certain people who do the exact opposite should be ripped to shreds by the bombers, or at least take heavy damage... which doesn't happen, thanks to Oleg's latest changes to the gunners.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

US380thBG-Tug-
03-23-2004, 11:07 AM
The He-111 appears to be like this too. Target tracking seems very poor in 2.0. Tracer fire also erupts from the wrong side of the aircraft, but this is not new with 2.0. The He-111 still suffers from the bail-out bug, too.

I guess nerfing the tracking speed was a play balance decision, though the poor He-111 was hardly a scourge for fighters in the first place, was it? Seems like bad luck for her to be lumped in with the big bad Fort. (sniff)

Have fighter pilots noticed a marked reduction in 'golden BBs'? It would be nice to know that the measures have at least be successful in reducing / eliminating the 'sniper' shots.

http://imageshack.us/files/siggy.jpg

Future-
03-23-2004, 11:26 AM
Well, I think that basically nothing has changed there... they still have the ability to score these hits.
But thanks to the slow turret movement, they don't "know" that they aren't fully turned towards their target, thus resulting in shooting their "magic" shots right into nowhere.

On very few occasions though, they still can score at least an engine stopping hit. But for this miracle, the enemy needs to fly in close on 6 oclock level, so the current turret turnrate is still enough to aim before they open fire.

But looking at this as a whole, the price for reducing the amount of those "lucky-sniper" shots (thats what they were, even with the 1.22 gunners we still got smoked big time by good fighter pilots, remember that!) was/is WAY too high.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

faustnik
03-23-2004, 11:33 AM
Future,

The AI B-17 are excellent now, the more I test them the more I like them. On "veteran" and "ace" setting the gunners are VERY effective and accurate.

I understand that you are trying to use these as "flyables" and I see that you have a problem using them this way. My only suggestion would be for you to fly with squad mates in a combat-box and hope vulume of fire helps you out.

The AI B-17s are great now and should be left alone.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Future-
03-23-2004, 11:51 AM
Seems you don't get the actual problem.

1.) Have you looked at the B-17's turrets when they try to aim for a newly detected enemy that is coming in from, say, 3oclock, making his run, flying by the B-17, turning around at 9 oclock and coming in again? Go and check that out.

2.) As it turns out now, the problem is not limited to the B-17 alone, overall gunner capability has been reduced significantly.

3.) Your recommendation also shows that you lack experience regarding those bombers. In 1.22, even if we packed 3 - 4 B-17 together, we sometimes got smoked by a SINGLE Fw-190 A9. But at that time, the turrets had at least a realistic chance to react.
If we pack up a formation NOW, in AEP, we merely pack together a big load of gunners who are unable to properly track a target, so we basicallyjust form a bigger target for the attacker, that's all.
Sorry, but regarding bomber operations, I know my stuff.

Now, even if you leave out the fact that many people love to fly the B-17 in online battles, the main problem itself still remains for all other fully flyable bombers, as well as ai-controlled bombers in any mission type they appear.

I recently tried it, I took a 190 A9, and pitted myself against 4 Veteran AI B-17 in the QMB.
I used the most stupid approach of all, I attacked them from dead 6, moved in relatively slow...
But even under these conditions, I was able to kill ALL of them, with merely having a heavily damaged, but still operational engine.

And I'm no fighter pilot, I'm bad with fighters.
So for everybody who can fly a fighter better than I do, and uses a slightly smarter attack than I did, the bombers currently in AEP with these kind of "defense" are truely nothing more than target drones... ALL bombers.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

faustnik
03-23-2004, 11:56 AM
Future,

You are absolutely correct that I have no experience flying the AI bombers. I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying that the AI B-17s are well modeled for their intended purpose.

If you hung out behind 4 B-17 veterans in any fighter and shot them all down you got very lucky! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I hope things get better for you when the flyable B-25 is released.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

GAU-8
03-23-2004, 02:38 PM
faustnik,

thats what were trying to say.

a single fighter.. "hangin on 6" CAN now bring down MULITPLE bombers. any one with "spray and pray" attitude can do this now.

now, ive seen tactical multi passes with multi fighters, and they got GOOD TEAMWORK. chewed us up. they are not the problem. its these "sit on 6" freaks that lounge around just spray and prayin away.

matter of fact i did it last night against a 17.
top turret was aiming off to the right, and bottom turret was firing downward. tail gunner was getting me...but you know how those .50s are modeled..

i bagged him. (this episode was between .10, up to .30 distance for 40 secs to a minute long. yeah, eventually he killed my motor. but i was coasting right there with him. AI blasing away at empty space..

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2004, 02:48 PM
This could be sweet, or a disaster...

