OP rear gunners

[ACG_daffy_]

I would try a different attack approach.

[Sokol1]

 

No601_Swallow, on 07 Sept 2016 - 18:29, said:

... ridiculous ....He111 side gunners...

 

"something untoward" it's "astonishing" to me how defensive and paranoid some folk are. 

 

Swallow hate "that game" with love. 

 

AI  gunners - in flight by AI planes - are Uber/OP in any flight game, even in War Thunder. 

 

After the usual initial complains in Early Access - when gunners are really Terminators - what was done is add pause in their ratio of fire - this indicates that are not possible change much their behavior.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sokol1

[Fortis_Leader]

Will this ever be altered? I've started playing SP for a while now, mostly to toy around with the La-5. Yesterday I decided to take up the -109 again, and was fairly dismayed at the night and day difference between German and Russian AI gunners. With the La-5, and other Russian fighters, I could often, and reliably take on He-111s and Ju-88s alike from a level 6 o'clock attack without getting hit >90% of the time. One of the few times I thought I'd gotten hit by a gunner was when I'd inadvertently wound up effectively flying formation with a bomber, but even that turned out to be friendly fire from another La-5.

 

Then I tried the -109s and -190s again. Now, I'm no expert on the Eastern front, so I won't say anything about the tendency of even early series Pe-2s to soak up cannon fire that I've seen literally speaking tear -111s and -88s into pieces. But the accuracy differences don't really necessitate intimate, expert knowledge on the subject. Making a level, 6 o'clock approach on a Pe-2 is simply not viable. Fair enough, that should get you shot up (though that does go for German bombers as well). But even resorting to proper bomber attacks, I keep getting sniped more often than not. I'm not new to flight sims, or WW2 flight sims specifically, so I do know what I'm doing to a certain extent. Below is a fairly typical attack and its consequences:

 

 

This was by no means an exception. I approached at a very high speed, 600-700kph, with high relative movement speeds, from a high aspect, and the result is having my engine shot out by a single hit, from a gunner that had but fraction of a second to acquire, aim and engage his target. Granted, a target that was close, but a target that turned up, and was gone in less than a second. The fact that you can still see most of the tracers from the other gunners when I narrow the FoV by zooming in from the PoV of the trail Pe-2 tells that these are Russian bombers; Had they been German bombers, most of the fire would've been so accurate that it had been outside the FoV of the camera. If this is even remotely realistic, one must ask himself why the USAAF even built fighters; The B-17s should've slaughtered the Luftwaffe in a few weeks.

 

The developers have done such great work on so much in this game. Environment, planes, damage models, graphics, effects, etc. But the accuracy of AI gunners in AI planes is a factor that is by no stretch of the word either realistic, or enjoyable.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Can I be very, very honest with you, coming from somebody who spent a lot of time working on ways to attack a bomber without being ripped to shreds (and who still gets torn apart every now and then)?

 

Your approach was fancy, it was fast, but fundamentally it wasn't good.

 

All the hard work you put into gaining altitude and doing that steep dive went to waste because as you approached the target, despite flying at 700 km/h, the speed at which you were traversing relative to the Pe-2, which is the one that really matters here, was ridiculously slow. For more than enough time, from the gunner's perspective you were just a little dot that was growing at a fast rate, but which remained relatively static overall. In the manoeuvre, not only you exposed yourself to the top gunner's fire for a really long time, you've also gotten yourself into the field of fire of the bottom gunner. Yes, you were hit at a surprisingly fast rate, and yes that might be a limitation of computers, but all in all the bottom gunner had a fair shot at you and took it, from a range at which a dog could have done the job just by biting the trigger. I'm very surprised the top gunner didn't reduce your 109 to mince before things even got to that.

 

So long as you approach the bomber along the same path it is flying, the gunner will have an easy shot at you with little to no deflection, regardless of the speed you're flying at.

 

To counter that and make use of the speed you have as a fighter, try diving parallel to the bomber but with about 500m (I don't know exactly how many, try it and see what works best) of horizontal separation. That will give the gunner a really hard angle to hit you from as you approach it. As you draw closer to the bomber and get close to overtaking it, you can swerve towards it and get a good shot across the 3-9 line. Alternatively, start the dive with that same separation and point your nose down to the point you expect the enemy to be at when you reach their altitude. Shoot from up close, at high speeds, and still don't fall under gunner fire for the most of it. Not only this will make it very hard for the gunner since you will be traversing at very high speeds, you will also hit the most important things - the wings, the fuel tanks stored inside the wings, the engines mounted on the wings, and the crew that sits between the wings. Depending on what you are attacking, this will also bypass some armour plates positioned against 6-12 fire. Give it a go, it might ease a lot of frustration

[Fortis_Leader]

Sure, I'll try those techniques. But my main point here was that there is a considerable disparity between AI gunners in German and Russian AI planes (as has previously been noted, they're equally worthless in any plane flown by a player). My standard approach in La-5s is nothing short of what you could see from a plane approaching its tanker, and even then I rarely suffer even non-critical hits. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's probably down to personal experience. The La-5 is my most hated plane to fly against bombers because even against the He-111 I get my engine shot to pieces and end up crash-landing somewhere while covered in oil. Against the Ju-88 I am usually toast regardless of what I fly, particularly by the bottom gunner manning the twin MG.

 

Compared to the Pe-2, the He-111 and Ju-88 suffer from having relatively big dead zones on the dead six because of the vertical stabiliser. I recall reading somewhere that the Pe-2 design opted for an H-tail in order to give the gunner a better field of fire, but I could be wrong. Also, as far as I remember the Pe-2's bottom gun is positioned much closer to the tail than the He-111 and Ju-88 ones, which can help a little.

 

Some old drawings from Pokryshkin's notebook, these are from 1943 but they still give you a rough idea of the problem. I'd done a similar drawing for the Pe-2 to compare but I can't find it on my PC right now, sorry.

 

 

 

EDIT: Never mind, found it. Gunner field of fire within the red lines, safe areas in blue, roughly.

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

 

 

Against the Ju-88 I am usually toast regardless of what I fly, particularly by the bottom gunner manning the twin MG.

One of my first MP kill was a Ju88. Since then I have feared them in my Yak and have gone so far as to not engage them when alone because that bottom twin gun shreds my engine or wings so quickly.  

[Jade_Monkey]

Will this ever be altered? I've started playing SP for a while now, mostly to toy around with the La-5. Yesterday I decided to take up the -109 again, and was fairly dismayed at the night and day difference between German and Russian AI gunners. With the La-5, and other Russian fighters, I could often, and reliably take on He-111s and Ju-88s alike from a level 6 o'clock attack without getting hit >90% of the time. One of the few times I thought I'd gotten hit by a gunner was when I'd inadvertently wound up effectively flying formation with a bomber, but even that turned out to be friendly fire from another La-5.

 

Then I tried the -109s and -190s again. Now, I'm no expert on the Eastern front, so I won't say anything about the tendency of even early series Pe-2s to soak up cannon fire that I've seen literally speaking tear -111s and -88s into pieces. But the accuracy differences don't really necessitate intimate, expert knowledge on the subject. Making a level, 6 o'clock approach on a Pe-2 is simply not viable. Fair enough, that should get you shot up (though that does go for German bombers as well). But even resorting to proper bomber attacks, I keep getting sniped more often than not. I'm not new to flight sims, or WW2 flight sims specifically, so I do know what I'm doing to a certain extent. Below is a fairly typical attack and its consequences:

 

 

This was by no means an exception. I approached at a very high speed, 600-700kph, with high relative movement speeds, from a high aspect, and the result is having my engine shot out by a single hit, from a gunner that had but fraction of a second to acquire, aim and engage his target. Granted, a target that was close, but a target that turned up, and was gone in less than a second. The fact that you can still see most of the tracers from the other gunners when I narrow the FoV by zooming in from the PoV of the trail Pe-2 tells that these are Russian bombers; Had they been German bombers, most of the fire would've been so accurate that it had been outside the FoV of the camera. If this is even remotely realistic, one must ask himself why the USAAF even built fighters; The B-17s should've slaughtered the Luftwaffe in a few weeks.

 

The developers have done such great work on so much in this game. Environment, planes, damage models, graphics, effects, etc. But the accuracy of AI gunners in AI planes is a factor that is by no stretch of the word either realistic, or enjoyable.

 

Sorry but you just don't get it. You were behind TREE bombers with two rear gunners each.

