Gunner AI useless at Strafing? (mostly He-111 and Ju-88)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Any Tips for actually getting my Gunner AI to not only vaguely shoot around Ground Targets, but also Hit them?

 

I would like to use the 111 for Strafing a bit more often, but the Blind Sod in the Nose, well, I wonder if he ever had any Gunnery Training. He's horrible. 

 

He tends to overshoot all the Time and the Rear Gunner hits short. The Result is that "Attack Ground Targets" Command is qutie useless. 

[Finkeren]

I don't often fly multi-crew aircraft, but when I do, I've made 2 observations about AI gunners:

 

1: The AI gunners of your own aircraft always seem to be the lowest skill level, regardless of the skill level of the rest of the planes in your flight.

 

2. When a human pilot flies the plane, the gunners seem to be completely thrown off by the unpredictable movements of human control input (no matter how small). Basically, if you are controlling the plane, they can't hit a thing.

 

I have had a bit of success hitting the auto-level key, whenever I need the gunners to fire, and that has improved their aim somewhat. Obviously this is kind of cheating, and it completely throws things like evasive maneuvers out the window.

[unreasonable]

Any Tips for actually getting my Gunner AI to not only vaguely shoot around Ground Targets, but also Hit them?

 

I would like to use the 111 for Strafing a bit more often, but the Blind Sod in the Nose, well, I wonder if he ever had any Gunnery Training. He's horrible. 

 

He tends to overshoot all the Time and the Rear Gunner hits short. The Result is that "Attack Ground Targets" Command is qutie useless. 

 

Ie they use insufficient deflection. Probably quite realistic for many gunners. But ace gunners should aim well short (in the nose) and walk the shot through the target. Tail gunner has to aim very high - even harder since view of the target is blocked.

 

Fly in a shallow dive directly towards the target - then directly away in a climb: that will eliminate the relative motion off the axis of aim: they will then miss because of insufficient  trajectory adjustment.  

[Retnek]

Those gunners have eagles eyes but aim like Doc Holliday. Did it quite often, the He-111 gunners were able to get a truck every second pass on average - at least 2 patches ago the He-111 gunner in the belly-station refused to use the forward 20 mm gun. I give them the order "long range", start 2 km away and 200m high, stay straight and level in a shallow dive when the gunners get sight of the target. Stay between 100 and 50 m over the target and try to ignore those poor bastards! Because that g..d... idiot next to you is aware of those trucks immediately, grabs his f... MG, aims and aims and aims and by all ... ... ... does nothing except a short burst at the very last chance - maybe. A mercy I can't watch the shooting ballast behind my seat. I try to avoid those situations, heart and blood pressure.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

111 best results are obtained using auto level and YOU firing the guns. Air to ground aiming is broken since game launch.

 

That's why we need dedicated keys for each crew seat.

 

Talking about the 88, it was a gross error not including a forward cannon mod.

Edited March 14, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Pail]

 

 

That's why we need dedicated keys for each crew seat

 

At first I thought you were saying that we could already do that....

 

Cycling through the gunner positions is a bit disorienting...and then when you miss the pilot and have to go through them all again..

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Ai Gunners are useless across the board tho some are worse than others (mostly german they are TERRIBLE)

German Gunners have on Average 0.6% Accuracy (That is stupidly low and disgusting)

Over 100 hours in He-111 and it has only 0.4% Accuracy This is way to low and i would like to see evidence that ww2 HE-111 gunners only hit with 1 in 200 shots fired.
(even if you set gunners to close range they under 0.6%)

Also i have parked  my 111 on ground only 40m from a RU truck and my Ai nose gunner took about 20 seconds to hit it!!!

Im guessing its just a bug as im sure jason and all those devs are very mature and well beyond intentional russian bias (granted incorrect information due to local propaganda specially where communist countries are concerned can be very hard)

Eg, to this day we still don't know how many russians died in space in terrible bad experiments during the space race.


(regarding the 88 front guns Either fix them so they usable or Remove PE-2 Front guns it makes no sense as so easy to fix.
IMHO more important than adding A-5 and other planes in Kuban finish the current content.

Edited March 14, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[Finkeren]

Ai Gunners are useless across the board tho some are worse than others (mostly german they are TERRIBLE)

 

German Gunners have on Average 0.6% Accuracy (That is stupidly low and disgusting)

 

Over 100 hours in He-111 and it has only 0.4% Accuracy This is way to low and i would like to see evidence that ww2 HE-111 gunners only hit with 1 in 200 shots fired.

(even if you set gunners to close range they under 0.6%)

 

Also i have parked my 111 on ground only 40m from a RU truck and my Ai nose gunner took about 20 seconds to hit it!!!

 

Im guessing its just a bug as im sure jason and all those devs are very mature and well beyond intentional russian bias (granted incorrect information due to local propaganda specially where communist countries are concerned can be very hard)

 

Eg, to this day we still don't know how many russians died in space in terrible bad experiments during the space race.

 

 

(regarding the 88 front guns Either fix them so they usable or Remove PE-2 Front guns it makes no sense as so easy to fix.

IMHO more important than adding A-5 and other planes in Kuban finish the current content.

This is just asinine.

 

For one thing, AI gunners in general are alright, novice gunners are terrible shots and ace ones are deadly snipers. The problem is specific to AI gunners on player controlled planes.

 

Btw: An accuracy rating of 0.4 percent may sound ridiculously low, but I've seen some attempts at calculations of the average accuracy of gunners in the 8th Air Force based on ammunition usage compared to verifiable German losses (including damaged aircraft) and their accuracy was below 1% as well.

 

 

And what is this about removing the fixed guns on the Pe-2, just because the forward firing MG of the Ju 88 can't be locked? That has got to be one of the silliest ideas I've heard on this forum in a while. By that logic, we should remove all bombs heavier than 500kg from the German arsenal, because it's "unfair" to the Soviets.

 

And no. The gunner issue is annoying, but of course the devs shouldn't drop whatever they have in their hands to fix some issue. The devs have a development plan, and that's what they're sticking to.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

The Russian 500KG Bomb has a LOT more TNT (about 70% of its mass) than the German 500KG bomb (about 45% of its mass)

The JU88 gun can be locked into the stowed position so the pilot can fire it the only part missing from the game is the control binding rest is there it has just not been activated yet but the Gunsight is even there but useless.

I am not talking about balancing anything to make it fair just historically accurate.
in IL2 There should never ever be a balancing pass made to even up the fields only passes should be to change thing so they hostorical
its bad enough with mission makers now balancing things as they see fit or giving axis or allied bias by messing with plane loadouts and choices.
 

Edited March 14, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[Finkeren]

If you weren't talking about balancing, then why on Earth were you talking about deleting the forward firing guns on the Pe-2?

[unreasonable]

The Russian 500KG Bomb has a LOT more TNT (about 70% of its mass) than the German 500KG bomb (about 45% of its mass)

 

 

Not sure what this is about - are you talking about RL or in game? Where does this information come from? Why is it an issue at all?

[Yakdriver]

Why the blue diddly flip would you strafing passes with these?

You put at risk:
- Two engines
- five men
- the future ability to deliver truckloads of bombs
- so many many Reichsmarks

You bring to bear
- one or two guns of up to 20mm type
- potentially half a dozen rounds on target if all goes well


1 Twin engine Bomber
for
6-12 rounds of 20mm



Siriusly.



 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Because it's historically accurate. We just don't need more fighter bias than we have now.

[Retnek]

Why the blue diddly flip would you strafing passes with these?

 

Gielow is right, early in war the Germans used low-level-sorties with twin-engined-bombers to harass supply columns on streets as a regular mission concept. Next to ship targets that kind of sortie was the reason for the forward pointing 20 mm guns in the He-111. I haven't read much reports presenting this kind of sorties, but as a trend: low-level-attacks with He-111 were used in the early Blitzkrieg-campaigns to disturb traffic flow and spread panic. In the Russian campaign those tactics soon were abandoned because of the any-rifle-all-out-AA-tactics of the Russians. And the much longer distances, any little bullet-hole in then engine might result in an emergency landing behind the Russian lines. The fate of the downed crews was most uncertain ...

Edited March 14, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

And train hunting.

[Yakdriver]

an 88 C4/C6 yea,
but an 111... that is just a bad idea.
Jesus thats nuts.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

an 88 C4/C6 yea,

but an 111... that is just a bad idea.

