PDA

View Full Version : B-17 defensive fire - is it realistic??????



russianfront2
12-26-2003, 10:43 AM
My fav. QMB now is to attack a "pulk" of B-17s with my Bf109 G6 with full cannons. Those buggers sure lay down accurate fire. If I attack from behind (really stupid I know....) even if I am climbing, diving and weaving, those damn 50 cal bullets always seem to head straight into my brain...

Is it possible that the gunners in real life could be so realistic? Or is this a case of over-scripted AI accuracy???

I have read a lot of books on the airwar over Europe - most lately Jane's "Battles with the Luftwaffe" so I know how deadly B-17s are.

Your comments please!

russianfront2
12-26-2003, 10:43 AM
My fav. QMB now is to attack a "pulk" of B-17s with my Bf109 G6 with full cannons. Those buggers sure lay down accurate fire. If I attack from behind (really stupid I know....) even if I am climbing, diving and weaving, those damn 50 cal bullets always seem to head straight into my brain...

Is it possible that the gunners in real life could be so realistic? Or is this a case of over-scripted AI accuracy???

I have read a lot of books on the airwar over Europe - most lately Jane's "Battles with the Luftwaffe" so I know how deadly B-17s are.

Your comments please!

SKULLS_LZ
12-26-2003, 11:44 AM
Looks to me like you've already found the answer:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have read a lot of books on the airwar over Europe - most lately Jane's "Battles with the Luftwaffe" so I know how deadly B-17s are.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no reason to believe that attacking a heavily armed bomber was any easier in RL than in FB.

Gunner AI has been dumbed down in the latest version 1.21. I really hope they don't make it any easier in the future patches. IL-2s and STUKAs are almost too easy to kill now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my "Free Wing Removal" program. Offer valid while my ammo supplies last.

StellarRat
12-26-2003, 12:00 PM
The most important factor when attacking a bomber is speed. If you make your pass at high speed you will not get shot up. Approaching a low rate of closure will get you killed. Try attacking the bombers at 300 or more closure from above, front or side, you'll be a lot safer.

fordfan25
12-26-2003, 12:03 PM
i think the AI is far to good you cant hardly make a run at a single b17 with out geting an instent engin or pilot kill to you. what made the b17 so hard for a fighter to kill was his 20 friends shooting at you to.it was power in #s think of it as flying into a wall of bullets chances are your going to get hit some wear. but not a singel tail gunner with a scoped mother brained super targeting computer lol

clint-ruin
12-26-2003, 01:29 PM
This issue keeps coming up again and again.

A lot of the time in these threads the pattern is for there to be a few people saying that gunner fire is impossible to avoid, and others saying that with the correct tactics it's very easy to avoid.

I would think that the people who complain that it's impossible to avoid probably aren't using proper tactics. Oleg recently asked people who think they've been hit by an "impossible" gun turret shot to send in the track, but said that the gunners have now been dumbed down 2 or 3 times since the release of FB.

As of 1.21, even rear approaches on bombers can be done with impunity as long as the closure speed is fast enough. I managed to take down eight 'veteran' Ju88s on their dive bombing approach in a P-39N1 last night - all in one pass - speed of my aircraft was around 670kph TAS and the 88's had slowed down and gotten into a line formation in preparation for dive bombing. The B-17s are now similarly easy, I think.

Think of it like this - the 17s can usually point the firepower of a P-40 or P-51 in your direction at any time, with each pair of guns individually aimed in your aircrafts direction. You are going to need to approach from an angle or a speed that makes their job a lot harder. From the perspective of a gunner, a same speed/same angle approach will make your fighter appear to hang in mid air. Not a hard thing to shoot at, at all.

If you use correct 'FB' tactics it gets even easier. An approach at a 4-plane formation from the side - same height, similar speed - say at around a 45 degree intercept angle - you stand a good chance of managing to down all 4 in a single pass. For some reason the gunners find it quite hard to hit you when you come in steadily from the sides, and if you beam the lead aircraft of the formation with the gunsight, you can take down the other members of its flight as you spray the lead bomber.

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

CRSutton
12-26-2003, 01:29 PM
Well quite frankly, the only sucessful way the Germans came up with was group tactics. I really don't think one fighter could expect too much sucess against any well defended bomber. The Japanese never really developed effective group tactics (lack of radios was a key factor) and had a terrible time shooting Allied heavies down as a result. The Germans were pretty good at it, but still lost a lot of airplanes in exchange.

p1ngu666
12-26-2003, 01:50 PM
sometimes the gunners are useless, other times theyve got guided bullets.
there not realistic either, few acurate shots. most gunners probably sprayed and prayed

TX-Zen
12-26-2003, 02:13 PM
I think the net effect of attacking a bomber stream is simulated fairly well in FB, it is risky, dangerous and highly likely to result in severe or catastrophic damage to the attacker. This corresponds to real life pretty well I think, attacking the heavies was regarded as being a difficult task at best.

Inreal life, a fighter is passing by several bombers each with multiple gunners firing at him. He is flying through a defensive box...meaning that many bombers are firing at him during his run. This results in a very large volume of fire and a corresponding increase in being hit. This doesn't mean that allied gunners were individually effective or even accurate, it means that the attacker flies within shooting range of so many guns that some of them are bound to hit. There is a lot of lead in the air.

The problem imho is that FB simulates this with ONE single bomber rather than a stream or box formation. One bomber often routinely cripples or destroys 1, 2, 3 or more attacking planes as it flies it's merry way to the target. Check it out sometime, it can be frustrating not to mention frightening as heck to fly against a single bomber.

They are not invincible by any means but the accuracy of their fire is too great in my opinion. Single gunner stations routinely score hits during difficult maneuvers like barrel rolling at the bomber until the last second, hits are scored from 800meters out and sometimes even farther.

It's consistent...you will get the heck shot out of you when you attack a bomber. Some planes are simply and utterly useless for attacking them...LA7, Yak3 for example. They get thrown through a meat grinder on the attack run.