 

For a second you were right in front of the bottom gunner of the last Pe2.

 

You were so close, he wouldn't even have to aim, because you were practically taking his entire FOV.

[DD_Arthur]

The view from the a.i. =  ace in a day.  

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

However did those Luftwaffe fighters ever survive attacking those hundreds and hundreds of B-17s and B-24s with thousands of HMGs firing at them in the skies over Germany? They should have been blasted from the sky leaving none to attack the next bomber mission.

[Fortis_Leader]

It's probably down to personal experience. The La-5 is my most hated plane to fly against bombers because even against the He-111 I get my engine shot to pieces and end up crash-landing somewhere while covered in oil. Against the Ju-88 I am usually toast regardless of what I fly, particularly by the bottom gunner manning the twin MG.

 

That's odd. I've been flying the La-5 for a few weeks now, and never shied away from taking on any kind of bomber. A slow, steady, level 6 o'clock approach nearly every time, and they've never shot me down.

I did try some of the tactics you suggested, and there's been some better results, but the accuracy of the gunners is still frightening. I've tried diving a few hundred meters offset horizontally from the Pe-2s, and while it does decrease the accuracy somewhat, it's still awfully close, and with the time it takes to actually kill the damned Pe-2s, I still wind up getting hit quite often. And this isn't even close to the circumstances I recorded; It's coming in like in your first suggested tactic, taking a snap shot, and breaking off on a ~75° angle from the Pe-2's course, and adding a moderate climb/dive to that. I'm a target separating from the Pe-2 at trans sonic speeds, maneuvering in all 3 dimensions, and I'm nonetheless subjected to very accurate fire.

 

I'd rather take on the outnumbering escorts than the gunners...

Edited October 9, 2016 by AnthonyP

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon as well calling out the ridiculous Pe2 accuracy / damage.

 

Any other bomber, not a problem - but Pe2's are in a league of their own in comparison to other planes with defensive gunners in this game. Engine hits I can live with, but the number of times I have had my wing or whole tail section torn straight off from taking gunner fire is getting beyond a joke.

 

Aiming and taking out each individual engine is one of the only effective means of disabling them as they just soak up cannon rounds anywhere else.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Any other bomber, not a problem - but Pe2's are in a league of their own in comparison to other planes with defensive gunners in this game.

If I count singleplayer only where only ai controls gunners, either Ju-88 or Pe-2 are exceptionally good. And first one is just armed with rifle caliber machine guns, latter one while has heavy machine gun ... its a single hand operated gun.  

 

But this has been pointed before that gunners seem to react faster than any human being could, even in 190 I get hit not so rarely making a ~60 deg dive from the rear when speeds exceed 700 km/h. They also dont seem to be affected by any smoke and gases coming out of their own machine, so that my view is obscured but Ai can keep shooting despite that. 

 

I just avoid attacking bombers, not much fun in that. Cant only imagine how it will look with aircraft like B-25 with multiple .50 caliber batteries...

[Monostripezebra]

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon as well calling out the ridiculous Pe2 accuracy / damage.

 

Any other bomber, not a problem - but Pe2's are in a league of their own in comparison to other planes with defensive gunners in this game. Engine hits I can live with, but the number of times I have had my wing or whole tail section torn straight off from taking gunner fire is getting beyond a joke.

 

Aiming and taking out each individual engine is one of the only effective means of disabling them as they just soak up cannon rounds anywhere else.

 

The whole point of a fighter is to be able to fight "mission" aircraft.. ie: be superior to bomber through speed and maneuverability. If you actually use that, you can give gunners next to no opportunity to get good shots at you. And as a Pe2 flyer, I´ve seen people do it and shoot me in one burst... without much chance to defend. But the fighter does need time and patience to position itself that way, as long as the Pe has the altitude to dive and force a tailchase. With the changed damage dynamics, the Pe soaks up considerably less damage, but it is still very tough if shot at from the direct rear. That´s what most people are doing wrong, shoot at it head on, sideways or below.. or kill the topgunner from above and it goes down about as quickly as the Ju88, if not quicker. Flying bombers online teaches you a lot about shooting them down, and I think I shoot down bombers quite well.. because I fly them.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

With the changed damage dynamics, the Pe soaks up considerably less damage,

 

What changed damage dynamics were they? I have not seen the Pe2 get any weaker.

 

 

 

but it is still very tough if shot at from the direct rear.

Shooting a Pe2 from the rear is suicidal. I watch many pilots succumb to that fate. I rarely attempt a rear attack and if I do, I expect to be shot in the engine. That is not my complaint.

 

 

 

kill the top gunner from above and it goes down about as quickly as the Ju88

In fact on one occasion with an almost 90 degree topdown attack, I lost a wing. I was speechless*... (with exception to all the expletives to my wingmen on TS).

Edited October 9, 2016 by Tripwire

[Monostripezebra]

What changed damage dynamics were they? I have not seen the Pe2 get any weaker.

 

>trust me it is, last patch damage models have been tweaked, mostly in regard to the wrong 3d parts falling off, but the Pe2 got also less "stalinium". The splash damage of 20mm was also corrected, so you get more successive damage and cooler piercing. The details, albeit a bit vague, are in the patch notes.. but it matches my experiences that you now get shot down quicker.

 

 

 

 

 

In fact on one occasion with an almost 90 degree topdown attack, I lost a wing. I was speechless*... (with exception to all the expletives to my wingmen on TS).

 

>the gunner can´t aim that much up. Are you sure it was not the network/lag g-force effect that sometimes rips wings? Oddly the plane most affected seems to be the he111... it can lose a wing online even after peak G.

[Fortis_Leader]

What I find odd is that the tail on Pe-2s can soak up incredible amounts of cannon fire. In fact, I can't recall having seen any control surfaces of Pe-2s, at least not on the tail, get broken by combat damage for over a year. Not saying it doesn't happen, I've just not seen it, despite seeing it often on -88s, -111s and even Il-2s occasionally. Neither can I recall having seen any gunner on a Pe-2 "buy the farm" since I played the BoS beta. Both of these things are fairly strange, considering how especially the early series Pe-2s had very little armour and crew protection.

[Monostripezebra]

What I find odd is that the tail on Pe-2s can soak up incredible amounts of cannon fire. In fact, I can't recall having seen any control surfaces of Pe-2s, at least not on the tail, get broken by combat damage for over a year. Not saying it doesn't happen, I've just not seen it, despite seeing it often on -88s, -111s and even Il-2s occasionally. Neither can I recall having seen any gunner on a Pe-2 "buy the farm" since I played the BoS beta. Both of these things are fairly strange, considering how especially the early series Pe-2s had very little armour and crew protection.

 

lol wut.. maybe you have just special chances. I see the vulnerable tail go every 2nd time I get attacked online, and have come back with dead gunners plenty of times.

[Fortis_Leader]

Dunno. There appears to be a huge difference between AI gunner accuracy in AI planes vs player planes, maybe survivability is also affected by whether the pilot is AI or a player?

 

Have you ever had control surfaces shot off from your Pe-2?

[Monostripezebra]

Online, the tail is the single most vulnerable thing from the rear... and especially for the 190s a quick way of getting you down brutally fast.

[Fortis_Leader]

 

Surely that's a bit much from a single gunner crouching in a cramped cockpit, manually aiming a .50 cal MG?

[Matt]

That was at less than 50 meters. Is the AI supposed to miss a plane at that distance? Any human gunner would've hit you too. You were basically asking to get hit with that attack.

[Fortis_Leader]

Half a second to aim, fire, and with a single burst hit a target moving at very high speed. And not just hitting the plane, but specifically hitting the engine...

 

There's wanting to find feasible explanations, but then there's just refusing to acknowledge any problem you haven't personally experienced.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's not as much about distance between the two but ability to react and take aim at a target which is so rapidly moving. Yes, he was for a brief moment so close to that gunner. But play the recording at normal speed (0:14 to 0:16) where in a matter of 2 seconds he moves from high left rear quarter at less 200 meters to left front quarter beyond any gunner range. Reaction window is pretty darn short. 

Of course if you slow down camera four/sixteen/thirty two times then it looks like he spent there whole holiday. 

[Matt]

A human gunner would've opened open fire shortly before he entered the arc of fire and he was visible to the the gunner for about 10 seconds to take aim.

 

I'm not saying that there's no problem with the AI gunners, but you can't blame the AI every time you get shot down and in this particular case i can see nothing wrong with it. 

 

What's the AI exactly supposed to do in this case? Not shoot at all or miss or both?

[Felix58]

The AI gunner topic just keeps on giving!   It does seem as if my AI gunners could not hit anything while AI gunners seem to be sharp-shooters!

Initially, I took the common view that bomber gunners over claimed their kills and, harshly, were of more psychological benefit to the crew.

The German pilots on the western front did not think that!   They genuinely feared the bomber's guns and anti-bomber fighters with improved defence (ie armour) was the result.  Followed by experiments with armaments fired from longer range.  

IMHO players, not having the fear of death, press their attacks way too aggressively, more often than not from the rear and offer point-blank targets and wonder why they get hit.  Sure the aces say get in close, but the dead cannot warn us of the risk of using this method!   How many perished versus the surviving aces - many I would suggest. 

 

On a related point have a look at this vid - http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25545-reargunners-perspective/  

 

Very nice effort by the player within the mechanics of the game.  But as I mentioned in that thread, it is not technically accurate.  If the gunner fires directly at a target the rounds will pass under it because of the speed of both aircraft.

The actual technique is to fire between the tail-plane and the target.

 

This is the devil's own task to get the AI gunner balance "rightish".  No amount of tinkering will get universal acceptance.

[Fortis_Leader]

Initially, I took the common view that bomber gunners over claimed their kills and, harshly, were of more psychological benefit to the crew.

The German pilots on the western front did not think that!   They genuinely feared the bomber's guns and anti-bomber fighters with improved defence (ie armour) was the result.  Followed by experiments with armaments fired from longer range.  

IMHO players, not having the fear of death, press their attacks way too aggressively, more often than not from the rear and offer point-blank targets and wonder why they get hit.

 

Feared and feared... They respected the attrition that could be caused. And most importantly, that was the threat posed by hundreds of heavily armoured B-17s flying in a steady formation, with complete overlapping fields of fire from loads of .50 cal turrets (and proper ones at that, powered, and even with mechanical computed leading gunsights). 3 Pe-2s though... And '30s era bomber designed around the insanely flawed concept that "meh, it's fast enough to outpace fighters. And if anyone does manage to catch up, they'll have no other option than sitting on their 6 o'clock, presenting a very easy target!"

 

As per the last recording I submitted, it's certainly not a matter of presenting an easy target to the gunners. And that was one of the less outrageous displays of laser accurate AI gunners I've suffered these last few days.

[Monostripezebra]

Surely that's a bit much from a single gunner crouching in a cramped cockpit, manually aiming a .50 cal MG?

 

no, not really. I mean he sees you all the time and tracks you, so the argument with reaction time is nonsense. When you track someone, you have not really "reaction time" as you can anticipate the trajectory. It´s like deflection shooting in a fighter.. you aim at where he has to pass through. It´s a shot that is not too easy, but also far from impossible, I´ve had similar hits in manual gunnery.

 

The AI is more likely to hit hard shots, then easy shots, though.. sometimes it fires 30° of for a target straight in line..

 

Ideally, the perfect attack looks like this, done by the sheriff, I was just the victim there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YrnVCNuabk

 

shot in the right places, the Pe2 is a lot less stalinum then people think it is...

Edited October 10, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[74_jim_nihilist]

Sure AI gunners are quite good, but as a virtual pilot you can train and you will be better than most real pilots in a comparable sitution, plus you have no fear of death. I think in the end it evens out.

 

And instead of complaining, just stay out of the gunners FOV. To me it seems you have a certain idea how it should work, realising one time after another that it doesn't. You don't learn and adapt.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

And instead of complaining, just stay out of the gunners FOV.

 

I cant recall how many times I was splashed by gunners when passing from top to the bottom of attacked bomber. It's like they have sixth sense and using telepathy guy above informs guy below where the target will be in the next second.

It reminds me of good old times with more elegant weapons

[Fortis_Leader]

And instead of complaining, just stay out of the gunners FOV. To me it seems you have a certain idea how it should work, realising one time after another that it doesn't. You don't learn and adapt.

 

*Use same tactic that worked flawlessly against all German bombers*

 

*Gets shot down, attempts high diving attacks*

 

*Gets shot down, attempts snapshots as suggested*

 

"You don't adapt!"

 

...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You've grasped the concept, now you need to work on the execution. And for the record, a tactic that works for a German bomber doesn't work against a Soviet one - even when attacking Ju-88s and He-111s your technique needs to be different, it's not down to nationality but field of fire.

 

The problem is you're still entering the gunner's field of fire at a very close range. Pretend it's a human being there and not the AI, on that second video a person would be looking at your place all that time, and be mentally preparing to squeeze the trigger the second you enter the field of fire to score a hit. That they hit the engine always is because a) that's their aiming point and b) it's the first thing you can hit from the front on a single-engined piston-engined fighter (pusher designs not withstanding).

 

I did some six tries on quick mission, 1 x Bf-109 vs. 4 x Pe-2 (35th series), starting 1000m above and 2000m behind the enemy. I attempted a couple of different attack patterns, and was only hit once in one of them, on the wing, piercing only a fuel tank. This was because I conveniently forgot about the window gunner and flew straight at him - entirely my fault.

 

In two of the patterns I tried the Pe-2s were circling, in the rest they were flying straight.

 

Relative to the Pe-2, the most successful were:

 

- 11, 12, 1 o'clock, any angle, any distance (head on, no defensive fire)

- 9, 10, 2, 3 o'clock, level or shallow climb/dive, any distance (good to hit the Pe-2 all across the airframe, no defensive fire)

- 7, 8, 4, 5 o'clock, level or shallow dive, medium to long distance (good to hit the Pe-2 across the airframe, but exposed to defensive fire if too close)

- 6 o'clock, dead level, long distance (technically exposed to defensive fire, but from far out I found it surprisingly safe to fire and score hits without being bothered).

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A real-life anecdote about a fighter pilot being killed in a high-speed dive against a bomber formation.

 

A flight of enemy bombers was headed towards Kotovsk. We were based near that town, and because of that we received news of their incursion as a sign to scramble. The MiGs took off one after another.

 

As we gained altitude, we saw that Kotovsk was already burning. We had arrived late. Despite that, we kept on flying, and that paid off. After dropping their bombs, the Junkers were rejoining their formation. As they saw us, they stretched tracers towards us with their on-board armament. It was very hard to get any close to them.

 

Right away, one of our fighters went ahead and, flying through the cloud of tracers, launched itself on a dive against the lead bomber. That was Yakovlev. It's hard to say what was guiding his actions. The hatred of the enemy and thirst for vengeance? Being the first to risk himself and thus inspire the others to do it? One thing was sure: Yakovlev's actions were noble. He had behaved like the brave infantryman who pulls his comrades into a bayonet attack.

 

Yakovlev did not reach the enemy flight leader alive. He was killed during the dive. However, the hero's calculations had been precise. The MiG-3, guided by his hand, crashed into the German bomber. The other Junkers, breaking the formation, went each to a different side. Our fighter immediately launched themselves against the now-stranded bombers. Shortly after, eight smoke columns rose from the ground. The last of these nine Junkers was shot down a little beyond the Dniester.

 

 

 

[Sokol1]

In 1940: https://youtu.be/m0-fVLCnsBs?t=401

[MiloMorai]

Reading thru my Dad's log book came across his gunnery stats. Firing on a drogue target from the turret of a Blenheim he got a 5% hit rate. His instructor had commented 'excellent shooting' for the usual hit rate was 1-2%.

 

This was in a controlled environment not in a high adrenalin combat environment.

 

Sokol, did you notice the black/white lower wing surface on the Brit fighter?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

There was somewhere a US Survey about popular methods of attack of German fighters which I cant find now, it turned out that many German pilots took and approach from astern (low or high), and we are talking about attacks on B-17s now. Yet those guys werent splashed all at once and nobody told them to make slashing attack or suicidal dives. 

[JtD]

A German war time guncam evaluation shows about two thirds of the attacks were coming from behind. These were also the most successful attacks in terms of bringing down the bomber. No matter the direction, one had to get close to achieve a good number of hits, and thereby a good chance to shoot down the bomber.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

These were also the most successful attacks in terms of bringing down the bomber.

Mind if I ask on that JtD ?

They were considered most successful by German pilots or found to be most successful based on numerical data ?  

[MiloMorai]

Hiro, see Post #27. Is this what you were thinking of?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Not sure, might have been that one. I know that one of the USSBS covered that topic but couldnt find one.