OP rear gunners

[JtD]

Numerical data. Obviously, since guncam was evaluated, there's no information regarding the losses, and it is likely that nose attacks were less risky for the fighter.

 

The evaluated attacks from the forward hemisphere scored less than 2 hits per attack average, the rearward hemisphere attacks the figure was 5. Rear attacks also had a roughly twice as high probability to start a fire. However, it was noted that fires in frontal attacks might be hard to detect owing to the short duration of the attack.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Alright, the reason I'm asking is because this differs from Japanese experiences and so it caught my attention. Japanese usually carried attacks from forward hemisphere aiming at cockpit area and fuel cells in wing root. The results of a hit in such area were considered worth the effort as either pilots were splashed or aircraft was ignited. By mid-1944 tactics also acknowledged another form of attack, a high overhead attack to drop on aircraft in such a manner so that rounds would strike the fuel tanks vertically. The post war survey containing interviews with various officers provided data that in a ground tests a single 30 mm strike against a bomber (except for B-29 which required more) would be enough to bring it down, two to five hits with 20 mm rounds were required (about three for B-24) and about 5-6 13 mm rounds (actual combat condition estimates raised that to about 20 13 mm rounds and 10 20 mm). While overly optimistic those data seem to be substantiated by studies carried during the war, and even though during specific tests in September 1943 Japanese did not have B-17 available at hand, Army air technical laboratory undertook the construction of a full-size models of both B-17 and B-24 exactly to US specifications. Thus strikes against fuel tanks were advised above all. 

 

Sorry for a rant, but just found that particular difference interesting. 

[Gunsmith86]

Alright, the reason I'm asking is because this differs from Japanese experiences and so it caught my attention. Japanese usually carried attacks from forward hemisphere aiming at cockpit area and fuel cells in wing root. The results of a hit in such area were considered worth the effort as either pilots were splashed or aircraft was ignited. By mid-1944 tactics also acknowledged another form of attack, a high overhead attack to drop on aircraft in such a manner so that rounds would strike the fuel tanks vertically. The post war survey containing interviews with various officers provided data that in a ground tests a single 30 mm strike against a bomber (except for B-29 which required more) would be enough to bring it down, two to five hits with 20 mm rounds were required (about three for B-24) and about 5-6 13 mm rounds (actual combat condition estimates raised that to about 20 13 mm rounds and 10 20 mm). While overly optimistic those data seem to be substantiated by studies carried during the war, and even though during specific tests in September 1943 Japanese did not have B-17 available at hand, Army air technical laboratory undertook the construction of a full-size models of both B-17 and B-24 exactly to US specifications. Thus strikes against fuel tanks were advised above all. 

 

Sorry for a rant, but just found that particular difference interesting. 

 

It does not differ from german experiences. They also concluded that attcks from forward needed far fewer shots 4-5 hits with 20mm if i remember correct was needed to down a B-17 from the front. But they also concluded that it was very difficult because of the very short window of opportunity of just 2-3 sec. in which you could expect hits on the bomber before you had to change course to avoid a crash. We know also that the average hit rate of a fighter was about 5%, The FW 190 A3 has to MG-FF which fire about 53 rounds in 3 sec. and it also has 2 MG 151 which fire 75 rounds in 3 sec. thats 128 rounds in 3 sec from which we can expact 5% to hit, thats 6.4 round so just enough if we made no mistake and have 3 sec to fire. If the time is just 2 sec we hit only with about 4.26 rounds there its no longer sure that the bomber gets shot down. JG 2 was famous for theirs frontal attacks which often resulted in breack in the formation and from than on it was far quicker to attack from all directions to shot down the bombers one by one.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Nice, thank you for the info.

Here is what I've found in of of my books and scanned some time ago:

 

 

 

 

One of my favorite pictures presenting effects of a post war test of B-17 fuel cells when struck by a 20 mm round from the front.  

[JtD]

German and Japanese are not really contradicting. Even the figures I stated indicate that per hit the frontal attack was more effective. This, however was offset by the higher number of hits achieved from astern due to the longer firing window and easier firing solution.

It might be worth noting that there are aircraft specific differences WRT to the efficiency of forward/rearward attacks. It could be that the particularities of the Japanese planes were different and/or that the Japanese studies did not include the likelihood with which their average pilots were able to score.