For the computer dogfighters...
TurretRotationSpeed=0

For the bomber dudes/dudettes...
TurretRotationSpeed=1,000,000

I am sure the program could read this and store it as variable. Be another option for offwhiners and an onwhine server setting.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

faustnik
03-23-2004, 02:52 PM
GAU-8,

Do you know if the AI gunners default to "average" or "rookie" setting when you do the flying external trick?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

GAU-8
03-23-2004, 06:13 PM
faust,

hey bud, i dont have an answer to that. i was just thinkin about what ONLINE play defaults to.. i think they fall into "doofy" setting. lot of heart.. but entirely the wrong direction http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif god bless em, they TRY....

i havent experimented with offline yet. but online is for the dogs.

US380thBG-Tug-
03-23-2004, 07:43 PM
Whenever this topic comes up, I usually fall back on harping about game play balance. Future is right, in that in 1.22 a 'box' of B-17s (ok, well 4 of us in formation) could be entirely obliterated by a well flown A9 or K4 + gunpods. The less elite pilots -those who like to park and spray- usually paid a price for messing around with a box like that. Yes..there was the occassional 'sniper shot', but in truth I never got the sense that this bothered the elite LW pilots that much.

This to me seemed like a good thing. Tactics and experience paid off. Now, between the AI nerfing and 109z/Ki84-1Cs, I'm not so sure this holds true.

http://imageshack.us/files/siggy.jpg

Future-
03-24-2004, 11:25 AM
Bump!

- 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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

JG77Hawk_9
03-25-2004, 08:15 PM
Bump

I never found it too much of a problem in 1.22 to use some strategy and bring down B17's. Don't make the 6 parkers have an easy day

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by US380thBG-Tug-:
Whenever this topic comes up, I usually fall back on harping about game play balance. Future is right, in that in 1.22 a 'box' of B-17s (ok, well 4 of us in formation) could be entirely obliterated by a well flown A9 or K4 + gunpods. The less elite pilots -those who like to park and spray- usually paid a price for messing around with a box like that. Yes..there was the occassional 'sniper shot', but in truth I never got the sense that this bothered the elite LW pilots that much.

This to me seemed like a good thing. Tactics and experience paid off. Now, between the AI nerfing and 109z/Ki84-1Cs, I'm not so sure this holds true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Future-
03-26-2004, 06:08 PM
"Don't make the 6 parkers have an easy day"

100% Agreed, and BUMP! to this

- 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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

GAU-8
03-28-2004, 12:24 AM
bump.

tonight the squad got together, and we tested this . a single 110 brought all 3 b-17s down. (BTW FUTURE, the entire high alt mission is on track http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Future-
03-28-2004, 07:20 AM
Thx Gau, good you recorded it.

Just for all who didn't witness: I was flying a Bf-110 G2 with 2 x Mk108 and 2 x MG 151/20, and usually, I am no fighter pilot.
If I fly a fighter, I'm not good at it.

My squadmates were flying a 3-ship formation, B-17G bombers, and the entire battle occured at about 4500 - 5000 meters altitude.

As Gau said, I was able to bring down all 3 planes (to be exact, one pilot kill, and the other two were shot up so badly they were unable to succesfully complete their attack, and ran out of fuel & crashed due to battle damage before they could get back to base).

My own plane "only" had one dead engine, the other engine damaged, a few holes & fuel leaks, an inoperable gunsight and disabled ailerons. However, I managed to land safely at my home base.

Now, although I tried to use a tactical attack, I mostly came in from 5 - 7 oclock on the B-17s.
Still, the gunners weren't able to fight me off in a reasonable amount of time.

In 1.22, I only would have been able to get one B-17 at best, before they would have fried me... and honestly, if I can choose between the easy kills I had and the tough fight I would have had with 1.22 settings, I prefer the tough choice.
I hope Oleg will re-work both the B-17s damage model & the overall gunner performance. They way things are now, attacking bombers isn't much fun.
Not for me as an attacker, and especially not for me when I'm the target.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Future-
03-29-2004, 11:43 AM
Bump!

- 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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Future-
03-31-2004, 02:17 PM
I've digged out some new data, which now tells me that at least regarding explosive ammo, the new DM of the B-17s is more closer to reality than the previous one in 1.22.

However, solid armor piercing rounds should go right through the wing, causing a small fuel leak at best.

I can go into further detail if needed.


Still, although I now know the DM is mostly accurate, this leaves the gunner problem yet to be solved, not only for the B-17, but for all bombers.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

faustnik
03-31-2004, 02:21 PM
Future,

Have you tried making a small COOP mission and setting the B-17 skill level to 'ace' ? I wonder if it would stick or if it would revert to the 'average' as soon as a human pilot took the bomber?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Future-
03-31-2004, 02:38 PM
It seems the ai lvl is set randomly when a server completely loads new.

I haven't tried your idea, but I don't think it's possible to "carry over" an ai setting from Co-op to DF.

However, I will test your idea this weekend, just to be sure.

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

faustnik
03-31-2004, 02:55 PM
No, it wouldn't work for a DF, I was just thinking of it as a COOP possibility.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Future-
04-02-2004, 10:32 AM
Oh, I see, silly me... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

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 http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG