PDA

View Full Version : Bombers have got to be overmodelled!



drose01
05-08-2005, 05:19 PM
Not flight characteristics but effectiveness of defensive armaments.

I just played an online game early war eastern front scenario where a single, unescorted He111 knocked down 3 Migs and early Yaks and smoked the engine of another while sustaining only minimal damage.

Although some of the fighters made the mistake of driving straight up the 6 into the rear gun, it seems that this defensive prowess is way unbalanced in favor of the bomber.

I know that superior fighter tactics like boom and zoom type strafing runs would be safer but still...

If someone were to set up a server, called Fighters vs. Bombers (unescorted), I bet that bombers would win.

Just a rant, now I feel better.

F19_Olli72
05-08-2005, 05:29 PM
I am sorry to say that bombers are not overmodelled. Its your and the other pilots tactics and gunnery that is undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
05-08-2005, 05:58 PM
indeed
he111 is tanklike often, but only 7mm defenseive guns, maybe 50cal

Von_Zero
05-08-2005, 06:02 PM
What weapons did those guys used against the bomber? any of them had any rockets? cuz in that case, unless they had their eyes closed, the show would have ended in less that 30s.
The Mig's don't have strong armament (excepting rockets and gunpods) to go against a bomber, unless if the pilot is a crack-shot, or they get a lucky head-on PK on the bomber. I did some testing a while ago to see how easy/difficult would be to defend a He111 against different fighters. If my memory is still with me, i think i tested the folowing: Yak1/9, SpitV, P-40, Mig3, I-16, P-51, Hurri. Out of all these, the Only ones to be afraid were the Spits (because of the small front profile => hard to hit, and those dreaded cannons) and Yaks (aldough sometimes is easy to PK them). The Pony was quite difficult to hit, cannot explain why, wjile the P-40 and the Hurrican be set alight terribly fast (expectable on the Hurri, due to the position of the fuel tank). The Mig 3 has a weak engine, and it can get thick black smoke if hit propperly, while the I-16's are slow enough to fill their engines and genneraly all the forward profile with bullets).
This being said, i consider myself a pretty good shot when it comes from using a gunner (aldough i completely suck when it comes to shooting from a fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif ), so if that guy had a good eye and a steady hand, it is easy to imagine why those VVS planes could't get him down.
All of the rant above can be rendered innefective, by using propper tactics when engaging bombers, like high angle deflection shots, high speed passes, etc...
Btw, if you think one HUMAN heinkel is overmeodeled, try attacking 3 AI average Il'2s (those with gunners) in a 109 from above (hint if you have less than 500+ km/h when attacking, then you are toasted, aldough even so you risk alot.

If we'd get a flyable B-24, or a He-177, then the real whining would begin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
05-08-2005, 06:04 PM
if u have a human player, and the ai gunners are USELESS "full ai" are much better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jensenpark
05-08-2005, 06:13 PM
Should you get a chance to read some of the BoB memoirs from RAF pilots - or various pilot recollections, you'll see that they are not that overmodelled.
Lot's of examples of a H111 or Do17 knocking ut a Spit or Hurri with it's peashooters.
Especially chasing from 6 oclock

Not that it makes it any less frustrating...

BBB_Hyperion
05-08-2005, 06:23 PM
To remember from Bomber Reargunner that Bulletspeed + Attacker Closing speed.

That effects kinetic energy !

horseback
05-08-2005, 06:51 PM
Bull. This is the one area where the game absolutely departs from historical reality.

In real life, rear gunners were ludicrously ineffective unless the fighters attacking them were flying near-perfect formation within 200m. For purposes of aiming a machine gun accurately, a WWII bomber/attack aircraft handled like a truck with sloppy steering, bad brakes and even worse suspension on a bad road, leaving the passengers (and their aim) bouncing around like ping-pong balls.

Add in the fear of death, the wind of an open gun position, the cold of higher altitudes, the weight/inertia of the gun, and a single multi-passenger aircraft with a defensive gunner was almost invariably easy meat for any fighter that happened upon it. It was the rare gunner who single handedly knocked out a fighter, and never from more than 300m.

The danger of flying into a formation of bombers was that several guys were blazing away in your general vicinity. The likelihood of one of them hitting you was improved by the sheer number of bullets flying around in your direction. Most guys would peel off if they heard or felt hits, because they had no way of knowing how badly the aircraft was damaged.

Being hit by more than twenty rounds was rare, even in those circumstances. As for the ease with which some aircraft's engines are set afire or damaged, let's just say that some aircraft and engines in-game have damage models unsullied by the historical record...

cheers

horseback

F19_Olli72
05-08-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u have a human player, and the ai gunners are USELESS "full ai" are much better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yep, and it bugs me that there are still ppl who believes in the ubergunner myth! To those i would ask if AI gunners are that hot then check out these stats:

Betty: a whopping 3.7% hit rate (http://www.greatergreen.com/stats/il2/sortiedetails.php?id=1115559562&playerid=106)...that is when they fire occationally. Because sometimes they dont even when theres bandits on your straight six 30 meters away. On other occations they fire at bandits 2 km away high 8 oclock which no sane person would think of having a freaking chance of hitting.

The Emily of course has the uberest gunners (http://www.greatergreen.com/stats/il2/sortiedetails.php?id=1115558015&playerid=106); 1.9 hit %!. I was under attack for about 4 minutes, and all those muppets in the turrets did was fire off a measly 104 rounds into empty space. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

F19_Olli72
05-08-2005, 06:57 PM
Horseback, your generalizing way too much. Read "Fighter boys" about Battle of france and BoB. If you think the fighters maintained a perfect formation when attacking ...id say THATS bull. Many times Hurris had to attack a bomber singlehanded (there are a couple enlightning accounts from Hurripilots in the book for you). Bombers also had to break formation and stragglers were attacked. And i can assure you the Hurri pilots didnt find the reargunners incompetent or ineffective.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670032301.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-08-2005, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by drose01:
Not flight characteristics but effectiveness of defensive armaments.

I just played an online game early war eastern front scenario where a single, unescorted He111 knocked down 3 Migs and early Yaks and smoked the engine of another while sustaining only minimal damage.

Although some of the fighters made the mistake of driving straight up the 6 into the rear gun, it seems that this defensive prowess is way unbalanced in favor of the bomber.

I know that superior fighter tactics like boom and zoom type strafing runs would be safer but still...

If someone were to set up a server, called Fighters vs. Bombers (unescorted), I bet that bombers would win.

Just a rant, now I feel better.
Yes I've seen the same situation and I have to disagree. The fighter pilots who were attacking the bomber are at fault.

Here's some things to keep in mind:
1) Never attack a bomber from dead six
2) AI gunners are sometimes snipers, but not as good a sniper as a human controlled gunner
3) Once again, never attack a bomber from dead six

I've flown B-25's where I blew away 3-4 fighters in a single run and landed later. The guys all attacked from dead six, presented no deflection...I shot them to pieces every time and they barely damaged my plane.

Mind you, the next run, someone was much smarter, did a high angle yo-yo attack run and blew me to pieces. I do the same. High angle attack...deflection shot...aim for the fuel tanks, zoom away, reposition, attack again.

In some cases I've managed 3 bombers in a run without any serious damage. On occasion you'll see me on a bombers six, but always with some deflection and only for a second or two at most.

So its the pilots tactics...not the bombers gunners.

LuckyBoy1
05-08-2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
I am sorry to say that bombers are not overmodelled. Its your and the other pilots tactics and gunnery that is undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Couldn't have said it better!

darkhorizon11
05-08-2005, 11:04 PM
Its because noob pilots and AI alike line up behind bombers at the same airspeed and simply blast away.

And yes bombers did have a big advantage. If you look at some of the numbers it wasn't abnormal for the LW to lose 50 aircraft in a day defending against one raid. And this was before the days of long range escorts.

drose01
05-08-2005, 11:17 PM
Interesting feedback.

I guess that I kind of overreacted based on a preconception that most heavy bombers, especially early war models, were fighter-fodder unless they had escorts, even if the attackers were relatively unsophisticated in their tactics.

Tachyon1000
05-09-2005, 12:02 AM
One thing I'd like to get a comment on if someone knows about this. I have watched "Spitfire Ace" as few times now and one commentator on that show maintained that the use of long range cannons on 109s made the 50 caliber guns on bombers useless as the fighters could fire from outside the 50 caliber's effective range. Hence, the need for fighter escorts. I think I have also seen this remark made on another program in reference to the need to develop a long-range fighter for bomber escort, the P-51.

Is this in fact true and is this modelled in the game? I feel as if bomber gunners can pretty much peg me from whatever range I might try to shoot at them effectively, so my fear is that the gunners are a bit overmodelled as well as the effectiveness of the 50 caliber at range.

bolillo_loco
05-09-2005, 01:19 AM
I rarely attack bombers because it seems to be a mixed bag. I do not understand why sometimes the guy has aim bot gunners and the next guy has gunners that shoot in the opposite direction. I can attack two different people with the same a/c while I use the exact same a/c and same attack angle and one guy will have aim bot gunners that kill my pilot, engine, and knock out every control I have, yet the next guys bomber cannot seem to do anything but give me a minor fuel leak....strange.

if you cannot attack the bomber from directly above while you dive on it at a very high closeure rate I wouldnt attack it at all. If I do not have 30mm armament I never attack a bomber.

I have seen a few guys succesfully attack me while I was in a bomber, my ai gunners seem to lack the aim bot feature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.......

their method of attack was very simple and from the 9-6-3 o'clock postition with very low closure rate. they would come in on my 9 and swoop up over me and get the gunners to track them to the 3 o'clock position and then swoop back over to the other side........my gunners seem to traverse slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif so when they got to the other side all my gunners were facing the wrong direction and the guy blasted me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I wish I had aim bot ai gunners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

even with my dive down on them at high speed from directly above (where there is little defensive armament) some ai gunners seem to give me a lot of fuel leaks and an occasional pilot kill while the next guy has dud gunners just like mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

for the above reasons..........I rarely attack bombers or any plane that has defensive armament. I sure hope they do not include the bolton paul.........arrrgggggggg a power turret with 4 .303 mgs..........they will kill me every time.

WTE_DuStA
05-09-2005, 02:01 AM
i'm sorry but i totally disagree the bombers are over modelled in this game . When i am flying h6's or b25 yes i take down alot of pilots, but those are idiots that approach me from my six basically lining themselves up in the gunsight. The experienced and smart pilots attack from the front of high 2 o'clock 10 o'clock and attack at the wing roots and take off a wing. The fact your calling bombers overmodelled is complete balony and me thinks someone needs to practice their gunnery.

ploughman
05-09-2005, 02:20 AM
B-25. Had alot of fun on it yesterday but one thing kept cropping up. The starboard wing fuel tank, betwix the fuselage and the engine, if they got me it was because this fuel tank caught fire.

Abbuzze
05-09-2005, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Bull. This is the one area where the game absolutely departs from historical reality.

In real life, rear gunners were ludicrously ineffective unless the fighters attacking them were flying near-perfect formation within 200m. For purposes of aiming a machine gun accurately, a WWII bomber/attack aircraft handled like a truck with sloppy steering, bad brakes and even worse suspension on a bad road, leaving the passengers (and their aim) bouncing around like ping-pong balls.

Add in the fear of death, the wind of an open gun position, the cold of higher altitudes, the weight/inertia of the gun, and a single multi-passenger aircraft with a defensive gunner was almost invariably easy meat for any fighter that happened upon it. It was the rare gunner who single handedly knocked out a fighter, and never from more than 300m.

The danger of flying into a formation of bombers was that several guys were blazing away in your general vicinity. The likelihood of one of them hitting you was improved by the sheer number of bullets flying around in your direction. Most guys would peel off if they heard or felt hits, because they had no way of knowing how badly the aircraft was damaged.

Being hit by more than twenty rounds was rare, even in those circumstances. As for the ease with which some aircraft's engines are set afire or damaged, let's just say that some aircraft and engines in-game have damage models unsullied by the historical record...

cheers

horseback

Even in 1943 He111 could operate without fightercover at the eastern front! But the gunners have to work together and the flightleader had to be an experianced pilot who hold the planes togehter!
Most people think that it was the job of the gunner to shot down the enemy fighter, but this is not correct, like flak it was the job to hinder this guys to fullfill their duty.

This 111 gunners were trained to open the fire, when lets call this guy maingunner, open the fire, so no defensive fire apears till this moment when all defensive guns opens fire.
Gunners were also instructed to aim in front of the enemy, cause then the fighterpilot see all the tracers and guns shooting at him... you need nerves like steel or suicide tendences to withstand this...

Of course this only works if just a few fighters are attacking you...

And 6oc attacks are simply not wise, but for B25 they are fast, and the 20mm in the nose of a 109 is useless, cause you are not a il2 with armour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
At smaller maps you donÔ┬┤t have enought time to overtake attack overtake attack not thinking about your small friends...

F19_Ob
05-09-2005, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
One thing I'd like to get a comment on if someone knows about this. I have watched "Spitfire Ace" as few times now and one commentator on that show maintained that the use of long range cannons on 109s made the 50 caliber guns on bombers useless as the fighters could fire from outside the 50 caliber's effective range. Hence, the need for fighter escorts. I think I have also seen this remark made on another program in reference to the need to develop a long-range fighter for bomber escort, the P-51.

Is this in fact true and is this modelled in the game? I feel as if bomber gunners can pretty much peg me from whatever range I might try to shoot at them effectively, so my fear is that the gunners are a bit overmodelled as well as the effectiveness of the 50 caliber at range.

Yes, outside their range.......also bf110 (and I think also ju88) gunners tried to shoot from outside the bombergunners range, especially over the water or deep in enemy territory where even small damage could ruin the rest of their lives.
They still got hit though depending on how long they stayed on course and if the bomber gunners opened up or waited.
Maybe the damage caused on this range depends on that the attacker flies towards the bulletstream?

Some also must depend on the shooter and type of gun and rate of fire. If I am in the rear gunner I open up as soon as I have a straight line of fire even start before 800m.
My favorite trick is to go in a shallow dive wich leaves an unexperienced attacker with slow closing speed and I empty the whole clip at his direction wich pays off sometimes.

Problem is that the attacker still has 4, 6, 8, or 12 guns pointed at me and I have only one.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
05-09-2005, 03:05 AM
Best option when attacking bombers is still the
angled diving attack with high speed, wich take some practise but leaves u unharmed by defensive fire more often.

Ofcourse sometimes experienced pilots took a risk and fired from behind, but not even Hartmann could avoid getting hit this way.

so one have to calculate ones options....is it worth the risk?

HotelBushranger
05-09-2005, 03:48 AM
I love flying gunner's in bombers, especially the B-25 and 110. Most people are just plain stupid and go for a 6 Oc attack. When they do so, you get the back gunner and sometimes the top gunner of the B25 pouring .50cs into you, and in the 110, I go into a steep dive then pull out after half a second, giving me a very good shot at the pursuier, who is always straight on my tail. Once I killed the pilots of 3 P-40's in one flight doing that. So, the bombers aren't uber, you're just noobs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Antonio_MRZ
05-09-2005, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
To remember from Bomber Reargunner that Bulletspeed + Attacker Closing speed.

That effects kinetic energy !

Well this is true also for the attacking fighter.

But if the attack was from 6 o'clock, the bomber gunner's bullets had the further advantage of apparent wind.

Antonio

Aaron_GT
05-09-2005, 04:21 AM
Bull. This is the one area where the game absolutely departs from historical reality.

I think it is partly that the peformance of us players departs from historical reality.

For large missions in WW2 the typical loss rate for Western allied bombers was around 5% with large formations. Attacking fighter loss rates weren't much different. Even with smaller units loss rates often weren't much higher. So this suggests that us players are being unrealistic about wanting to down a couple of bombers per sortie. If attacking a squadron of bombers escorted by a squadron of fighters with a squadron of fighters we should expect about one plane to be lost from each squadron before the engagement finishes.

In the game if you go in agressively you can down more than 1 bomber, but at the loss of one fighter.

The question is, given historically accurate tactics can historically accurate average loss rates be produced?

anarchy52
05-09-2005, 04:38 AM
Bomber AI gunners in game ARE overmodelled:
on Veteran level they score hits @ 700m range with heavy MG. With no gyro-stabilized mounts, no rangefinder, no targeting computer and no optics fireing from a moving platform (we're not talking today's airliners flying at 11k).
If you fly steady they'll hit you in the engine or windshield with no problem. At that range even dispersion would be an issue.
The funniest thing is seeing bombers (especially B-25) barrel rolling while their gunners lay down accurate fire and hit you right in the engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a historical note - gunner effectiveness myth comes from 8AF and their gunners ridiculous kill claims (somewhere on the 40:1 ratio of GRANTED claims versus actual kills, actual claims were even higher). Good for moral boosting, but such self delusion was paid dearly with lives of crews until brass finally recognized that bombers alone can't defend themself.

F19_Olli72
05-09-2005, 05:08 AM
So? Set them to rookie level if its too hard for you. My concern is AI level online. They for sure cant hit anything at 700m range.

As Pingu posted there seems to be a big difference between full AI (AI pilot/AI gunner) and AI online (Human pilot/AI gunner).

Here is a challange for Anarchy52 or anyone who is up for it:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">***Start of the Ollibolli ubergunner challange***</span>

Try to experience it from the other end. Go to a server with moderate difficulty, like GG. On a filled (or at least 20 - 25 ppl on) server, take a bomber like B-25 or He-111 (which are the most suitable planes to test the gunners with). Look for enemies. Never man the guns, only let AI fire. And dont go near flak, cos that would screw up the statistic test value.

Play about 10 sorties, record tracks, and let us know your kill/death ratio and your AI gunners hit %. If the AI gunners are uber, there should be no problems right?

Im interested of seeing the result if anyone accepts. G'wan, be a sport. Just for fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
05-09-2005, 05:25 AM
Oh...I usually don't have problems with bomber gunners:
http://czechwar.vwings.org/rep/rep_04138.html
but still I think they're overmodelled severelly (in AI planes especially).

I had fun flying the big Japaneese hydroplane with 20mm gunners. Fighters were falling like flies, although most were silly 6 O'clock level chase attacks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DarthBane_
05-09-2005, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
Not flight characteristics but effectiveness of defensive armaments.

I just played an online game early war eastern front scenario where a single, unescorted He111 knocked down 3 Migs and early Yaks and smoked the engine of another while sustaining only minimal damage.

Although some of the fighters made the mistake of driving straight up the 6 into the rear gun, it seems that this defensive prowess is way unbalanced in favor of the bomber.

I know that superior fighter tactics like boom and zoom type strafing runs would be safer but still...

If someone were to set up a server, called Fighters vs. Bombers (unescorted), I bet that bombers would win.

Just a rant, now I feel better.

Bombers dont stand a chance against fighters. Only noobs die attacking bombers. I would like to increase bombers health and gunners acuracy to give tham more chance online. It is important to introduce other bombers with front guns, not just amero side, attacking bombers head on is too easy without front guns. I personaly dont fly unarmed bomber (without front guns) because it is suicidal, pointless (online).

p1ngu666
05-09-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drose01:
Not flight characteristics but effectiveness of defensive armaments.

I just played an online game early war eastern front scenario where a single, unescorted He111 knocked down 3 Migs and early Yaks and smoked the engine of another while sustaining only minimal damage.

Although some of the fighters made the mistake of driving straight up the 6 into the rear gun, it seems that this defensive prowess is way unbalanced in favor of the bomber.

I know that superior fighter tactics like boom and zoom type strafing runs would be safer but still...

If someone were to set up a server, called Fighters vs. Bombers (unescorted), I bet that bombers would win.

Just a rant, now I feel better.

Bombers dont stand a chance against fighters. Only noobs die attacking bombers. I would like to increase bombers health and gunners acuracy to give tham more chance online. It is important to introduce other bombers with front guns, not just amero side, attacking bombers head on is too easy without front guns. I personaly dont fly unarmed bomber (without front guns) because it is suicidal, pointless (online). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

several problems with the guns theory, 1 if they are going tobe effective, so will the enemys guns.
ai gunners fire off in random directions, or if u fly a20 or il2 u find rear gunners firing at enemy ahead of u... WHICH HE CANT EVEN SEE let alone hit...
so he kindly wastes ammo, and draws attention...
onwhine im fairly sure bombers gunners bullets canbe "lost" also fighters can float well even without engine and blaze away at u.
also human gunner dies then the planes dead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ai gunners do make hits at odd moments, they also mostly useless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JoachimvMayern
05-09-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
indeed
he111 is tanklike often, but only 7mm defenseive guns, maybe 50cal

Now imagine the Pe-8 defensive guns on the he111?

p1ngu666
05-09-2005, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by JoachimvMayern:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
indeed
he111 is tanklike often, but only 7mm defenseive guns, maybe 50cal

Now imagine the Pe-8 defensive guns on the he111? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rather have a halifax, lanc, lincon tbh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bolillo_loco
05-09-2005, 12:02 PM
I can make it much more simple, people seem to be complicating this thread.

If you kill the guy its due to your superior ability, but if you die its oleg's fault.

madsarmy
05-09-2005, 12:07 PM
Bombers are not overmodelled when your flying one all on your lonesome & you find that it's Dogfight nighthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

F19_Olli72
05-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
rather have a halifax, lanc, lincon tbh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What? No Stirling? The classiest looking RAF bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/stirling-photo1.jpg

p1ngu666
05-09-2005, 01:05 PM
well, the other heavies are probably better for defensive fire
hallifax had 4 gun rear AND top turret
lanc had 4 rear or later 2 50cals, and 2 303 or late 2 50cals
linc had 4 gun rear or 50cal i think, and some had top turret with 2 hispano http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

F19_Olli72
05-10-2005, 01:08 AM
Maybe, but the Stirling was well liked by its crews, it was rugged and it could dish out some punches as well. At one instance a Stirling was attacked by four nightfighters, three of them were shot down and the Stirling made it home to base. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, poor high altitude performance and mediocre range when fully loaded was two of its biggest shortcomings. And Stirlings suffered badly when Schr├┬Ągemusik was becoming more widely used.

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 03:37 AM
And Stirlings suffered badly when Schr├┬Ągemusik was becoming more widely used.

The first Stirling versions had ventral 'dustbin' turrets but these were mostly deleted in service and deleted in later versions due to the performance hit.

Various versions of the Stirling, Halifax, and Lancaster had various forms of ventral defence, from turrets to flexible guns, but it varied from version to version and wasn't always fitted. Plus the preferred location for H2S on the Halifax and Lancaster was where the ventral flexible gun was positioned (the two bumps being of a similar shape).

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 03:41 AM
well, the other heavies are probably better for defensive fire
hallifax had 4 gun rear AND top turret
lanc had 4 rear or later 2 50cals, and 2 303 or late 2 50cals
linc had 4 gun rear or 50cal i think, and some had top turret with 2 hispano

Only some Halifaxes had the 4 gun top turret, but it depends on version. The Halifax I also had a 2 gun nose turret, later swapped on later marks for the plexiglass nose with a .303 or .50. Some Halifaxes had a twin .303 ventral turret, but others had either a flexible ventral gun (.303 or .50) or nothing.

The same goes for the Lancaster - some versions had provision for a flexible ventral gun but it wasn't on all versions or always fitted. Some Australian squadrons upgunned the ventral gun to 20mm, but with the advent of H2S it tended to be fitted where the ventral gun blister went.

One of the bombers with heaviest defences were some versions of the Ju290 (although it was mostly a recce bomber and suffered from poor altitude performance) which mounted 6 or more 20mm cannon.

madsarmy
05-10-2005, 03:51 AM
My Dad's brother lost his life in a Stirling. Flak!
Wish that one had been overmodelled.

Hetzer_II
05-10-2005, 04:02 AM
There is simply no problem with the bombers... yesterday i took down 2 b25 with my d9 without suffering any damage... its just stupidnes of the people which makes bombers so strong and:

I hate all the stupid people ramming bombers because they are to dump

WTE_DuStA
05-11-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:

I hate all the stupid people ramming bombers because they are to dump

amen to that

being that i fly bombers more than not as long as there is a heinkel or b25 in the map nothing annoys me more than some c******nay sipping fighter jock ramming my plane just because he doesn't have the skills to make a proper pass on my bomber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hetzer_II
05-11-2005, 04:37 AM
Yesterday a 47 jokey took my down by ramming 4 times... he rammed me after he has no ammo left...


just silly...

HotelBushranger
05-11-2005, 04:45 AM
What I hate is fighters ramming fighters! An La7 chopped my Cr 42 in half with no ill effect on him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, and just then my Gladiator becomes some sort of puree when this Salamander screams up my @rse!

HellToupee
05-11-2005, 04:57 AM
one server i play on has b25s vs ki43s as a map historical match up but the ki43s are no match for a b25 not fast enough to do anything other than dead 6 attack and 2 peashooters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The ki43s soon ceased all attempts at shooting to ram.

irR4tiOn4L
05-13-2005, 04:53 AM
i dunno, i put 8 B24s and 4 P40's against 8 KI43's in a custom mission (all AI) and the Ki's surprisingly ripped the B24's up more often than not with 6 oclock attacks - the P40s would be busy murdering one set of Ki 43's and the other would ussually down 4 or so B24's - i find it silly that the B24 cant stand a couple of seconds of their fire.

it seems that player gunners really are much better than ai gunners

SUPERAEREO
05-13-2005, 06:59 AM
I have absolutely no problem with fire accuracy from AI bomber gunners, but to be totally honest I do sometimes suspect that He.111's might be a tad more difficult to shoot down than they were in real life.

I have been able to set them on fire and eventually shoot them down with the 7.7 Brownings on a Hurricane, but sometimes I have noticed even 20mm. fire raking their wings with very little effect, apart from some smoke or spray from the fuel tanks.

Other bombers like B-25's and Bostons (flyable) or Ju.88 (AI) seem to fall apart under cannon fire a lot quicker than Heinkels do.

Has anyone else noticed this or it just my subjective impression?

And if so, has anyone got any historical reference on how resiliant He.111 really were?


S!

HotelBushranger
05-13-2005, 08:43 AM
IIRC, a couple seconds of fire from a Hurricane Mk2 could set it on fire. That's a lot of bullets going into the plane in that short space of time, so you're bound to get results. So yes, I do agree with you and have similar experiences

stef51
05-13-2005, 10:24 AM
If I remember correctly, Oleg did lower AI gunners even though he believes that they were much more accurate than we believe. There was or still is the magic bullet hit during the first salvos that were annoying....

Anyway, never forget than when online, there is a good chance that when under attack, the player flying the bomber will use the rear gunner and will be very accurate dead astern. There seem to be a bug with the rear gun of the B-25 not lining up with the gunsight.

Also, note that AI bombers are sometimes quite strange for damage modeling. For example, I find the B-29 online to be quite fragile, often losing ailerons control from small caliber guns.
B-25 wing tanks are very fragile while the engine rarely gets hit as much as the wing tanks. etc... All of this may be improved in the new patch....

And a small tip, the Mig is very fragile in the engine, try it in the quick mission builder. The Spit also has that problem. Needless to say, I got 2 Spits from my B-25 in less than 10 seconds.

Stephen