[Monostripezebra]

Well I guess, sources differ.. last time I went trough german literature, the tail attack was described as "inefficent" but often forced by tactical situation and considerable effort was put in the development of large caliber standoff-range weapons that should outrange the defensive armament (that did not work as intended in praxis) as well as technology and organsation to position fighters more effectively and avoid chase situations.... or that 30mm to bring down B17s with one hit.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[Sokol1]

 

 

MiloMorai, on 10 Oct 2016 - 13:11, said:

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

 

 

Yes, Dowding

. Edited October 10, 2016 by Sokol1

[BlitzPig_EL]

Such a beautiful aircraft, no matter how it's painted.

[E69_geramos109]

To attack from 6 is a suicide if you attack a formation of B17s. Luftwaffe used also the frontal attack to breack the formation and after that a lonely b17 is a dead plane.

You can see tons of gun cams attacking from 6. And the main attacks from the foke wulfs were from low six.

 

To stay in a real bomber with g forces, shaking, smoke and fear is not easy to hit a fighter but in the game if you see how IA can aim is ridiculous. Also the damage of all the gunner's guns is much more than a normal shells from a fighter i dont know why.

 

I have tons of repors fron my sorties where a p2 blow my plane or my wing with only one or two hits. Is a 12.7 not a 20 or 30mm. Also 8mm bulets from german bombers are more powerfull than 8mm from the nosegun of the fighters. Damage model of the guns is not the same and that is a fact.

 

Im feared about how can be a future B25 or B17 in the game. We will have no chance to kill one if they will not change the snipers and the damage of the gunners.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Also the damage of all the gunner's guns is much more than a normal shells from a fighter i dont know why.

 

Eh, no, they are not. You are imagining things. 

[JtD]

Well, they tend to hit in more critical places when they come from the front.

Edited October 24, 2016 by JtD

[E69_geramos109]

Eh, no, they are not. You are imagining things.

I repeat, when a p2 shot me down he only need one or two hits to blow my plane or to cut off the wing. Im not talking about the engine or the pilot who of corse is exposed in a frontal attack.

But cmon is a 12.7mm you can test the hits you need with the Ubs or the mig 3 12.7 guns to blow a plane or to cut the wing

 

I can upload here some repots if you want where they cause more than 90% damage whith the first or second hit

[Friggitotti]

the pe-2's rear gunner is really, really overrated, this a bad thing it should be changed by developers

[ECV56_Necathor]

I normally fly as VVS and the Ju88 and Ju87 gunners are super OP, impossible to kill a bomber with out take a heavy damage

[Monostripezebra]

the pe-2's rear gunner is really, really overrated, this a bad thing it should be changed by developers

 

 

I normally fly as VVS and the Ju88 and Ju87 gunners are super OP, impossible to kill a bomber with out take a heavy damage

 

It really doesn´t matter which side.. both bombers are fast and their virtue is speed and forcing you to attack from a bad angle. But off course, if you are in a faster fighter, you don´t need to follow that order and can shoot them down without taking much damge if you invest time to position yourself..

 

There is a simple test: do a quick mission with 4 ace Pe2s with the turret and a FW190 for you, if you are not able to shoot down all without any damage to you in about 90% of the tries, you have not understood how to fight bombers and shouldn´t complain.

[ECV56_Necathor]

It really doesn´t matter which side.. both bombers are fast and their virtue is speed and forcing you to attack from a bad angle. But off course, if you are in a faster fighter, you don´t need to follow that order and can shoot them down without taking much damge if you invest time to position yourself..

 

There is a simple test: do a quick mission with 4 ace Pe2s with the turret and a FW190 for you, if you are not able to shoot down all without any damage to you in about 90% of the tries, you have not understood how to fight bombers and shouldn´t complain.

 

Well that is not completly true, for example I attack a Stuka from under his tail at 500km/hr when I pass close to the gunner he just kill my engine, that is OP, because the is no possibility that the gunner keep tracking me under or saw me and he have my plane only 0.1 seconds to aim and shoot.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

do a quick mission with 4 ace Pe2s with the turret and a FW190 for you, if you are not able to shoot down all without any damage to you in about 90% of the tries, you have not understood how to fight bombers and shouldn´t complain.

Pretty funny to draw some conclusions on artificial test in game.

But it seems neither real German pilots have understood how to fight bombers and they shouldn't have complained about that back then. Direct astern attacks ? How silly were they ...

 

Maybe if you would introduce them to proper tactics they would manage to break more combat boxes and send Tommies and Yanks back to where they came from.  

[Yogiflight]

What you forget, Hiromachi, is, they only attacked those weakly defended american bombers, not the heavy armed Pe2.

[Monostripezebra]

As I said:

Well I guess, sources differ.. last time I went trough german literature, the tail attack was described as "inefficent" but often forced by tactical situation and considerable effort was put in the development of large caliber standoff-range weapons that should outrange the defensive armament (that did not work as intended in praxis) as well as technology and organsation to position fighters more effectively and avoid chase situations.... or that 30mm to bring down B17s with one hit.

 

I have met some german fighter pilots in person and I´ve read a fair bit.. never heard much enthusiasm about going behind a four engined bomber aft, but rather the opposite. That does not mean they did not do it, but "prefered" strategy? hardly. Tactical situation ment, they ended up chasing bombers aft.. and to make the best of that absolutely unfavourable situation, "stand off" unguided rockets like the BR-21   where developed specifically to engage outside of the effective 1000yrds range of the rearguns.

 

 

How do you turn that into your thesis of the specifically loved and apreciated stern attack?

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. 

 

ah, yes, an US survey said, by looking at from where attacks did come,  they did attack from astern, de-facto. SO THEY MUST HAVE LOVED THAT, right?

 

if you look at the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid, where IDEAL interception conditions prevailed, with no escorts, and loosened up box formations due to weather, stand-off rockets and "experten" squadrons specialized in bringing down heavy bombers, they still lost one 109 for every 2 B-17 shot down. What an easy target, right? Even the video you posted claimed the ideal attack was headon. But you look only at that vid, seeing the "finishing" shooting of a shot-up dead ship from behind with dead turrets visible and conclude: "the defensive guns must only be decoration", six-attack is a must!11!

 

I´m just so tired of those "Hartman shot down droves of planes, but I can´t do that ingame, pls change game" complaints.. especially by people not even trying to learn. I´m not saying the AI gunners are perfect, but you can literally fly around them for hours without ever getting hit, if you understand the limitations of that ai... if that is your definition of OP.. well, ok then...

Edited October 27, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

"prefered" strategy

?

 

 

How do you turn that into your thesis of the specifically loved and apreciated stern attack?

?

 

 

yes, an US survey said, by looking at from where attacks did come,  they did attack from astern, de-facto. SO THEY MUST HAVE LOVED THAT, right?

?

 

The only person who said in this thread that astern attacks were loved, preferred and loved again were you.

I only said that one of the most popular forms was astern attack, based on USSBS statistics which JtD confirmed by saying that evaluation of German gun cams indicates that two thirds of attacks were from behind. Whether it was loved, preferred, intentional or unintentional both statistical data and actual action recordings indicate some pattern.  

 

Then, I do not say it is an easy target either B-17 or even Pe-2 and only viable option is astern attack. But keep going, if that makes you feel better then dont let me stop you. 

 

 

 

I´m just so tired of those "Hartman shot down droves of planes, but I can´t do that ingame, pls change game" complaints.. especially by people not even trying to learn. I´m not saying the AI gunners are perfect, but you can literally fly around them for hours without ever getting hit, if you understand the limitations of that ai... if that is your definition of OP.. well, ok then...

I've spent quite a bit of time tying to find various approaches, some less effective and other more. I'm most certainly not greatest pilot in this game, and my gunnery is not good either. But I dont sit on their six, I dont make shallow angle passes from astern and I try to approach from the sun direction.

My problems that I indicated here and there are:

- ability of ai to react and "swing" a gun to whatever direction despite the speed target is moving,

- ability to score hits when target appears out of nowhere (I've been hit more than few times when coming from above, but lower gunner. I assume guy has that super sense and can predict where I will be before I even see him),

- gunners not being affected by high G'loads and fumes/leaks/clouds (what makes it hard to see them for me is not a problem for them, they can send bullets despite their machine is burning and leaving a thick smoke).  

[E69_geramos109]

All the time you are talking about heavy bonbers in big closed formations.

But a P2 or a ju88 is a medium bomber with a real lck of defensive armament.

If you see replays is incledible how the gunner aims like the directional gunnery system of a modern tank.

Is amacing how it keeps the sight with all the plane mooving and shaking and the IA manages to hit the plane.

Also when you pass thow the 6 low is amacing how they knows perfectly where you will pass to aim you in a fraction of a second during your braking.

 

You should try to jump in to a gunner position and after that to see some IA tracks.

 

Devs should change this.

[ZachariasX]

Pretty funny to draw some conclusions on artificial test in game. But it seems neither real German pilots have understood how to fight bombers and they shouldn't have complained about that back then. Direct astern attacks ? How silly were they ...

 

I don't see a single B-17 firing back at the "filmcrew". The B-17's seem to be in a very sorry state, gun barrels not moving, just hanging down once the cameraman parks behind it and fires at it. I strongly doubt that we would get such footage if John Doe kneeling in the cabin at the tail machine guns would still be in business.

 

To me, all the movie shows is that once you messed up a formation and have damaged a bomber you can deliver the coup de grâce. And bring home some good footage for Goebbels.

 

As for "liking" the attack on such bomber formations, I would assume that only the very, very least and probably the most particular of all pilots would do that under any circumstances.

[Irgendjemand]

I normally fly as VVS and the Ju88 and Ju87 gunners are super OP, impossible to kill a bomber with out take a heavy damage

are you kidding? 87 gunner mostly starts firing when the crate already burns. Or not at all. Also the 87 falls apart if youre just in the vicinity of it with anything thats just close to a gun. At least thats wha i experience whenever i fly 87:)

Within german simmer ranks I am underway in fyling the 87 is considered a death sentence:)

Edited October 28, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[ZachariasX]

fyling the 87 is considered a death sentence

 

But that would be historically correct?

[Yogiflight]

Irgendjemand, you misunderstand, what Necathor is talking about. He is talking about Ju87 and 88, that the player attacks, not when you are flying it. With the aircrafts, the player is flying it does not matter, which one it is, the gunners will always be quite useless. It is always only the gunners of aircrafts, that the player attacks, who sometimes seem to hit everything, that is more than 0.1 second in his firing angle. And on the other hand, I also experienced sometimes, gunners of aircrafts I attacked, that also did not hit me parking on their six.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I don't see a single B-17 firing back at the "filmcrew". The B-17's seem to be in a very sorry state, gun barrels not moving, just hanging down once the cameraman parks behind it and fires at it. I strongly doubt that we would get such footage if John Doe kneeling in the cabin at the tail machine guns would still be in business.

 

To me, all the movie shows is that once you messed up a formation and have damaged a bomber you can deliver the coup de grâce. And bring home some good footage for Goebbels.

 

As for "liking" the attack on such bomber formations, I would assume that only the very, very least and probably the most particular of all pilots would do that under any circumstances.

I used it only as an example, its not ok ? Fine. Maybe this one will be:

 

Frankly on all those gun camera recordings it is very hard to spot what was happening on target, if anyone was shooting back or not. From that range its not even so easy to see if all engines are working. 

 

Also, what "liking" has anything to do with it ? 

[Monostripezebra]

Also, what "liking" has anything to do with it ? 

 

almost every german source say that tail attack was problematic because of the return fire.. so it wasn´t liked by the pilots, even if it had to be done sometimes. Nothing that hard to grasp. Also: note the lack of return fire in the propaganda vid above.. not many rear-aspect attacks on "fresh" and backfiring planes in that exact vid.. rather a lot of finishing of wounded straggelers.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[Monostripezebra]

My problems that I indicated here and there are:

- ability of ai to react and "swing" a gun to whatever direction despite the speed target is moving,

- ability to score hits when target appears out of nowhere (I've been hit more than few times when coming from above, but lower gunner. I assume guy has that super sense and can predict where I will be before I even see him),

- gunners not being affected by high G'loads and fumes/leaks/clouds (what makes it hard to see them for me is not a problem for them, they can send bullets despite their machine is burning and leaving a thick smoke).  

 

Well, I´ve been through the whole "reargunner" debate for ages since RoF, and let´s get factual here: a lot of the repetative arguments are simply wrong. I´m not saying the AI is without problems, but the problems should be defined correctly and actually reproducably in an ideal case. RoF saw several "nerfs" of rearguns, from bullet spread, for instance a rear facing lewis now has more then 10x the bullet spread area then the same lewis gun mounted in a fostermount facing forward.. and it did not change much about the complaints. Or the Reargunners sitting down in any bank angle greater then 10° . All these things did not change the complaining...  So let´s get empirical and factual:

 

a) G-loads and gunner influence:

People have taking pictures with a DSLR in a plane doing 3g, so why exactly should a pinacle mounted gun, where not the gunner, but the mount handles the weight forces, be pulled wildly over the place, when a camera is not? In physical therms, the complex system conected to the pilots stick has more forces on it then the gun grip, yet, the pilot still controls the plane via the stick? Physicswise it makes no sense... and yet the argument comes over and over again, even on my "manual shooting" vids, where I fly my plane with the left hand and shoot with the right hand on the mouse.. but like the ai, if you look closely, I´m not actually pulling G. There is no high G-load in a slight turn.. and with my method I can´t even fire aimed at high rates of maneuvers.. and samely, so does the AI: it barely ever hits you through high maneuvering. The whole argument is an "emotional" one because, "if I get hit, the gunner has to be unrealistic!111!" A good guess is, that the amount of high-G gun firing, human or AI, actually hitting must be about less then 1%.. and feel free to uploads vids proving me wrong, I´m not saying I got everything right, but I have some time of experience and not yet seen much "high G-hits" in concrete vid evidence, while having received "high-G" critizism for my own vids with virtually no maneuvering during firing....

 

B) the ability to score hits without prior sight of the targer

I believe you got  a point here.. I hardly see any evidence for the ai having a decidedly limited "view port" awareness.. so you may be right. But then again, gunners did comunicate and pass over targets via intercom, so to a degree the ai should know.. but how could these things be modeled in more diferenciated ways? No idea.. Same goes for smoke. There simply is no full realistic pseudo-optic view for the ai yet, but that is also downright down to technical aspects of modeling AI efficently.

 

C) "swinging guns"

The ai has the similar speeds at which transferable guns switch sides.. and the whole "I was fast" argument is nonsense, as speed is relative to distance and overall not speed, but vectordifference matters in what makes complicated lead shots. You could hit a fast moving jet flying directly at you with a pistol, because there is no vectordifference. shooting the same plane from a side aspect with the same weapon would be amost impossible.

 

Overall, you can easily see, that there some vectors where you are perfectly safe against "ace ai" and can cruise and attack around for ages, while on other aspects you will get hit. It is easy to test in quickmission.. I´ve made some example vids here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGc7M1Knudc

[E69_geramos109]

The vid is nice but is a really difficult task to try this kind of shots or to spend that time following the pesks. If he manouvers to give you the six is imposible to make that kind of aproachs and if you manage to make one is really difficult to shot down the P2 if you are in the 109.

 

The best i find to shot them down is diving at hight speeds and shoting from far in deflection. Also if they are low making his runs is easier to get some aproach at high speeds form their 4 or 8 o clock.

[Gunsmith86]

If we want to find out if the Ai gunners are OP than why not make a test.

 

1) Test 1: Fighter against human gunners.

 

One Crew takes a PE 2 or other Bomber and occupy all gunner positions. The Bomber flys level and the fighter flys mock assault ( he should not shot at the Bomber ) from each direction 5 times at least ( Best make a list of all the attcks you fly with the fighter because its important that you are able to repeat them on a Ai Bomber afterwards). All has to be recorded and afterwards the hits the Bomber Crew scored on the fighter are counted.  Make a list with all hits for example; Fighter attack on Bomber from rear fiest paas gunner scored 9 hits , second 11 hits , third 8 ...

 

2) Test 2: Fighter against Ai Bomber

Fighter attacks the same Bomber as in test 1 but this time its a Ai Bomber. The attacks have to be flown from the same direction as in test 1 and as often as you did in test 1. All has to be recorded and afterwards the hits the Ai Bomber Crew scored on the fighter are counted. Make another list if the Ai scores many more hits than a human crew you no its to good and should be nerfed. If the Ai scores on some of the attacks much less hits than the human crew than it should be made better. Also if the Ai hits with less rounds and still shots down many more fighters as the human crew. this would show that the Ai hits important parts to good and they should be changed so they not always aim for the same spot.

[Bando]

Gunner may be as it is, what really annoys me is the fact that I can sit on a AI bombers 6 and get shot down. When I'm flying the bomber, MY AI gunner does not manage to shoot down the fighter at MY 6.

There is a real difference.

[Monostripezebra]

If we want to find out if the Ai gunners are OP than why not make a test.

 

because that test is only going to show, what we allready know:

mathematically we are not yet there to have an AI that can compete with humans in situation interpretation and creative response.. So from the maneuvering a well versed human opponent in a sim will always be more challenging. You can not have an AI yet, that is perfectly indistingushable from a human player. Basically it is dumb and repetative in its behaviour and anyone able to read that behaviour will allways win against it. It can be made to shoot well, however, as that is simpler to model.