This is fine with me if there are 3-4 or a box of 10 or whatever, but it seems a little much for a single bomber to be that lethal and for the gunners to have that much accuracy.
Why use escort fighters when you can pack 10 FB modelled B17G's together and watch them obliterate the attackers? If you don't think that's a darn near indestructable force, go attack one yourself and see it first hand.


I feel the AI gunners are too accurate, too lethal and still need to be toned down further. This is not something I get upset about, it's just an impartial observation.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

StellarRat
12-26-2003, 02:45 PM
When I make a high speed pass I don't get hit, but I haven't tried that against more than one at a time. Remember, the German fighters used very high speed passes against the bombers. That's why they had those huge cannons on their fighters because needed to kill them in one quick pass. I don't remember reading any accounts of that read "I approached slowly taking my time to aim"...If you look at the footage those fighters are diving through the bomber formations with at least 150 to 200 mph closure. The gunners can barely swing the guns fast enough to track the planes much less take careful aim.

nicolas10
12-26-2003, 03:50 PM
I don't think it's quite as deadly. I saw some fighters get wasted though when I managed to make 2 4 bombers formation fly just one above the other, and the fighters took fire from the two groups of 4 at the same time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

Jaws2002
12-26-2003, 04:01 PM
The accuracy of the gunners is exactly how you set it in the mission.If you set them at rookie you can close in from behind and shoot the b17 to pieces, and if you make them ace you have a good chance to get killed doing a 800 km/h Head On pass.

arcadeace
12-26-2003, 04:04 PM
I think they're too accurate. Even when one is going down it's risky to attack. I've wondered how American daylight raids had so, so many losses...not just from flak.

DONB3397
12-26-2003, 04:43 PM
AI gunners can "see" through clouds, into the sun, all night long, and their deflection shots are computer-controlled. What's the best tactic, again?

I suspect real life gunners didn't have those advantages.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCSDU6_AaKdhLZQo

Fennec_P
12-26-2003, 05:32 PM
They might not be modelled as a perfectly realistic human being, but I really don't think its overly difficult.

I mean, without even any real effort at all, you can knock down a flight of 4 average B-17 by yourself in a FW-190, or even 109G6. Certainly it would be much harder in real life against real people. I think you will see this when the B-17 is flyable, and it is far more lethal then you see now, even on ace.

It is not right to make comparisons of FB, where you attack many bombers yourself, with many hazardous attacks, to real life, where there would be many attacking fighters, using fleeting single passes. The situations are completely different. Never in real life would one german pilot attack 8 B-17s, and expect to shoot them all down. He would not even try something as crazy as that.

MiloMorai
12-26-2003, 05:44 PM
I know the B-29s got K-14 sights for the gunners. Did the B-17 also get them?

Did the Germans have EZ42 sights for the bomber gunners. Was not the EZ42 a late war gunsight.

What was the Russian lead computing gunsight, if they had such a sight?

Who has fired a hmg and hit a target at 1000m(real life)?

WUAF_Badsight
12-26-2003, 07:28 PM
you guys are missing the point

its not that killing bombers should be easy .....
BUT

that every gunner in FB seems to have trained as a sniper

people living in the 40s were not all snipers , why should they be in FB

clint-ruin
12-26-2003, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you guys are missing the point

its not that killing bombers should be easy .....
BUT

that every gunner in FB seems to have trained as a sniper

people living in the 40s were not all snipers , why should they be in FB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not snipers, even on Veteran or Ace.

If you're finding it too hard, set them to 'empty' and practise, then move up to 'rookie' and 'average' skill with armament.

As hard as it must be, at some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that you simply suck at attacking bombers.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news :&lt;

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

SkyChimp
12-26-2003, 08:20 PM
I think it's too easy.

First, let me say that the typical box formation B-17's flew in can not be properly modelled in FB - instead we have the easier "V" formation. Additionally, the number of B-17s that can be had in QMB is very low considering the numbers in the formations historically flown. Do you typically set up the flights with escort fighters? Consider that for a moment.

Now consider that these gunners had interlocking fields of fire. They were firing .50 Browning heavy machine guns with better ranges and trajectories than your cannons. And the gunners only had to worry about shooting you down, you had far more to consider.

All in all, I don't think it's tough enough.

I remember a German pilot quoted in a book as saying "One can look forward to, even take joy in, doing combat with Spitfires. But when I attack a Boeing, the whole of my life flashes before my eyes." it certainly wasn't easy.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

clint-ruin
12-26-2003, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I think it's too easy.

First, let me say that the typical box formation B-17's flew in can not be properly modelled in FB - instead we have the easier "V" formation. Additionally, the number of B-17s that can be had in QMB is very low considering the numbers in the formations historically flown. Do you typically set up the flights with escort fighters? Consider that for a moment.

Now consider that these gunners had interlocking fields of fire. They were firing .50 Browning heavy machine guns with better ranges and trajectories than your cannons. And the gunners only had to worry about shooting you down, you had far more to consider.

All in all, I don't think it's tough enough.

I remember a German pilot quoted in a book as saying "One can look forward to, even take joy in, doing combat with Spitfires. But when I attack a Boeing, the whole of my life flashes before my eyes." it certainly wasn't easy.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree.

It's possible to make a staggered 'formation' of B-17s using single planes per flight, each with say ~75 horizontal and ~100m vertical seperation to get around some of the weirder AI behaviour. Making the formations turn around is where it gets slightly more interesting.

If people think the standard 4-plane formations are hard to take down, taking on 16 planes in a vertical/diagonal line is going to give them a seizure. Worst case positioning means you have something like 70+ .50cal machineguns able to fire at you at once. That's like taking on 12 P-51s, head-on, simultaneously.

The polite word to use for such an attack would be "unwise".

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

tttiger
12-26-2003, 09:28 PM
Amen, Chimp.

In Real Life the B-17 formations included hundreds of bombers and the interlocking, mutually supporting fire was very lethal. It's hard to imagine how big those formations were every day, day after day. That little gaggle of Fortresses in FB is just plain silly, no matter how lethal or non-lethal they are.

The only tactic the RL LW fighters could think of was to attack a bomber formation with 30 to 50 LW fighters flying line abreast head-on against the B-17s because their firepower forward was (relatively) the lightest. The Mustang pilots caught on to that trick quickly and began sweeping far ahead of the bomber fleet instead of flying over it as they had previously.

I never fly LW, so I guess I'll never know how easy or hard it is to kill a B-17. But the gunners can't be any more deadly than that belly gunner on the Heinkel who PKs me with a single shot if I'm dumb enough to try to close from behind. My guess the complaints about the B-17 are coming from FB LW pilots who attack from dead astern (which is exatly what the thread-starter says he does...duh...).

When I'm building a mission, I NEVER use B-17s because they were not tactical aircraft and this is a tactical sim. The one time in RL they tried to use B-17s in a close air support was at the beginning of the Breakout at St Lo and they dumped all their bombs on GIs. Eisenhower swore he would never use them again to try to support ground troops.

The limitations of this sim don't support high altitude strategic bombers. The only thing I can see they're good for is a bit of background scenery. They really have no accurate historical role in FB. So why complain about the FM? The B-17 is for decorative purposes only.

Silly thread.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

CARBONFREEZE
12-27-2003, 12:29 AM
The only thing that I think should be toned down is the AI gunner's deflection shots, way too accurate. In 1.21 I have had my wing chopped (DM issue in Fw190) at upwards of 800m distance from the B-17. Pe-8 and B-17 are notorious for their long range gunner shots. I don't think they should be able to hit you consistantly at a high defelction angle of 30 degrees or more.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

WUAF_Badsight
12-27-2003, 12:47 AM
hey clint this is FB ..... stop your posting about CFS here

its embarrassing .....



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
They are not snipers, even on Veteran or Ace.

If you're finding it too hard, set them to 'empty' and practise, then move up to 'rookie' and 'average' skill with armament.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Future-
12-27-2003, 04:23 AM
First I didn't want to reply, but I think the expertise of a FB B-17 pilot is needed - again-.

The only thing I can add to the repeated "gunners are too accurate" whining by several incompetents here is that the gunners are sometimes true sharpshooters while they also often don't open fire even if the target comes flying in slowly on a direct approach.

Many people that complain about the B-17's gunners can be seen attacking from behind, slowly and on a direct approach. Smart, really. And if they survive that, they fly by under the 17 and slowly away in front of the bomber.
And believe me, if a pilot is using such a stupid attack, he deserves getting shot, and even the tough 190 can't stand getting shot by 6 .50s from 30 meters distance!

And just to show that 17s can get shot even if the gunners have a "good day", I recently was flying formation, me in a 17, the other guy in a Pe-8. We were flying closely together, at about 140 meters. Then, a 190 A9 with mk108s came in from up ahead, fired 2 short salvos... and ripped off the Pe-8s wing while tearing one of my engines out at the very same time! And although our gunners were overall doing well at that day, they had NO chance of even aiming before that attack came in. Needless to mention that I got toasted too a moment later when that guy turned and attacked again.

I have a proposal now for all you anti-gunner-whiners. I'd agree to tuning down the ai gunners some more IF, in exchange, the FW-190 A9 and the Me-262 A-1a get REMOVED from the game along with the mk 108 gunpods for all planes that can carry them.
Would only be fair... no more so-called "snipers", but also no more 2-second-instant-bomberkills.

S!, and please, no more bomber-gunner-threads, getting sick of it.

- 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

clint-ruin
12-27-2003, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
First I didn't want to reply, but I think the expertise of a FB B-17 pilot is needed - again-.

The only thing I can add to the repeated "gunners are too accurate" whining by several incompetents here is that the gunners are sometimes true sharpshooters while they also often don't open fire even if the target comes flying in slowly on a direct approach.

Many people that complain about the B-17's gunners can be seen attacking from behind, slowly and on a direct approach. Smart, really. And if they survive that, they fly by under the 17 and slowly away in front of the bomber.
And believe me, if a pilot is using such a stupid attack, he deserves getting shot, and even the tough 190 can't stand getting shot by 6 .50s from 30 meters distance!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't mean to own the thread here, but what you said is totally correct and bears repeating :&gt;

Relative movement to the bomber or gunner station is what's important. Not the total speed or angle all by itself. A plane can bust its way through using solely a high speed approach, or solely a high angle one, but combining both together almost guarantees it won't be hit, even by 'ace' level gunners.

For people still having problems, try the following suggestions:

1. Enable external views, make your attacks on bomber formations, quit out, save the track. Now press CTRL-F2 until you have the targetted bomber centred, and press 'F6' to centre the view to your plane. You might need to use the FOV keys [end del pgdn] to make yourself visible from the bombers external view. Watch how quickly you come in, and how much relative lead a gunner would have to pull to hit you. You might be surprised just how little apparent movement there is from the bomber gunners perspective.

2. Deflection shooting at a bomber differs slightly from deflection shooting on a fighter. You are going to need to train yourself to hit the same place multiple times. A bomber can easily take up most of the ammo load of a fighter if the hits are distributed all over the bomber. Watch a trackfile of your attacks from external views to see whether your perfect, dead set shots at the engines are actually hitting the bombers tailplane instead. Remember, you only need to set it on fire, not pound it until it falls apart in mid-air.

3. Finally - ego problems. It seems like it's a major blow to the ego for a fighter pilot to get downed by a bomber. You will need to learn to respect how hard those turrets can hit you, respect bombers occasionally surprising agility at high altitude, and learn to avoid getting into a turrets field of fire at all if possible. I see a lot of people on these boards complaining about how many hits they think their fighter should be able to take - sorry guys, if you're getting hit at all, you already screwed it up big time. Your job is not to get hit in the first place, rather than to charge through like a tank and expect the shells to bounce off, even if you're flying an FW-190 or P-47 or Il-2. Doesn't matter. Even 7.62 bullets - in the right place - will ruin your day in those planes.

To elaborate - don't be surprised at high altitude if larger planes seem to turn in a circle faster than your fighter. Don't be surprised if a bullet fired directly into the front of the engine smokes it and forces an RTB. Don't be surprised that a bullet travelling at a high relative speed of impact does more damage than ordinary +0 velocity ones seem to. Look at the bombers from an external viewpoint and see where the turrets fields of fire are - diving under a BlenheimIV will probably work, diving under a B-17 is suicide.

Seriously - bomber killing can be done, repeatedly and monotonously, once the right approach is learned.

I don't necessarily write this just to put people down - though that is fun too - just in the hopes of delaying the next "Bombars r 2 tuff!!!" thread by a few days.

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

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Sat December 27 2003 at 05:33 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
12-27-2003, 08:53 AM
oh jeez as if people dont realise not to sit behind bombers ....

you really are missing the point clint-ruin

its not about killing bombers , how strong they are or how to hit them

its the accuracy of the AI gunners

single shot motor kills & PK at 1 Km should not be common , but it is in FB

i have been PK diving passed a single B-17 at 850 kmh , thats a sniper shot , the amount of unbelieveable shots they have dished out is beyond counting

& all positions on the same plane can show the same accuracy

get off your high horse , your not the only person to play FB

personally i wish the gunners did more work , they sit their doing nothing when you have a bandit close , their work rate needs to be increased and their accuracy needs to be sorted out

clint-ruin
12-27-2003, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
oh jeez as if people dont realise not to sit behind bombers ....

you really are missing the point clint-ruin
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I now?

Let's see..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
its not about killing bombers , how strong they are or how to hit them

its the accuracy of the AI gunners

single shot motor kills & PK at 1 Km should not be common , but it is in FB
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, what was it I said again?


Don't be surprised if a bullet fired directly into the front of the engine smokes it and forces an RTB. Don't be surprised that a bullet travelling at a high relative speed of impact does more damage than ordinary +0 velocity ones seem to.

Oh no - a pair of .50 cal bullet fired at me by an aimed turret smoked my engine or scored a PK - obviously the game is terribly broken. Is that really what goes through your head after the API round?

Feel free to try it at home - I am sure there are a few stockpiles of M2s around somewhere, but I bags being the one who gets to take potshots at your head.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i have been PK diving passed a single B-17 at 850 kmh , thats a sniper shot , the amount of unbelieveable shots they have dished out is beyond counting
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relative movement to the bomber or gunner station is what's important. Not the total speed or angle all by itself. A plane can bust its way through using solely a high speed approach, or solely a high angle one, but combining both together almost guarantees it won't be hit, even by 'ace' level gunners.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
& all positions on the same plane can show the same accuracy
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? So when I say:

learn to avoid getting into a turrets field of fire at all if possible.

Does it appear as some bizarre cyrillic characters on your screen? The solution is to be in as few sights as possible. Putting yourself in view of 3 gunners is going to give a much greater chance of survival than putting yourself in view of one or two, as in top or frontal attacks.

They are going to shoot at you. Occasionally you will get hit. You would probably be amazed to discover just how many misses it takes before they score a hit - try watching a bomber from an external view sometime and see just how ******ed the gunners are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>get off your high horse , your not the only person to play FB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, isn't it, how profoundly sincere the belief is that it couldn't possibly be you ballsing up your passes. I think we might have identified the reason you don't seem to be improving much, champ. Nevermind - I am sure that the AI gunners will be moved to just stop shooting at you by your tears.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>personally i wish the gunners did more work , they sit their doing nothing when you have a bandit close , their work rate needs to be increased and their accuracy needs to be sorted out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For what - the 4th time? Introducing FB v1.22 pacifier nipple edition, for those who really, seriously, can't figure out how to attack a bomber to save their life.

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

Willey
12-27-2003, 09:55 AM
Man you don't even need a brain to notice they didn't DUMB the gunner AI DOWN. They pushed it UP! They dumbed it down from 1.0 to 1.1, but then it got stronger again. And proper tactics WON'T help.

I noticed this: The gunner gives one burst. Most times, the first bullet hits VERY accurately, it misses rarely. Sometimes it's multiple bullets that hit. Depends a bit on the fire rate. But then the rest of the burst is sprayed wildly somewhere into the air. I even saw a TB-3 gunner first doing a pinpoint shot into my engine (of course I had oil on the screen then), but then he even turned around 180? with the rest of the burst! Man that looks so silly, but heck! that's an easy way to DUMB down their hit percentage! - nevertheless the hit almost everytime they give a burst, and if it's just one bullet.

I really loved WarBirds' way to handle that stuff... it was completely programmable with multiple parameters like min and max distance, "how quick can he re-aim", burst length min and max, burst pause etc. There one could customize the skill with very small details, from quite dumb to sniper-like precise (= almost as good as "the first bullet" in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

arcadeace
12-27-2003, 11:19 AM
2 days after Christmas and already anti-"sniper" whiners http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

FI-Aflak
12-27-2003, 12:41 PM
Here is a tactic that I find to be more effective than head-ons for B-17, Pe-8, etc.

Diving from directly above. on the B-17, there is only one turret (i think) that can swivel to point straight up. That against the 4 guns that point forward, and the 15,000 that point out the sides and backwards.

Oh yeah, when you first move into range of the bomber, i like to do some acrobatics because even one turret can kill you.

A little rolling, a little weaving, then you are in range for your guns and steady out, aim, and fire, then you are past and the worst is over.

So, just get above and slightly in front of the bomber, invert, and dive. This gives you minimal chance of getting nailed by the defensive guns, and also give you the perfect opportunities to get deflection shots on the wingroots and engines.


This is by far the most effective thing I have treid. You can also quickly get out of range by continuing the dive. And when you get into the dangerous spots (below, to the side of, behind the bomber), you are diving away, accelerating, and the only thing the bomber can hit is your tail, where no damage is done.

Its quite easy when you do it this way.

clint-ruin
12-27-2003, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Man you don't even need a brain to notice they didn't DUMB the gunner AI DOWN. They pushed it UP! They dumbed it down from 1.0 to 1.1, but then it got stronger again. And proper tactics WON'T help.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 ]

There are two distinct camps of users.

a) People who work out that they are getting tagged and look into why that might be happening.

b) People who can't believe they're getting tagged at all and claim it's something horrible happening with the gunners AI.

The challenge, of course, is working out which of the above groups eventually ceases to have a problem with the gunner AI.

I wonder which it could be?

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

faustnik
12-27-2003, 01:53 PM
The more I fight against B-17s in FB, the better job I think 1C did. With unorganized stern attacks, the chances of success are slim. With coordinated groups attacks and specific strategies our schwarm has become very efficient against them.

Those who say attacks against FB B-17s are easy, don't know what they are talking about. Those who say it's too hard are forgetting the losses suffered by the LW against the massed B-17 formations. The FB B-17 has added a whole new level of realism to the sim, and a huge new theater of exploration for the LW pilot. Nice job 1C!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

WUAF_Badsight
12-27-2003, 02:12 PM
you have to be an imbeciel to believe that gunners were as accurate IRL as they are in FB

your need to comment about peoples relative skill shows a weak argument clint-ruin

its the accuracy of the AI thats incredible

more often than not they gets shots in to halt the attack , rather than just hitting your plane they plink the bandits motor or pilot

ppl saying they are ok with the AI accuracy need to get real , when was it that people can see thru clouds ...... how many objects could you hit clint-ruin passingyou t high angles at over 800 kmh ?

oh i must be mistaken after all ..... people born in the 40s must all have been snipers after all ....


thanks for the 'education" lmao

clint-ruin
12-27-2003, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you have to be an imbeciel to believe that gunners were as accurate IRL as they are in FB

...

thanks for the 'education" lmao<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem.

You obviously have more pressing mysteries to figure out: capital letters, the appropriate use of the period [.], and those damned revolving doors.

I'd hate to stand in your way, genius.

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

BfHeFwMe
12-27-2003, 03:18 PM
Gunners smack of scripting, always the first bullet or group of bullets from a burst. Wouldn't mind it but when your bomber AI also does the squirrly whirl evasion garbage to dodge bullets. Oh, please try making a historical case on that one. LoL

It's busted..........

olaleier
12-27-2003, 04:01 PM
Hehe...I just fooled around in the QMB a little...

8 262s vs 8 B-17s...after the first pass, it's raining Messerschmidt parts all over and I'm alone. One or two B-17s have fuel leaks.

Poor ponys...they're unemployed! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Future-
12-28-2003, 05:24 PM
@ WUAF_Badsight: I hereby recommend that you connect to Slammin's server and fly the B-17 or Pe-8 for a few DAYS.
Sometimes, you will see that the gunners are as good as you say, and you will have great successes with your bomber.
But also there will be many occasions when you won't believe how easily you got killed and how unresponsive your gunners were.

To get to the point - I think the gunner's accuracy (if they are having a "good day") is a good compensation for the OVERALL unrealistic situations one experiences, especially in online battles.

As someone said earlier, it is totally impossible in FB to put together a force of B-17s strong enough to even partially simulate the firepower they packed back in WW2. Also, I believe that most intercepting Luftwaffe aircraft were often NOT as heavily armed as FB pilots arm their planes for bomber hunting.

If you take these two things together, you will see that viewed from a point of fairness and game balance, the accuracy of the gunners is overall ok.
I agree that they should be adjusted so they fire a little more, and that their skill level for online battles is set to at least "veteran", and not randomly everytime the server starts completely new. (thats what I meant with "if they have a good day", cause if the ai level is randomly set low, they aren't very useful)

I also have to agree with what someone else said: if the B-17 or Pe-8 would be fully flyable, you'd like them even less, cause there are many occasions where a human gunner would have just thrown everything he had directly at the enenmy, while the ai gunners only fire short salvos at best, and with sometimes doubtful efficiency.

To give you some numbers, I know that on a "bad day" the gunner's hit rate is about 4 %, while on "good days" the hit rate can go up to about 8 %.
Seeing that a human fighter pilot in FB has a hit rate between 6 - 14 %, I think it's fair enough. Especially when you factor in that these hits (on bombers) often are Mk 108s.

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

roachclip
12-28-2003, 05:35 PM
Someone posted over at SimHQ that his father was an airgunner and that during training he had a 10% hit rate on the drogue target, firing from a turret. The instructor wrote 'excellent' in his log book.

Now this was under a controlled condition, not under the stress of combat with the adrenalin flowing and in an a/c not buffeted by the slipstream from other a/c.

Future-
12-28-2003, 10:20 PM
I just saw some new numbers, so im updating them now:

Human pilot's hit rate in FB : between 1 % to 14 %

AI gunner's hit rate in FB : between 2 % and 8 %

Both with the human pilot and the ai gunners, the actual hit rate depends on their individual skill; of course, regarding the ai gunners "individual" means "depending on the ai skill lvl randomly set by the online server".
For example, at a hit rate of 3%, my ai gunners only managed to down a single enemy A6M Zero on its THIRD CLOSE fly-by. Of course, when they finally got it, they shot of it's left wing, killed the pilot and set the plane on fire (the Zero was very close again). The point is however, if that would have been a 190 A9 with Mk108s, even if the pilot would have used the same slow and close flyby attack pattern, the hits he'd have scored would have been enough to at least mess me up seriously, and I wouldn't have survived long enough to see him getting nailed.

- 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-
12-28-2003, 10:24 PM
Besides, you fighter pilots out there also aren't suffering from G-forces, too much adrenalin or anything like that. You just fly, aim and shoot without "feeling" anything that could distract your aim. So I really don't see why the ai gunners should "suffer" more from the game physics than you do.

- 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

HellToupee
12-29-2003, 12:22 AM
just equip a plane with mk103s and down the bombers from beyond their defensive fire range, u can down them all without so much a bullet fired at you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

BM357_Raven
12-29-2003, 12:29 AM
I read or heard somewhere that the B-17 was responsible for the destruction of more German fighters than all US fighters combined..

I'll try to recall where I read that...however, if it is true, then perhaps to some extent, what you are finding with the gunners of the B-17 is not so completely out of line with what you are finding.. Also, I am pretty sure the Germans hated to attack them... After all, it was dubbed the flying fortress.

Those gunna's (sucka's really) get on my nerves... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)
Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Videos (http://www.bm357.com/movies.htm)

wintergoose
12-29-2003, 04:37 PM
Major Walter Dahle in his FW 190 marked "Blau 13" the leader of 30 fighters in his group,leded his group in front of the B-17 bombers, about 1,5 km ahead.
He gave full trottle stright ahead against the bombers. He had to come inn in the exact right angel. The fighter and bombers come against each other in 1000 km/h.
The bomer filled quickly his gunsigt. He sighted against the bombers wingroot,
hold the trigger down all the way through the bomberformation.
He saw the hits in the wingroot and pices of aluminium drifting away.
He manuvered the FW into a screw movements through the bomberformation to make it difficult for the gunners to hit him.

M.Beebe
12-29-2003, 05:54 PM
http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg



Totally off-topic, but what is the above from?

--

"My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie:
Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."

-- Wilfred Owen,
Dulce Et Decorum Est

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/owendulce.html

clint-ruin
12-29-2003, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M.Beebe:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg



Totally off-topic, but what is the above from?

--

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sealab 2021.

http://www.adultswim.com/shows/sealab/

Unfortunately unless you get Cartoon Network on cable, you're going to have to brave the world of P2P internet apps to get episodes. The nice folks at http://www.dapcentral.org used to distribute MD5s for a bunch of Adult Swim things, but they've all been pulled now.

Some others:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/cap1.jpg

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/cap2.jpg

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/cap3.jpg

For skychimp :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/cap4.jpg


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/cap5.jpg


In 1967, Alex Toth created the world's first cartoon that promoted enviromental awareness and interracial friendship. This cartoon was called SeaLab 2020.

Well, people figured out that the enviroment sucks already, and that as soon as the sun burns out, Earth's history, and the planet's already too polluted for us to do anything about it. And that's why, 34 years later, Williams Street created SeaLab 2021.

SeaLab 2021 is about an underwater metropolis who's inhabinants have been living in there for a year. So, like most other U.S. government-funded facilities, the staff has become lazy, eccentric, surly, and somewhat paranoid.

I have no idea if the Williams St guys were aware of the subtext of the Grizzlebees promotional "Party Bear King" attacking Lenin when they made that shot, but I just about busted a gut.

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

MosDef_99th
12-29-2003, 10:46 PM
Hehe. I thought I was the only one who paid any attention to Adult Swim around here.

clint-ruin
12-29-2003, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BM357_Raven:
I read or heard somewhere that the B-17 was responsible for the destruction of more German fighters than all US fighters combined..

I'll try to recall where I read that...however, if it is true, then perhaps to some extent, what you are finding with the gunners of the B-17 is not so completely out of line with what you are finding.. Also, I am pretty sure the Germans hated to attack them... After all, it was dubbed the flying fortress.

Those gunna's (sucka's really) get on my nerves... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other thing to bear in mind is that from a front quarter attack, the B-17G can still point between four and eight .50 cal machineguns at you. This was the version of the plane that incorporated developments from the "gunship" fortresses, and after the USAAFs experience of losing previous models to frontal attacks. Without the chin turret or the cheek guns it would be a lot easier to take the 17s down, I think, since the belly gunner is a fairly easy target in FB, and there's no guarantee that the top or bottom turrets would point in your particular direction when you make your run.

Attacks from the front give the gunners much less time to aim, or react to your presence and any jinking you do. The bad news is that they can still point a P47s worth of guns at you, and their shots are going to hit you at the .50 cals speed + the B17s speed + your speed. That's something that could get to be almost 2KMper second, relative, if I added it up right. In a word: ouch.

There are things a pilot could do to minimise the risk of being hit by a gunner, but given the sheer number of guns that could be pointed at them there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed way to never, ever get hit. As you said - no wonder they hated doing it. In FB it's quite possible to take on even 16 or 32 plane stacked box formations at "ace" level without getting hit. But the more passes you make, the more you're pressing the odds.

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

Rajvosa
12-30-2003, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BM357_Raven:
I read or heard somewhere that the B-17 was responsible for the destruction of more German fighters than all US fighters combined..

I'll try to recall where I read that...however, if it is true, then perhaps to some extent, what you are finding with the gunners of the B-17 is not so completely out of line with what you are finding.. Also, I am pretty sure the Germans hated to attack them... After all, it was dubbed the flying fortress.

Those gunna's (sucka's really) get on my nerves... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://bm357.com
_Blazing Magnums 357th VFG_
http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html | http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp | http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html | http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html | http://www.bm357.com/movies.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it wasn't dubbed the Flying Fortress because of its defensive armament but because it was supposed to patrol along US coastlines and sink attacking enemy ships, acting as a mobile fortress. An idea US Navy didn't like very much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v

wintergoose
12-30-2003, 06:00 AM
About Walther Dahle.
It is from a short version of the book about "Shoo Shoo Baby" primted in Reader Digest in 1986.

The Shoo Shoo bayby was a B-17, pilot was Paul McDuffee 27 years from Michigan.

The note was just to show how difficult it was to attack the B-17s.

Dahle saied that somtimes he had about 50 MG 0.5 pointing at the fighers.
So it was sueside to attack alone.

clint-ruin
12-30-2003, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

Attacks from the front give the gunners much less time to aim, or react to your presence and any jinking you do. The bad news is that they can still point a P47s worth of guns at you, and their shots are going to hit you at the .50 cals speed + the B17s speed + your speed. That's something that could get to be almost 2_KM_per second, relative, if I added it up right. In a word: ouch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In more than one word: I've spent all day calculating electrical resistance and heat transfer and forgot how the hell you convert Km/h to Km/s :&gt;

A .50 cal bullet hitting at say around 1,200m/s is still going to hurt an awful lot, though.

Assuming:
.50cal M2 AP = ~920m/s
B-17 = 350km/h
You = 750km/h

You still have a round hitting you that is more or less unstoppable by any transparent glass armor made to this day. Wouldn't want to bet on an lightweight aeroplane or a an armored glass faceplate stopping it.

Random physics googling to act as a braincrutch:


A doubling in velocity produces quadruple the relative energy for most relations well below the speed of light. The faster the velocity, the much greater the energy contained in the mass, until at the speed of light, the energy associated with mass is infinite according to a power law of mass versus velocity. This is due to a power function that increases dramatically as particles move at near relativistic velocities. At much slower than relativistic velocities where dramatic impact force changes are far less, a direct power function is an accurate measure of impact force. A small object traveling two to four times faster than a bullet can have close 4 to 16 times the impact energy and cause more destruction than the slower moving bullet of the same mass.


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

DONB3397
12-30-2003, 09:21 AM
B-17 defensive fire - is it realistic? Probably. A single Browning 50-cal can chew up a thin aluminum shell in a hurry. The concentrated firepower of a box must have been devastating. Still, in the first year of daylight raids over Europe, fighters/mechanical problems/flak took out a third of the B-17s. They obviously were not "Fortresses."

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCfT77_AYglnLZQo

MiloMorai
12-30-2003, 09:41 AM
Lots of photos of damaged front armour glass around, even those hit by 20mm. And no, I am not going to post any for proof.

Hanni8
12-30-2003, 06:21 PM
To get a clue how easy/difficult it is to down a fighter attacking a B-17 buy B-17 II the best B-17 Simulation to date with the best shooting algorithms i've ever seen.
I played it to exhaustion and still like it very much, though it's many shortcomings.

I've found it extremely difficult to hit any fighter coming in even at slight angles (given the guns for player controlled guns were set to really realistic (config-file must be edited)). Even at slight angles bullets fly on very hard to estimate trajectories. If one hits a fighter then it's one which comes straight from astern if at all.
One obvious difference between B-17 II and IL-2 gunnery lies in the visibility of the bullets/tracers and their disperse (One imagine for a second..you hold a heavy machinegun (28 kg) on a stand and try to hit something very fast moving 500 m away, other then the first shot the recoil inevitably throws you out of aim). Only the power driven turrets guaranteed some sort of stability during prolonged fire (Until mid 1944 all B-17 rearguns were not powerfed)).

Another problem may be in the way trajectories are calculated in IL-2 FB, which seems to neglect an important factor as
absolute speed of bullet and therefore especially for waistgunners ever changing absolute speeds of bullets (A bullet fired at 90 degree angle from a fast moving plattform reacts completely different then one fired from a slow or stationary one), the bullet not only is affected by headon drag, but to quite significant extent also by sidedrag which bends the trajectory very noticeable (effective range drops dramatically) which is extremely difficult to accustom to in real (bullets fall off quicker and behind). In IL-2 FB even the waistgunners hit with a certainty very near a radarcontrolled gun.
I've seen a video in which some gunnery practice with modern mounted Highvelocity Hyperfirerate miniguns, 20mms and the like against drones was shown. The gunners very seldom hit the target which is rather small (maybe 2m wingdiameter) but rather slow and in very near proximity, although they use firerates above 2500 rounds/min. No wonder, even the absolute topshots scored only few victories, and then only at very short distance (Rudel's gunner was one of them for instance).

I also use the high and side attack in FB vs Bombers, which needs some serious training.

Greets

Hawgdog
12-30-2003, 06:35 PM
overmodeled defence?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/sharkdog.gif
When you get to Hell, tell 'em HawgDog sent you!

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2003, 07:55 PM
thats the WHOLE POINT

way , way , way to uber accurate AI

snipers the lot of them

first bullet motor or pilot killers the lot of them

olaleier
12-30-2003, 07:55 PM
I don't have a big avi-library, but I remember reading somewhere that B-17s downed 6.500 fighters and 5000 were lost. Now if that count is to fighters or total, I don't know, but if you get one and then get shot down, it's atleast statistically accurate. (If the 5000 count is total, then FB is statistically in favour of jerries getting 1 for 1.) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kriebelerelf
12-30-2003, 08:51 PM
I've been reading up on this string for awhile and see good arguments from both sides. Yah, clint-ruin is right about having a great differance in speed combined with a well planned angle to attack from.
On the other hand Willey's post on 27 Dec, 2003 11:55 AM raise a valid point. The way the gunners operate makes it look like they're single-shoting at you. I've had the wing of my Bf-109 K-4 hacked off from more than 600m away with what looks like a single .50cal round. I've got the track to prove it. I like Willey's idea of bomber-gunner customization. I see it as a way to make each bombers gunner unique, i.e. a randomization function.
I've also seen, read, and agree with the fact that clouds don't affect ANY AI charactersability to aim. Will there be anything done in the future to fix that?

BfHeFwMe
12-30-2003, 09:43 PM
Anyone point out some Ace gunner lists? Who was the top gun? Ace bomber pilots perhaps? How about some bombers with multiple kill markings painted on,,,, one kill marking????

Thought so.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Griffon_25th
12-30-2003, 10:11 PM
the gunners arent too bad...although ive been wasted flying 6 ft past a P-8 (similiar anyways lol) going over 600 kmh.

I think the B-17g's armour is over modeled though...I remember seeing pics of a B-17 completly blown apart by a single mk108.

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/151203-newsig777.jpg

Future-
12-31-2003, 02:45 AM
"Only the power driven turrets guaranteed some sort of stability during prolonged fire (Until mid 1944 all B-17 rearguns were not powerfed))."


Well, the B-17G in FB is a mid - late '44 version, since I read up that it was about that time when they removed the radioman's gun.


"I think the B-17g's armour is over modeled though...I remember seeing pics of a B-17 completly blown apart by a single mk108."


Lol, maybe you should take a look at the damaged B-17s on these pages:
http://b17flyingfortress.de/index.php?id=bugdamage.htm

http://b17flyingfortress.de/index.php?id=rumpfdamage.htm

http://b17flyingfortress.de/index.php?id=heckdamage.htm

Notice especially the pics with B17s that took "center damage", the link in the middle.

Now, in FB, sometimes the B-17s take loads of all kinds of ammo shot at them and still remain flyable, while on other occasions, they get shot up in one pass, maybe two by your lamented mk 108.
I think FB simulates reality very well here, since many B-17s with a big hole in the center obviously didnt make it, while others returned.

And if you factor in that the odds against the FB B-17 are higher than against the real ones, I think it is only fair that the gunners are a bit better and the plane is more often hard to bring down than it's WW2 counterparts.

Besides, I've already posted MORE THAN ONCE that the gunners are only occasionally "snipers" with a gunnery hit rate of 7 - 8 %. The difficulty lvl of the gunners is randomly set everytime a multiplayer server launches, so it also quite often happens that the gunners are just sitting and doing almost nothing while an enemy fighter passes by and attacks at about 240 - 50 meters! The hit rate of the gunners under such conditions (low lvl) is around 1 - 3 %.

Now, if you also factor in that a human fighter pilot's hit rate is between 1 % (= total noob) to about 14 % (= highly skilled veteran), and ALSO think about that many of you whiners take nothing less than a 190 A9 with at least 2 Mk108s or a 109 K4 with gunpods (3 Mk 108s), it quickly becomes clear that one doesn't even have to be a good pilot to down a 17 with those damn cannons.

And if my B-17 is really always that strong and overpowered, how come that I OFTEN got shot down by one short salvo while the attacking fighter got away nearly totally untouched?

Now, what is it that you exactly want? More realism? I dont think so! 'Cause I see noone complaining about the standard dogfight arenas (which are WAY off reality) or the fact that rarely a fight with a bomber takes place at a higher alt than 3000.
More realistic planesets? Also doubtful! 'Cause that would mean that on all servers, the amount of simultanously available planes with heavy cannons would have to be limited to about one third (at best!) of the total amount of players on a team.
A good challenge? Definitely NOT! The way things are right now, it remains a challenge to attack a bomber (that is, if the gunner's lvl is set high) and down it (of course, if it's low lvl gunners, it takes a total noob in a Zero to get shot by the gunners - everybody else kills the bomber). If all your "fixes" would be applied, bombers wouldn't be anything more than a floating target drone for some egomaniacs to blast away. And you fighter jockeys aren't the only ones who want to have fun with FB!

The only things that need to be fixed are 1.) the randomization of gunner difficulty lvl and 2.) the arcadeish "I-want-to-kill-all" mentality of some of you notorious whiners here! If anything is way off reality, it's some of you fighter guys. For once in your life, think about this BEFORE you respond.

FB and reality are two different things. Keep that in mind. This game can simulate a FEW aspects of the real deals, but it'll never be the same. Otherwise, we all wouldn't be here talking about this. Think about this too.

Now, I ask you again, what is it you REALLY want? Honestly!


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-
12-31-2003, 02:55 AM
Oh, I almost forgot:

@ WUAF_Badsight: You don't read my postings, do you?

@ Griffon_25th : "although ive been wasted flying 6 ft past a P-8 (similiar anyways lol) going over 600 kmh"

And you were surprised about this?


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

clint-ruin
12-31-2003, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Lots of photos of damaged front armour glass around, even those hit by 20mm. And no, I am not going to post any for proof.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Milo,

I'd love to see some more damage photos all the same, regardless :&gt;

I am not surprised that a windshield could deflect a 20mm or .50 cal bullet. Just that you should not expect it to do so. Especially in a high speed head-on pass where a windshield meets a bullet at 300/400m/s more than the bullets initial muzzle velocity.

In the cases where there was no shell deflection, there's a reason why the plane didn't make it back to base for a happy snap of battle damage :&gt;

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

Buster_Dee
12-31-2003, 04:33 PM
I spent hours making a mission in which the 17s were in roughly the correct formation, with tons of interlocking fire from 16 planes. The AI still downed them pretty effectively. Of course, that's AI against AI and doesn't really speak to the point.

I'm one of those guys who can't make a head-on or side pass for beans, so the gunners just love me.

tascaso
12-31-2003, 05:57 PM
There is a lot of literature and documentation of the Luftwaffe's dillema in attacking the bomber formations. The dead astern and 8, 7, 5, 4 o'clock attacks were not wise nor safe for the fighters. Thus a lot of work and planning went into the head on attacks. I have practiced these in QMB and they are difficult and not for the faint at heart. They are deadly! You have a very short firing window 1-2 seconds before having to take evasive action to avoid a collision. I break off the attack by turning the fighter onto its back and diving straight down out until out of range and then climbing back up and reposition for a reattack. Its time consuming but very challenging and fun to boot. Give it a try in the QMB!

Tony

Hanni8
01-01-2004, 05:35 PM
Tascaso,

Good point, although the Head-On attack needs quite some planning ahead, and much, much excercise. And the bad point, you can't come in very fast or your shooting window will just be to short. And worse you have to extend downward which will bring you into a position where you need a lot of time again to repeat the attack, being extremely vulnerable to Escorts. The best solution, as being excercised by the Sturmfighters mid 44 is to saturate the Bombergroupbox (about 28 planes) rear defenses by superior or atleast even numbers and achieve firesuperiority (4 x 20mm + 2 13 mm vs. 2x 12.7 mm of every Bomber). Also from experience with B-17 II it is quite difficult to concentrate on the correct target as reargunner in massed rearattacks (A typical massed rearattack would come in two waves separated about 300-400 m, thus allowing the second one the coup de grace).
On the other hand a single B-17 was no match for a determined fighter, stragglers were the easiest and very appreciated targets for the Luftwaffe fighters -&gt; Read the superb JG26 diary for instance.

In the end i think Future is quite right (and my own observations of the effectivness of the 20 and 30mms seem to further indicate a quite good balance). In respect to the B-17 it should be a though nut especially when flown in bigger tight formations for a small uncoordinated attacks, but no special fear when playing lonely hero .....hehe (no B-17 gunship flying around in fighter mode please)

Greets

Kriebelerelf
01-02-2004, 10:37 AM
I don't know about any of you people... But most of the battle damage pics seem to be caused by AAA.

Mmmm... Cookies!!!

Kriebelerelf
01-02-2004, 10:39 AM
Dang it my avatar won't workhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Kriebelerelf
01-02-2004, 10:41 AM
woking now?

Mmmm... Cookies!!!

Future-
01-02-2004, 11:48 AM
The pictures are meant to be a general example of some tough B-17s. If you look at them you will easily see that the DM in FB isn't capable of showing such specific and detailed damage - so the game has to use what it's got to make the B-17 "realistic" in terms of durability.

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