Jesus thats nuts.

It's a Gunship. 

[Yakdriver]

go try it... the Heinkel sure as shit cannot qualify to be called Gunship.
A gunships Main armament are Guns. Heavy guns.

An YB-40 maybe. a PB4Y maybe... a Dakota with miniguns maybe...a Hercules with Howitzers surely.
Go tell a Heinkel crew their handsful of MG-FF drums are the main reason they fly.
And see them laughing in your face.

Come on now, be reasonable.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

They had to employ medium bombers in tactical missions because the Bf 110s and Stukas of the other squadrons simply weren't enough. There were a lot of requests for CAS from the Army and they just couldn't be everywhere at the same time.

As Yakdriver says it isn't the best use of these planes, but that's how it happened. The KG squadrons had considerable losses because of the low level missions (nothing compared to Soviet loses though) and they were unpopular with the crews.

 

From Black Cross Red Star volume I, talking about the period from October 1941, while advancing to the Moscow region.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[FuriousMeow]

They aren't flying low level strafing, they are bombing smaller positions. There's a very key word in that passage "bombing."

 

Tank concentrations aren't individual tanks, they are staging areas where a lot of tanks exist.

Edited March 14, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Not sure what this is about - are you talking about RL or in game? Where does this information come from? Why is it an issue at all?

Real Life

 

The russian bombs are very different to the German bombs and the Italian 50 & 100T are very different again.

 

Also the German 1tonne bombs are not true 1 tonne bombs

- "SC 1000" 1090 kg general purpose (AP Mass =500kg?/ Explosive Mass =580kg/ Type = Amatol TNT)

Only 580KG of tnt

 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

They aren't flying low level strafing, they are bombing smaller positions. There's a very key word in that passage "bombing."

 

Tank concentrations aren't individual tanks, they are staging areas where a lot of tanks exist.

 

Plain wrong. 

 

111 were even used at low level as flak suppressors strafing russian guns because there was not enough stukas and dedicated ground support machines. The great distances and the huge quantity of russian material  on Soviet front also pressed everything available on close ground attacks. 

 

 

go try it... the Heinkel sure as shit cannot qualify to be called Gunship.

A gunships Main armament are Guns. Heavy guns.

 

An YB-40 maybe. a PB4Y maybe... a Dakota with miniguns maybe...a Hercules with Howitzers surely.

Go tell a Heinkel crew their handsful of MG-FF drums are the main reason they fly.

And see them laughing in your face.

 

Come on now, be reasonable.

 

Looking for me? !?!    

6×20mm plus mgs and granade launcher.

 

 

Most people don't like to read about bombers and don't have idea about how flexible and efficient those machines can be. 

 

Unfortunately this behavior is replicated by game Devs everywhere making bombers "boring" to the public due to limited options. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Retnek]

...

111 were even used at low level as flak suppressors strafing russian guns because there was not enough stukas and dedicated ground support machines plus the huge distances on Soviet front pressed everything available on close ground attacks.

 

Most people don't like to read about bombers and don't have idea about how flexible and efficient those machines can be.

 

Unfortunately this behavior is replicated by game Devs everywhere making bombers "boring" to the public due to limited options.

You're right, but like strafing with the 109 those low-level gun-ship operations with the 111 (except the train busting missions) were born out of distress, there often was tremendous need to support the ground troops at nearly any cost. Especially during the winter the Germans had to use any method to stop the numerous Russian breakthroughs.

   Anyhow, from a today's point of view exposing and loosing a medium bomber and a well trained crew to light weapons fire was a waste and the bomber crews knew it. But the German High Command and the higher ranks of Luftwaffe, too, were dominated by army officers with an often very limited understanding of air power. They tended to think about air power as a kind of heavy artillery. And there was a strong demand the Landser (grunt), the "ordinary soldier" should see the Luftwaffe "at work" with his own eyes to boost the affected morale of the common army troops.

 

Did the Germans during the first Russian winters really had a choice to make better use of the medium bombers with air-Interdiction or deep-air-support missions? I don't know, but it's well documented medium bombers were used at large scale for close-air-support, dropping bombs and as a gun-ship, too. Sometimes this was done by specializing one squadron within a group or a 4-ship within a squadron.

  I don't know any elaboration or post-war-report providing well founded results or conclusions about this topic.

Edited March 15, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Results of train busting Gruppens, not staffels, during Moscow offensive.

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[unreasonable]

You're right, but like strafing with the 109 those low-level gun-ship operations with the 111 (except the train busting missions) were born out of distress, there often was tremendous need to support the ground troops at nearly any cost. Especially during the winter the Germans had to use any method to stop the numerous Russian breakthroughs.

   Anyhow, from a today's point of view exposing and loosing a medium bomber and a well trained crew to light weapons fire was a waste and the bomber crews knew it. But the German High Command and the higher ranks of Luftwaffe, too, were dominated by army officers with an often very limited understanding of air power. They tended to think about air power as a kind of heavy artillery. And there was a strong demand the Landser (grunt), the "ordinary soldier" should see the Luftwaffe "at work" with his own eyes to boost the affected morale of the common army troops.

 

Did the Germans during the first Russian winters really had a choice to make better use of the medium bombers with air-Interdiction or deep-air-support missions? I don't know, but it's well documented medium bombers were used at large scale for close-air-support, dropping bombs and as a gun-ship, too. Sometimes this was done by specializing one squadron within a group or a 4-ship within a squadron.

  I don't know any elaboration or post-war-report providing well founded results or conclusions about this topic.

 

Agreed, also consider this from a German command perspective:

 

1) Medium bombers had been used as part of the total concentration of effort on the key ground battles in Poland and the breakthrough in May 1940 - result, total quick ground victory.

2) The GAF had promised to eliminate the Allied forces at Dunkirk without a simultaneous ground attack - and failed.

3) The GAF had claimed that it could achieve air superiority over S. England in the BoB - and failed.

4) Medium bombers had been used in tactical support during Barbarossa - the result was a series of massive victories, that ended not only because the Army was exhausted but also because the LW's could no longer provide any significant tactical support.

5) Deeper interdiction attacks require effective recce sorties to ID targets. Easy enough to  do for a prepared offensive, but much harder in a very fluid situation, especially if your recce planes are being shot down as often as the GAF's were on the E. Front.

6) Medium bomber attacks near the front take casualties from AA - but attacks behind the front are much more vulnerable to interception by fighters and required escort. 

 

I am certainly not saying that the mix of deeper and shallower ground attack was always right all the time - but given that the whole German war effort was based on quick victory at a strategic level rather than attrition, which they could not hope to win, focusing everything on ground attack was a reasonable choice.

[Sokol1]

https://youtu.be/lqLQg7Koh-k?t=181

 

https://youtu.be/3BmBnId6kfs?t=354

[Scojo]

Have you tried strafing from a gunner position in those planes before?

[Yakdriver]

 

Looking for me? !?!    

6×20mm plus mgs and granade launcher.

 

post-1330-0-65974000-1489532445.jpg

indeed! Quite Nice!

But that one does not an AI gunner upgrade Skill, does it.

 

 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Have you tried strafing from a gunner position in those planes before?

once or twice but thats a heavy exploit of game mechanics that i can mount my gunners and fly plane at the same time (should only work on auto level if you goto gunner)

 

Im not like those "Special people" who clear aaa then land on enemy airfield then get into rear gunners and shoot all trucks and parked planes from gunner.

One of them better stop soon or he is getting reported :D

 

 

[FuriousMeow]

Plain wrong. 

 

111 were even used at low level as flak suppressors strafing russian guns because there was not enough stukas and dedicated ground support machines. The great distances and the huge quantity of russian material  on Soviet front also pressed everything available on close ground attacks. 

 

post-1330-0-11952500-1489532305.png

 

 

Looking for me? !?!    

6×20mm plus mgs and granade launcher.

 

post-1330-0-65974000-1489532445.jpg

 

Most people don't like to read about bombers and don't have idea about how flexible and efficient those machines can be. 

 

Unfortunately this behavior is replicated by game Devs everywhere making bombers "boring" to the public due to limited options. 

 

With what you quoted initially, it wasn't "plain wrong." It was, as a matter of fact, very accurate reply to the passage someone posted. Additionally, what book is that new passage from? Not exactly referencing plane type there.

Edited March 16, 2017 by FuriousMeow