Why were fighters ever needed, if Bombers were as strong as ingame?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Apparently I can't outmanouver the gunners effectively, and end up being killed 50% of the time although I never stay on their 6, only strafe (although they often are as fast as me so I need significant dive speed t o actually catch them. Most enemy fighters are less effective at killing me than the Bombers Gunners, setting me on fire or destroying my engine with 1 or 2 hits while I fail to destroy theirs with a couple of 20mm hits.

Talking about SP

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ah, yes, the bane of single player/offline since the dawn of air combat simulation, Godlike AI.

 

It's why I don't like single player.

 

Programming AI is probably the single most difficult facet of building a flight sim.  Getting AI to behave like real players would add enough complexity to the game that it probably would not run on anyone's PC, and would no doubt push the development time out another 3 to 5 years over what a current full featured combat flight sim's is today.

 

Look at it from another perspective.  Governments across the globe are spending billions on the development of drone combat aircraft, and they still cannot make even simple predictive decisions.  So how can a piece of entertainment software that costs $60 hope to have AI that work properly?

 

Really good AI are a good ten years away.

[Y-29.Silky]

The peshka gunners are just stupid accurate. There were many complaints about this earlier, but all these top aces came in the thread and said they weren't a problem and accused everyone of sitting on their 6, which was never the case for me.

[Wulf]

The peshka gunners are just stupid accurate. There were many complaints about this earlier, but all these top aces came in the thread and said they weren't a problem and accused everyone of sitting on their 6, which was never the case for me.

 

 

Gunners could be effective in RL so why would they be any different in a sim?  

 

If you're getting shot down 50% of the time, or even 25% of the time, you seriously need to re-think your tactics.   Don't blame the sim, think about what you may be doing wrong that gets you dead.  Think about where the gunners are situated in the target aircraft.  Think about their field of fire.  And then, always attack at speed and if possible from immediately above or directly below the aircraft.  If that's not possible attack from a high beam position.  Ideally you want to be close to twice the speed of the bomber at the merge. Try and incorporate some curve into your attack and then roll after the merge to change your direction of travel.   If you 'mince-about' behind the bomber, even for a few seconds, you'll probably end up dead.  So, get above the bomber and drop on it like a brick.  Fly through the merge, get clear and re-set for another attack if necessary.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

those are B-17s and 24s and they can sit. I do my approaches like they do, sit maybe 1-2 sec, at best, they do up to 8 (because the gunners actually die in the attacks

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[SharpeXB]

In A Higher Call Franz Stigler has a good account of attacking "four motors". They're extremely dangerous. He would dive vertically at them but never attack from astern. How do you know if the gunners in the bomber videos above haven't been incapacitated? I think I read somewhere that B-17s shot down more German aircraft than the fighters did.

[Wulf]

Ignore all those clips of B 17s and B 24s that have been separated from their formations.  In most instances the gunners in those aircraft are already dead or they're so far gone they can no longer resist.  These clips have more in common with the delivery of a coup de grace at a firing squad than they do with air combat.   Whatever you do, don't sit behind a bomber and trade blows with the air gunners.  Like fighter v fighter head-ons, (as you have already observed), you have about a 50/50 chance of survival.

 

Instead of looking at that sort of thing, have a look at this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QZAESQoYQg

Edited November 18, 2014 by Wulf

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

High from the top diving down from the front or across the 3-9 line anywhere behind the bomber..you're going to get dead most times. Err no I mean right behind the bomber straight and level for a good shot! We hate that. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

The gunners are very well paid apparently

 

I am finding the gunners to be particularly deadly in some circumstances. Their aim is very good. Sometimes maybe too good other times it seems reasonable (like I made a really easy approach and they nailed me for it).

[unreasonable]

I suspect that the problem is compounded by the damage model allowing small caliber MG bullets to be rather too destructive, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly having an outer wing section broken off by a tail gunner seems strange.