 

My point is, that any mediocre player can shoot down drowes of ai-pe2s unpunished just by observing some simple rules... which also help against human players, but are more difficult to implement there, as a good human player may think of ways to read your intention and counter your move. Nontheless, a competent player can shoot down any bomber, if he risk manages and aims good:

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

 

I was that Pe and "Der Sheriff" employed the same tactic like I did in my vids against the ai: coming in from an angle at which gunnery defense is hard, while the most vulnerable parts like engine oil system is exposed.

 

The basic situation is like this:

We can´t have pseudo-human AI right now, so the AI on ace level, both fighters and bombers, are made challenging by shooting good, rather then maneuvering witty.

people then complain about the shooting part on the highest difficulty level as beeing to hard, instead of using the virtue of a fighter (speed, maneuverability) to not let that shots hit them in the first place. But any medicore fighter player can wipe out squadrons of "Ace"-level AI bombers, if he just observes some rules about positioning. Really anyone who bothers to learn can do "ace in a flight" sorties against the AI quickly. So how exactly is AI that OP ? Even if you mix in some 6-attacks into the "safe zone" attacks and manage risk by watching variables like distance and time spent in a direct six-o-clock aspect, you still easily shoot down the whole squadron of "ace" AI.

 

So here some variant with riskier six-attacks woven in, 109 vs 4xPe2 on max AI settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTc4LpgsRNA

 

how exactly are those ai planes OP?

[Monostripezebra]

Gunner may be as it is, what really annoys me is the fact that I can sit on a AI bombers 6 and get shot down. When I'm flying the bomber, MY AI gunner does not manage to shoot down the fighter at MY 6.

There is a real difference.

 

that is mostly due to the fact, that you don´t fly like ai. The AI gunners have a "nerf" to not shoot down players imiately that can be best described in the sense of an timer. I don´t know how exactly it is done, but variables like distance and time spent in the gunners arc influence the accuracy of the return fire. Basically it is like a timer ticking down, and if you maneuver to evade, and the enemy is not in the arc, the timer to accurate response get´s partly re-set, it seems.

Also, having hit anything previously, seems to make gunners better, but that maybe just a subjective impression. But to me, it seems like they shoot better if I as pilot have accumulated points and hit stuff.

[Sokol1]

How to NOT attack bombers and survive.

 

1.33:37

 

http://archiv-akh.de/filme?utf-8=%E2%9C%93&q=Raupenschlepper#2

[Blutaar]

 

 

B) the ability to score hits without prior sight of the targer I believe you got a point here.. I hardly see any evidence for the ai having a decidedly limited "view port" awareness.. so you may be right. But then again, gunners did comunicate and pass over targets via intercom, so to a degree the ai should know.. but how could these things be modeled in more diferenciated ways? No idea.. Same goes for smoke. There simply is no full realistic pseudo-optic view for the ai yet, but that is also downright down to technical aspects of modeling AI efficently.

 

AI gunners just have no view restrictions exatcly like the pilot AI, they can look through the plane and thats why they can easily shoot you as soon as you are in the firing field for the gun!

Thats why you will never surprise any AI in BoS/M, they exactly know wehre you are and will never lose sight on you and then they react allways the same.

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

The same thing has already happened to me while the Pe-2 was falling...

I think that developers will have to change if they want to keep some credibility...

[E69_geramos109]

 

 

The same thing has already happened to me while the Pe-2 was falling...

I think that developers will have to change if they want to keep some credibility...

I have reports with one and two hits and the same explosion with a 109

[LukeFF]

I think that developers will have to change if they want to keep some credibility...

We can do without the drama.

[Monostripezebra]

 

The same thing has already happened to me while the Pe-2 was falling...

I think that developers will have to change if they want to keep some credibility...

 

That was a lucky hit ammo explosion.. it is a relative rare occurence that affects ALL planes, not only the 190. If just this week had an IL2 blow up with a 2-3 hit ammo explosion. But it happens like 1% or less of all losses. Happens to the Pe, too

Edited November 3, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[150GCT_Veltro]

Blow up is not so a so rare occurence for the FW190, as you says. Off course machine guns are more powerfull of 20mm.......

 

Not a drama as Luke says, but it need to be checked at least, without waiting for another 6 months or more as for the 110 wings fix.

 

 Also, before you whine about how weak german 20mm is and how uber stronk the pe-2 is, you might want to practise your aiming a bit, you missed most of your shots in the video. So, I suggest you re think your tactics and maybe practise your gunnery, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

 

 

Something should have to be checked also in 20mm as for DM, or both.

Edited November 3, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro