PDA

View Full Version : Attacking b-17 formations



XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:04 AM
Hi,

I was experimenting with quick mission builder attacking bomber formations. I read here and there that the german pilots attacked the b-17s head on. So I set up as many groupa of pe-8s as it would allow and attacked them with a group of 109g a/s with the mk108 nose cannon. I put american insignia on the bombers and when i was really tired and squinted it was just like having the patch with the b-17s right?

Well I did well on the approach, firing at the cockpit, going for a crew kill, or sometimes the engine or wing root.

Now as soon as I got past the nose of the bomber my plane turned into a giant superconducting magnet that actually pulled the rounds right out of the ammo-belts in the pe-8 and into the 109s airframe turning it into a fireball of molten metal. Just like attacking the IL-2 from aft!

Funny thing, I tried the same thing with He-111 and for a minute I thought I made a mistake and put them on my own side. I was able to attack them head-on, fly past and turn around, attack again from the bottom low, fly past and attack from astern, and shoot all the groups to pieces without losing any of my 109s.

Well for the allies sake I hope they can borrow some gunners from Russia to man the guns in the new b-17. Those guys are phenomenal! The german gunners must have their helmets on backwards or something.

Or..................maybe the patch will even this up somehow so I can fly past the front half of a Russian bomber once or twice before my 109 looks like it went through a scrapyard shredder.

That is my interest. Like all the others it will be answered on June 30th?


Thanks for your time,

Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:04 AM
Hi,

I was experimenting with quick mission builder attacking bomber formations. I read here and there that the german pilots attacked the b-17s head on. So I set up as many groupa of pe-8s as it would allow and attacked them with a group of 109g a/s with the mk108 nose cannon. I put american insignia on the bombers and when i was really tired and squinted it was just like having the patch with the b-17s right?

Well I did well on the approach, firing at the cockpit, going for a crew kill, or sometimes the engine or wing root.

Now as soon as I got past the nose of the bomber my plane turned into a giant superconducting magnet that actually pulled the rounds right out of the ammo-belts in the pe-8 and into the 109s airframe turning it into a fireball of molten metal. Just like attacking the IL-2 from aft!

Funny thing, I tried the same thing with He-111 and for a minute I thought I made a mistake and put them on my own side. I was able to attack them head-on, fly past and turn around, attack again from the bottom low, fly past and attack from astern, and shoot all the groups to pieces without losing any of my 109s.

Well for the allies sake I hope they can borrow some gunners from Russia to man the guns in the new b-17. Those guys are phenomenal! The german gunners must have their helmets on backwards or something.

Or..................maybe the patch will even this up somehow so I can fly past the front half of a Russian bomber once or twice before my 109 looks like it went through a scrapyard shredder.

That is my interest. Like all the others it will be answered on June 30th?


Thanks for your time,

Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:24 AM
Well...

The Pe8 has 4 gunners who can shoot to the rear, twice as many as the He111. Theyre also using 12.7mm and 20mm as opposed to the 7.9mm of the He-111.

The patch is going to adjust gunnery skill as well as the hitting power of the guns so all bets are off until 30 July.



<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 04:41 AM
Just wanted to say that the B-17s will probably be much harder, at least they should be...the B17 didn't have a single blind spot really, unlike the Lancaster. Just a mild lack of firepower from the top and to the rear, always engage in like a 70 degree dive. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 05:36 AM
Or on the earlier modells from the front. It wasn't until latter versions (F perhaps) that they got a chin turrent with twin .50's. Until then they were defenseless against head on attacks, that had to suck.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:22 AM
Engaging with the 108 from head-on is a bit of a waste IMO... MGs should do the trick if you're going for a head-on crew kill. Just my 2βΆ

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:25 AM
Diving at high speeds and shooting the wings off is way more effective

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:38 AM
Even before the B-17 had a chin turret, it still had a single .30 MG in the nose that could be operated by the bombadier. The top turret, of course, could be fired forward also (as well as the belly turret to some degree) so the tactic of attacking fortresses head-on wasn't developed soley because there was no armanent protecting the front of the plane (although, granted, the single .30 nose gun of the B-17E/F was weak compared to the dual .50 chin turret of the later B-17G model). Rather, the frontal attack offered the best returns vs. risk for the Luftwaffe pilots who were pouncing on the bomber formations: a few well-placed rounds into the cockpit and bombadier's position could wound or kill the pilot, co-pilot and bombadier and render the plane useless or unguided.

As any WWII air combat sim player knows, attacking a bomber from the rear may be the easiest shot to line up, but it also makes the attacker an easy target for the rear gunners. Besides, where does the attacker's fire go? Engines and wing roots if he's careful; more likey into the tail and waist gunners and into rudder and other controls. Possibly fatal shots to the bomber, but definately a risky or suicidal approach for the attacker.

A head-on attack with a high speed of closure means the attacker spends less time in a direct line of defensive fire before he is close enough to make his own shots; he then dives under the bomber where most of that bomber's gunners can't see him until he's out of their range. A speedy dive through the rest of the formation means the attacker will quickly be out of the effective range of all the formation's guns.

The Memphis Belle was an 'F' model. Notice it's guns:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/b17f_memphis.jpg



Message Edited on 07/21/0311:41PM by JT_Skycat

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:59 AM
Hello again,


Just tried the same thing with the beta 8. It has been addressed. The gunners effectiveness has been toned down a bit. Other observations on beta 8: Seems like i installed a new driver for video card, looks better. Just as much dust is kicked up on concrete as dirt runways. The flight models are harder and more realistic, I like it!


IF this beta 8 is close to what the next add-on or patch is going to be I am thrilled.

Thanks to everyone that worked on it for their blood , sweat and tears. S!



Jumoschwanz




P.S. Now excuse me, I am going to go fly..................Whooopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee!

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 07:58 AM
attacking from the fron is very effective but you then have to move a bit so the gunners don't hit. Take a deep dive or make a chandelle.

< !-- sig -->
<HR noshade>
Our conviction is like an arrow already in flight.
Your life will only last until it reaches you.
-
The spice extends life, the spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel. Travel without moving.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:48 AM
Before the advent of the B-17G with the extra guns in the chin turrent, a frontal attack was the go. Can get at the cockpit area, but watch your closure rate and beware of the the target size, it is deceiving. Also heard of the Japanese diving from directly above the plane, but I'm fairly sceptical about it. Those US bombers took quite a few cannon hits to bring down, were heavily armed and cruised higher then some fighters best operational altitudes. The FW190A in particular.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 12:19 PM
Crabhart wrote:
- Just wanted to say that the B-17s will probably be
- much harder, at least they should be...the B17
- didn't have a single blind spot really, unlike the
- Lancaster.

The Lancaster didn't have a blind spot, as designed.
(The Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster were all designed
with a ventral turret, and a wide arc tail turret).
The turrets were originally to be a dustbin type
(not very aerodynamc!)
although I've seen a pic of a proposed remotely
operated turret on a Halifax, and read that it was
also proposed for the Lancaster.

The ventral turrets were rarely fitted, however,
especially when H2S was fitted (H2S was also fitted
to a small number of B17s). Some crews (RAAF only,
AFAIK) did fit a 20mm cannon in a hand held ventral
mount.

In general the RAF felt that the extra performance
was more important than the presence of the turret,
and even deleted the nose turret from the Halifax,
and the dorsal turret from many Stirlings.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:05 PM
Attacking bombers has always seemed crazy in il-2 regardless of the bomber type (e.g., I've seen the rear gunner of il-2 fire down at a 45 degree + angle directly behind it!). No matter what tactic one employs, they almost always land the magic bullet shot. I've tried every type of attack on a myriad of different bomber types. Most of the time, I get hit after the pass and it doesn't matter what sort of drastic evasive move I pull. I really do hope the patch rewards pilots for trying to pull realistic fighter plane attacks against bombers. I think the bomber gunner should still punish those that choose to fly in straight lines or bleed too much energy when making their pass but that's about it. If a fighter makes slashing or weaving type attacks at hight rates of speed, I would imagine in real life that not many of those planes would have been hit unless they were flying through a typical B-17 kill box. Then, it seems reasonable to assume that some hits would land considering there could be like 12+ .50 cals focused on the interceptor.

stubby

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 01:53 PM
With those British bombers, the lack of the ventral gun position was a worry. German nightfighters used the lack of it to sneak up under them and put twin 20mm firing upwards from their Me110 or Ju88 into the bombload, or preferly, the fuel tanks in the wing. The guns in the British bombers were only 0.303's and the nightfighter could stay out of range and pump cannon shells into them. The Germans could also home into the HS2. If the Germans could get into a bomber stream on a clear night such as at Nuremberg in 1944, a massacre would usually occur. Mosquito nightfighters and fishpond radar in the bombers, seemed to be the key.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 02:16 PM
Hank_Himmler wrote:
- 0.303's and the nightfighter could stay out of range
- and pump cannon shells into them.

Shrage Musik attacks were mostly at very close range.
Some NFs were lost to parts falling from their target!

- The Germans could also home into the HS2.

And the Lancasters could carry radar warning devices
warning that they were being scanned by German NFs.
It was a battle of escalacting electronic warfare
and countermeasures.

- Nuremberg in 1944, a massacre would usually occur.

Luckily for the RAF the number of German NFs was
relatively small.

- Mosquito nightfighters

Yes, they did seem to be quite a worry to the
German NFs, and somewhat debunks the theory
that the RAF didn't use escort fighters!

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 06:32 PM
yeah those Pe-8s are death wish, beside the issue of better guns than 111 I would say its that darn AI skill and AA skill. Cant wait for that fix. Last night in a mission I lasted litterally two seconds when I was in gun range of three subs /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>BlitzPig_johann, my sig was too big, NNWW<center>

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:14 PM
Hank_Himmler wrote:
- If the Germans could get
- into a bomber stream on a clear night such as at
- Nuremberg in 1944, a massacre would usually occur.
- Mosquito nightfighters and fishpond radar in the
- bombers, seemed to be the key.
-
-

And how many times was that sort of night repeated?

Random examples:

#9 Sqd

Raids Flown

3 Group Wellingtons - 272 bombing, 7 minelaying, 8 leaflets
5 Group Lancasters - 289 bombing, 12 minelaying

Totals : 561 bombing, 19 minelaying, 8 leaflet = 588 raids

Sorties and Losses

3 Group Wellingtons - 2333 sorties, 66 aircraft lost (2.8 percent)
5 Group Lancasters - 3496 sorties, 111 aircraft lost (3.2 percent)

Totals : 5828 sorties, 177 aircraft lost (3.0 percent)


#15 Sqd

Raids Flown

2 Group Blenheims - 97 bombing and reconnaissance
3 Group Wellingtons - 38 bombing
3 Group Stirlings - 263 bombing, 85 minelaying, 5 leaflet
3 Group Lancasters - 208 bombing, 18 minelaying

Totals : 606 bombing, 103 minelaying, 5 leaflet = 714 raids

Sorties and Losses

2 Group Blenheims - 543 sorties, 27 aircraft lost (5.0 percent)
3 Group Wellingtons - 73 sorties, 3 aircraft lost (1.7 percent)
3 Group Stirlings - 2231 sorties, 91 aircraft lost (4.1 percent)
3 Group Lancasters - 2840 sorties, 45 aircraft lost (1.6 percent)

Totals : 5785 sorties, 166 aircraft lost (2.9 percent)


#429 Sqd

Raids Flown

4 Group Wellingtons - 11 bombing, 8 minelaying
6 Group Wellingtons - 31 bombing, 15 minelaying
6 Group Halifaxes - 172 bombing, 17 minelaying
6 Group Lancasters - 8 bombing, 5 minelaying

Totals: 222 bombing, 45 minelaying = 267 raids

Sorties and Losses

4 group Wellingtons - 158 sorties, 7 aircraft lost (4.4 percent)
6 Group Wellingtons - 384 sorties, 21 aircraft lost (5.5 percent)
6 Group Halifaxes - 2519 sorties, 49 aircraft lost (1.9 percent)
6 Group Lancasters - 114 sorties, 1 aircraft lost (0.9 percent)

Totals: 3175 sorties, 78 aircraft lost (2.5 percent)

http://www.nucleus.com/~ltwright/bc.htm

This has been posted before

taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2

Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.

B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6


B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6

Note: the attacks include high and low levels.

I should have posted this link as well.

http://www.elsham.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/raf_bc/

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


Message Edited on 07/22/0304:29PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:27 PM
Your right about the he-111 gunners.I've been toasted time and time again attacking the russian 1933 bomber tu? One machinegunner and I'm toast in a 190.But I can knock down all 4 he-111 without problems.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:29 PM
Actualy Guys the Me 262 will really come into its own against the B-17.
The jet was a purpose built bomber killer after all, and there is not much the fighter escort could do about it either except watch.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 09:42 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- Actualy Guys the Me 262 will really come into its
- own against the B-17.
- The jet was a purpose built bomber killer after all,
- and there is not much the fighter escort could do
- about it either except watch.
-
-

In RL the 262 went through the escorts at ~550mph aiming for a postion ~1 mile(1.6km) behind and 1500ft(460m) below the bombers. The 262 would then do a high G pull-up to 'dump' speed. They would then be ~1000yd(910m) behind the bombers with an over taking speed of ~100mph(160kph). When ~100yds(91m) from the bomber the 262 would pull up and break away overhead to avoid any debris. If carrying rockets, these were fired first and then the cannons.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:26 PM
FYI practically all B-17s used in the 8th AF had at least one .50 cal in the nose (check out the picture of the Memphis Belle, an early -17F model- that's a .50 sticking out of the plexiglass) and in most cases, a pair of 'cheek' guns that could fire forward as well. Problem was, they were hand held by the bombardier or navigator, and harder to aim than the reflector sighted chin turret setup.

You found .30 cal guns in the prewar B-17B/C/D models, which also lacked a tail gunner position entirely. As far as I know, the only .30 cal guns mounted on the E/F/G models were local modifications, and I suspect that the operators were subject to a lot of teasing from crewmates who had "bigger guns."

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 10:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- And how many times was that sort of night repeated?
-
- Random examples:

There are no dates attached to those examples, which
makes it hard to judge at what point the raids took place.
The presence of Wellingtons suggests fairly early in the
war, early in the career of Lancasters, perhaps. The
LW hadn't really got its NF effort organised by then.
Heck, the RAF didn't really have it well organised until
1942. Even then RAF nightfighters operating over the UK
had a very low success rate in terms of kills-per-sortie,
although part of this may be due to the fact that by
1942 they were operating in a fairly target-poor environment. And even as late as 1942 the RAF were
still trying to operate Havoc Turbinlite and Hurricane
pairs.

Also those loss rates are not broken down into losses
from flak or NF.

Certainly losses from LW NFs were enough for the RAF
to feel that they required Mosquito NF.II escort later
in the war, although apparently not enough to require
refitting of ventral armament as a standard, partly
because it wasn't considered that the armament was
worth the performance penalty, especially with an H2S
bulge in there too. Fitting a 20mm cannon in a ventral
hole seemed to work for some RAAF units, but hand held
mounts have a lesser weight and drag penalty, like
the ventral tunnel mounting in an A20.

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:29 PM
Aaron

Losses are from operational debut to May 8 1945, when Germany unconditionally surrendered. That is why it says 'total'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif For operational debut dates you will have to visit the site noted in the post above.

For losses one should look to 8th AF losses. More B-17s/B-24s were lost to Flak than to a/c. At night, it would be still larger for Flak.


Of the 95 a/c lost on that Nurenburg raid, how many were lost to NFs?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-22-2003, 11:40 PM
Actually the B-17 didn't have any armor to protect the front crew. So, projectiles could rip through the nose from plexiglass into the bomb bay. Until the chin turret was implemented, the firepower to the front was weak. The other "preferred" attack was straight down from the 12 O'clock high position. This attack was harder to perform, there was the problem of leading the target and the projectiles didn't get to "rake" the length of the target. Head-on was definitely the preferred method of attack by single engine fighters.
Adler52