PDA

View Full Version : Beware of falling bombs



ClnlSandersLite
02-22-2005, 04:41 PM
Ok, the background: I was flying a P-38 L with gunpods going after a squadron of he-111s. My first pass is always head on where possible so, I go after the lead bomber. One down. I then Climb and hammer head. Come out of it at HIGH speed on the rear quarters of one of the outer bombers (right most bomber this time). 2 down. My third pass up till now, was always verticle. After Pass 2, I'd Climb about 3000 feet straight up, drop down, and fire that straight top down tracking shot on the bomber nearest my gunsight. 3 down. This time, As I dove past the bomber I just set on fire, I saw he had jetisoned his load during my barrage. I put on flaps, airbrake, full rudder and roll with as much back stick as she could handle; but no go. I ran smack dab into his bomb load.

I think that's the last time I do a pure verticle on a bomber as you run this risk every time. Can someone here give me a working tip to avoid this freak accident in the future? I really like my verticle pass as it tends to result in pilot kills, top gunner kills, etc. This leaves the high angles on the bomber completely open if I need a second pass. I'm really dreading the thought of giving up that angle...

Ohh, in case anyone was wondering: my 4th pass, should I need one is pure vertical just like pass 3 but going upwards instead of downwards. This pass often sets off bombs in their bomb bays which is a **** cool effect.

LStarosta
02-22-2005, 08:09 PM
Umm.. break sideways instead of straight below the bomber?

ClnlSandersLite
02-22-2005, 09:22 PM
I'm giving that some serious thought but there are complications doing that. You know, tight bomber formations can lead to collisions, falling debris tends to go kinda sideways, etc. Also, this will seriously reduce the amount of lead that I can dump into the target as instead of going straight, I'd have to break off and bank a little early. Hmmmm....

WTE_Dukayn
02-22-2005, 09:25 PM
don't get under the bomber at all? pull up early, live to make another pass. no point pouring in extra lead if you end up a crispy critter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

civildog
02-22-2005, 09:28 PM
When I attack bomber formations I do what I call "cutting the herd" and just take on the guys on the edges. I make a couple of high speed passes at some guy on the outer edge and cripple him so he leaves the flight. Then I kill him off and go for another.

I never fly under a bomber, over a bomber, or behind one (if I can help it) because the guns are set up to protect those areas better than from the side. Bomber gunners shooting at you as you go by in a lateral pass are more likely to miss. Speed is life.

Oh, and I just pound on a single nacelle on every pass to make the likelyhood of a kill as high as possible with the least amount of ammo useage.

ClnlSandersLite
02-23-2005, 02:22 AM
**snipped because I repeated this information in greater detail below.***

I've been thinking about ways to minimize the chance of his ordinance slamming into me though and I might have it worked out in my head. I'm not sure if I can actually put it into words or not just yet. Not to mention that it needs proving. I think I just might explain it when I get it down (if it works).

ClnlSandersLite
02-23-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bomber gunners shooting at you as you go by in a lateral pass are more likely to miss. Speed is life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're missing something here, actually a few things. Note that this is not meant to be a beration of any sort, or offensive in any matter, but is an honest attempt to help you (and anyone who might read it) understand a concept. This **** is really hard to explain without diagrams so bear with me here.

One point you seem to be missing is the specific aircraft capabilities. Take a CLOSE look at the top and bottom turrets of the HE-111 (which is the topic discussed here). They absolutely cannot fire either forward or even vertical. They are made to ward off +/- 45 degree (vertical) and +/- maybe 20 degree (horizontal) tail attacks. However, relative to the nose, +33 degrees to + 135 degrees is completely undefended from a dive attack. Inverse these numbers for a climbing attack.


With that information, you should now know that you can go vertical with a single bomber and win easily, but there is one last problem: bombers come in bunches. The whole purpose is to minimize you're exposure to low angle deflection shots from his friends. There are 3 keys here: relative speed, angle and rate of acceleration/deceleration compared to their plane of movement.

Even though head-ons with bombers are going straight down a nose mounted gun much of the time, they are effective for 3 reasons. 1. Because of his friend‚‚ā¨ôs angle in relation to you. A bomber's friends will have a difficult time tracking and killing you with their nose guns. 2. Because of their speed in relation to yours (your speed, which should be high, + theirs) reduces the time exposed to each specific gun and thereby limits their ability to effectively track you. 3. Because of the fact that during the whole maneuver you're accelerating, which is compounded as you get closer and the angle changes, the angle of lead constantly changes. These 3 factors combined with a high probability of killing the pilot make for a good run against most bombers.

The next best classic shot is the maximum deflection shot (for you, not him). Your speed in this instance is straight up your speed, plus a negligible amount of his due to the fact that this attack must be lined up slightly forward of him. Again, the high speed nature of this attack reduces his tracking time. The angle is seriously not THAT bad for the guy you're actually gunning at here. It does get worse as you get closer, but still, it's not all that bad. As far as the target is concerned, it's pretty much a head on with slightly different leading. However, his friends will have a very difficult time tracking you on this shot because of the nature of bomber formations. Their distance from you is increased and the angle is bad as they either can't see you or risk hitting their friend. Again, since you're accelerating this whole time (I hope) the lead angel is constantly changing. Honestly though, the probability of kill using guns on this shot isn't all that high unless you're in a FW-190, Me-262, etc.

The WORST classic shot is the dead six. Your relative speed is your speed - theirs which gives them increased tracking time. The angle is a 0 lead shot for the target's tail gunner, but it's at least a little worse for his friends. The rate of change due to your relative speeds is terrible though, this makes the shot easy. Again, hopefully you are accelerating / decelerating during this maneuver to make the gunner's life a little harder, but this effect is minimized by you're relative speeds. The single good thing about this shot is that if you're able to survive long enough, you can put ALOT more lead on the target which means high PK. To make it work, you have to be moving like a bat out of hell though.


Now, let's compare all that information to myHE-111 attack pattern using good ole‚‚ā¨ô pros and cons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The head-on.
1. The target is being engaged from a protected area. Con.
2. Relative speed to his friends: +450 miles per hour minimum. Pro.
3. The lead angle on this attack is ok for the target, but not too good for the rest of the formation. Mixed.
4. The whole maneuver is done during acceleration. Pro.

The trick that makes this a good attack is the relative speeds thereby minimizing tracking time.

The rear quarter attack (This is NOT dead six) I engage high and to the right at high speed using a slashing motion.
1. The target is being engaged from a protected area. Con.
2. Relative speed to his friends: +200 miles per hour minimum. + ?? mph sideways movement. OK.
3. The lead angle on this attack is bad for the target and not too good for the rest of the formation. Pro.
4. The whole maneuver is done during acceleration. Pro.

So, I spend more time behind the target on this one, but I do it in a slashing motion to increase his deflection and at high speed to reduce his track time. I also cross lines of fire in a very quick fashion so as to minimize their track time as well. Not the best shot, but not bad either.

The dive attack.
1. The target is being engaged from an unprotected protected area. Pro.
2. Relative speed to his friends: +320 miles per hour minimum. Pro.
3. The lead angle on this kind of attack is simply atrocious for any gunner in the whole **** formation. Pro.
4. The whole maneuver, being done in a dive, is during acceleration. Pro.

It meets all the requirements of a successful attack. There is another Pro to this attack as well. The target is MUCH bigger. It's a lot easier to hit the tops of the wings than the edges. Especially in a high deflection shot.

The climb attack at the end.
1. The target is being engaged from an unprotected protected area. Pro.
2. Relative speed to his friends: +275 miles per hour if properly executed. Pro.
3. The lead angle is inversed from the dive attack which is bad. Pro.
4. The whole maneuver, being done in a full throttle climb, is during deceleration. Pro.

Again, it meets all the requirements of a successful attack. There is however a hazard associated with this one. At the end of the attack, you'll be moving slower than you where at the onset. Generally the rule is speed is life, this is true. However, look at the circumstances that I execute this attack in. It's my last attack on a squadron. This means that the bombers are mostly broken up or destroyed. If it looks too risky, I'll not do it, but if the target's nearest friend is 700 meters away, it's not nearly as important. Since you just came out of what is essentially a zoom climb, either turn it into a loop at the top, or hammerhead and your slow time is minimized.

So, 4 kills against those pesky bombers, and I never get shot down doing it.

MEGILE
02-23-2005, 04:30 AM
Whats the matter Colonel Sanders... chicken?

sorry, couldn't resist.

ClnlSandersLite
02-23-2005, 05:35 AM
LOL