[Dutch]

I suspect that the problem is compounded by the damage model allowing small caliber MG bullets to be rather too destructive, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly having an outer wing section broken off by a tail gunner seems strange.

 

I suspect that it's all complete bollocks, and has been for a number of years.

[Dutch]

'The Bomber will always get through'

 

And do you know, it did? It really did. The bomber always did get through. So Baldwin was quite correct, even if he was a pacifist tosser. He was right. Weird eh?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 The side gunner of a Pe-2 having perfect firing solution on a vertically diving plane through his window with barely a view out, shooting your wing off. Right. Go on living in that world of delusions. AI sucks in games and for a reason.

[MarcoRossolini]

'The Bomber will always get through'

 

And do you know, it did? It really did. The bomber always did get through. So Baldwin was quite correct, even if he was a pacifist tosser. He was right. Weird eh?

 

 

Except that lots of them would be shot down doing it...

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Except that lots of them would be shot down doing it...

 

 

And the ones that made it through killed entire cities of people. Nobody ever said it was sane or human.

 

 

On topic, when a wingman and myself fly Sturmoviks or Peshkas in MP we get wasted ~60-70% of the time. I can only imagine that flying an He-111 without heavy escort is an exercise in frustration. I suppose somebody has to offer themselves as a sacrifice to the hordes that want to relive the glory of the fighter pilot and slaughter the poor bastards flying ground attack.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Silas

[Dutch]

Except that lots of them would be shot down doing it...

 

What do you mean, 'except'? Of course lots of them were shot down doing it, whichever Nation they flew for. But however many were shot down, the bomber always got through. This didn't justify it's cost, but it got through nonetheless.

[LukeFF]

those are ****ing B-17s and 24s and they can sit. I do my approaches like they do, sit maybe 1-2 sec, at best, they do up to 8 (because the gunners actually die in the attacks

 

Please watch the language.

[312_Lazy]

Imagining myself trying to hit relatively small maneuvering targets hundreds of meters far while my plane's pilot is maneuvering (to avoid fire) at the same time I have to say those AI gunners are some serious sharpshooters.

[Jirokoh]

 I think I read somewhere that B-17s shot down more German aircraft than the fighters did.

 

Actually, there is no evidence of that, because gunners usually reported a same plane shot down, since thet were flying in formation. It could happen that 2 or 3 gunners claimed on ennemy fighter shot down; so we don't actually know how much fighters were shot down by these men

[Wulf]

What do you mean, 'except'? Of course lots of them were shot down doing it, whichever Nation they flew for. But however many were shot down, the bomber always got through. This didn't justify it's cost, but it got through nonetheless.

 

 

No, that's simply not the case.  Baldwin and blokes like Douhet and the other strategic bombing 'enthusiasts' who emerged after the First World War were for the most part talking out or arses when they insisted that bombers would always getting through.  Take the British example.  In the inter war years, the RAF fared the best of the three UK armed services in terms of appropriations and by the late 1930s was the largest air force in Western Europe.  And yet, in 1939, RAF Bomber Command was almost brought to its knees.    The great strategic bombing offensive that was going to wreak Germany's ability to wage war following the invasion of Poland,  was a complete and utter failure.  In fact, the RAF's air offensive against Germany was such a catastrophic disaster that the RAF had to completely re-think the very notion of strategic bombing.  Daylight raids, as we know, were out and night operations were in.  In fact, RAF bomber losses were so bad in 1939 that if daylight operations had been maintained, even for just a few more months, Bomber Command would, in all likelihood  have all but ceased to exist. Unfortunately, for the bombing fan boys, night bombing was so inaccurate as to be almost farcical.  Yes, that changed as the war dragged on but it was always a close run thing between what the RAF could do and what the Germans could do to stop them - with the Nuremberg raid in 1944 providing the most graphic demonstration of just how close the whole thing really was, until the bottom finally fell out of the German's ability to mount a credible defense late in '44.  And the 8th Air Force was no better.  Without the advent of long range fighters the US daylight air offensive on the Reich would have been absolutely untenable. The simple reality is that when push came to shove, the bomber didn't get through - not unless it flew at night or was supported by a fighter force many times the size of the force available to the enemy.

[Yakdriver]

if the Bomber is so awesome ingame... why do they request assistance online?

[SR-F_Winger]

Apparently I can't outmanouver the gunners effectively, and end up being killed 50% of the time although I never stay on their 6, only strafe (although they often are as fast as me so I need significant dive speed t o actually catch them. Most enemy fighters are less effective at killing me than the Bombers Gunners, setting me on fire or destroying my engine with 1 or 2 hits while I fail to destroy theirs with a couple of 20mm hits.

Talking about SP

You attack em wrong.

I can only tell for PE2: Attack em from straight above. 1. They dont even know youre there until its too late. 2. They cant reach you with their guns when you come from straight above. 3. Youre far out of gunrange the moment they realize they are burning:)

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

if the Bomber is so awesome ingame... why do they request assistance online?

 Yeah  !!! Bombers can be easily shot down. Maybe too easily. Sometimes they seem to be indestructible besides smoking all the way home. I am flying on closed V formation online lately and with 2 escort 109s and usually the formation is trashed by enemy fighters when we are close to enemy radar bases. One enemy pass and you are smoking oil and fuel, another one and you are on fire. Gunners are balanced IMO. Sometimes we get some kills and sometimes we don't.  The only fighters I have seen lost their wings to a gunner was due wing fuel tank fire or if you have a spar damaged and you push too much Gs or speed. It is modeled in game and works pretty well. Thumbs up for developers 

You attack em wrong.

I can only tell for PE2: Attack em from straight above. 1. They dont even know youre there until its too late. 2. They cant reach you with their guns when you come from straight above. 3. Youre far out of gunrange the moment they realize they are burning:)

I come in a high speed shallow dive firing from long range trying to kill the gunners. I can see the muzzle flash from Pe2 rear gunner but I am so fast that rarely they hit me. But it happens.

Edited November 18, 2014 by JG62Gielow

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I am at lvl 8 now, flying intercepts 90% of all missions....And I have been shot down maybe 3 Times'. Attacking both 111 and PE 2. My conclusion is that u attack Way differently than i am!

Convergence set at 200 m, attacking at very high speed head on or from hi 4

Shooting at 150-200m

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I have a movie of my technique. First bomber I do it right coming on a high speed dive. Second bomber I park behind him and get shot 

 

 

Lapino online glory days 

Edited November 18, 2014 by JG62Gielow

[JG1_Pragr]

Apparently I can't outmanouver the gunners effectively, and end up being killed 50% of the time although I never stay on their 6, only strafe (although they often are as fast as me so I need significant dive speed t o actually catch them. Most enemy fighters are less effective at killing me than the Bombers Gunners, setting me on fire or destroying my engine with 1 or 2 hits while I fail to destroy theirs with a couple of 20mm hits.

Talking about SP

I play a different game probably. Never been hit by any AI gunners during the SP XP grind. Nor in MP. Of course I'm not trailing on their tail like mad guy. And sorry there is no problem to destroy the Pe-2 with few shots. You don't even need uderwing canon to shot down all three of them during the bomber intercept in campaign.

[Sokol1]

In SP this approach is efficient and  ~90 safety  - better if a slightly higher than bomber - make a turn after the attack.

 

 

Gunners have a  slow "ratio of fire" - is like his gun "jam" after each burst.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I have a movie of my technique. First bomber I do it right coming on a high speed dive. Second bomber I park behind him and get shot 

 

 

Lapino online glory days 

 

 

I always find it strange that aircraft suddenly break when the stresses are reduced, like after stopping.

For the SP bomber attacks, I think what we are missing for the most part is multiple fighters for the gunners to think about.  You might have 3 other planes with you, but they might be 3000 meters in trail, waiting and watching.

 

Makes me think they owe me money.

[JG26sandbag69]

rethink your tactics....dive on them from high, inverted and smoke 'em.   Shooting down bombers is not easy in real life, so why should it be easy in BOS.  

[Sokol1]

MG only attack.

 

[Yakdriver]

*hard rock headbang*
S! GS! GG! OMFG!

[Yakmaster]

MG only attack.

 

Good attack Sokol1 you make it look easy

 

This makes me wonder why did disigners and pilots in WW2 think that their airplanes need to have 20mm or 30mm cannons for shooting down enemy airplanes, when pair of small caliber machine guns were so deadly.

 

What a overkill is 6x .50 cal on P-40 when even one or two was so powerful against airplanes, or Me-262 with 4x30mm canons...and Fw-190 had to have 4x20mm, why not only MGs in nouse. They could do wonders with FW then, with light airplane and not having overkill guns in wings that they obviously didn't need

[dkoor]

Point of the story is to deny enemy bomber a chance, but then again that sounds true for all other situations as well.

 

One wont deny enemy bomber a chance by parking on his 6 and chewing his tail.

That's good way to get killed.

 

On the other hand, gunners are unbelievably good in the game, were so in old IL-2 and to extent are now too.

Hitting enemy fighter unless he stupidly parks in front of defensive gun at 30m is extremely hard.

Wouldn't be easy even if you defensive fire at fighter from the ground, let alone from a moving object.

 

This ain't no movies.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Apparently I can't outmanouver the gunners effectively, and end up being killed 50% of the time although I never stay on their 6, only strafe (although they often are as fast as me so I need significant dive speed t o actually catch them. Most enemy fighters are less effective at killing me than the Bombers Gunners, setting me on fire or destroying my engine with 1 or 2 hits while I fail to destroy theirs with a couple of 20mm hits.

Talking about SP

 

If your surviving 50% of the time then you must be doing something right ..... Just record your tracks and go back and see what happened.

 

I have a movie of my technique. First bomber I do it right coming on a high speed dive. Second bomber I park behind him and get shot 

 

 

Lapino online glory days 

 

I don't know if your flight was online or in single player but did you loose any points when your landing gear collapsed? Incidentally, great flying ...

 

Chief

[avlSteve]

I always find it strange that aircraft suddenly break when the stresses are reduced, like after stopping.

 

Yeah, it's like seeing a once in a lifetime fluke... over and over again.  I'd rather see a halt to that altogether if the frequency can't be reduced.

[johncage]

flaw with ai: player gunner always shite since your plane moves realistic. while enemy gunners always marksman since their pilots just fly on a track

[Sokol1]

Use il-2 to attack He 111, their gunners don't fire in Stumoviks... 

[312_strycekFido]

Actually, there is no evidence of that, because gunners usually reported a same plane shot down, since thet were flying in formation. It could happen that 2 or 3 gunners claimed on ennemy fighter shot down; so we don't actually know how much fighters were shot down by these men

 

You can try the other way around, not US kill claims, but LW losses

[Wulf]

You can try the other way around, not US kill claims, but LW losses

 

 

We know what the Luftwaffe lost in terms of day fighters.  What we don't really know so accurately is exactly who shot them down. Typically, air gunner claims were exaggerated for the reasons given by Jirokoh.  Similarly, fighter claims were also somewhat suspect - often because an individual aircraft may be attacked by several fighters.  This was increasingly the case in the last year or so of the air war over Germany when large numbers of very well trained but largely inexperienced Allied fighter pilots swamped the air space.  These are the guys you sometimes hear speaking fondly of their wartime experience, unlike the guys who flew in the dark days of 39-42.  Those blokes typically didn't survive of course.  Dead men tell no tales and all of that.   

Edited November 20, 2014 by Wulf