can a rear gunner be effective??

[il2crashesnfails]

What are your guys experience with rear gunners? I find they tag me all the time. Is there anything I can do to reduce it?

 

 

[IRRE_Centx]

How to reduce it?

Easy (at least in theory, it needs a bit of practice) : don't attack bombers from their 6.
Or if you have to, stay FAST and shoot short bursts, then disengage and come back a bit later with a better position.


In your video you are always slow and right in the 6 of Stukas.
Your Yak is way way way faster than Stukas. Don't come from their 6. Take your time, climb above them, and then execute diving attacks.
Keep your speed high and attack from above/sides!

 

Note that Stukas flying at 1000-1500m altitude like this could also be attacked from under (since they don't have belly gunner), but this is more tricky.

Edited November 19, 2018 by -IRRE-Centx

[Haza]

I think most rear gunners are like "Bob the Builder" when it comes to shooting down aircraft!

Can he do it? "Yes he can"

 

?

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

As a player who, admittedly, is very single-mindedly a Pe-2 pilot, and gets attacked quite often, I might be able to help with some observations. 

 

Flying straight up to the tail of an enemy at a similar speed only works well with fighters that have no rear gunner. 

There's been so many times players have slowly flown so close up my tail they can smell what I had for dinner yesterday and complain about over-powered tail gunner.  I guess they expect that since they're firing more powerful guns than the tail gunner, it should be as easy as pushing a 'WIN' button.  Keep in mind that while the attacker at 6o'c has more firepower, those bullets have to fly forward to hit the target.  The target's tail gunner might have less firepower, but the attacker is flying into the bullets being projected backwards - adding a bit of a 'force multiplier' to each of the defender's bullets.  Thus smaller bullets fired backwards can potentially hit with more force than the same size bullet fired forward the same distance to a target. 

If you must attack from a trailing position make sure you are attacking from above in a strong dive and going at least 150kp/h or faster than your target.  The faster you close the distance the less time the gunner can shoot at you. 

 

While there are some techniques I've found to bypass a rear-facing belly gunner and get snap shots into the target's belly, they're mostly impractical in anything other that high altitude 1v1 situations.  In other words don't risk it.

 

Like Centx said, try to attack from angles that prevent the gunners from aiming at you in the first place.  This means you may have to run in parallel pursuit of a target just outside of gun range until you can turn into the unprotected areas on the plane.  What may have been a messy 10 seconds might be better pursued with patience and made into a clean chase and attacked that takes comparatively much longer to set up.  Of course, that also depends on what kind of fighter cover is present and whether or not they are aware of you.  

 

If you find yourself in a head-on pass with a plane that has rear gunners, do not pull straight up after the pass.  All the top gunner needs to is spray in front of your plane and get lucky.  

Instead take a shallow dive away with random short up, down, left and right jinks to throw off the rear belly gunner.  The rear belly gunner should see your plane from your 6o'c straight-on which is a very small profile to hit when it's flying away from his gun post. Once you're out of gun range you are free to maneuver as needed.  Do not barrel roll.  It's too predictable for a gunner to shoot where you're going to be.  

 

Always think about what profile you present to a gunner.  If the gunner is looking at you directly from the side, or as I mentioned, direct 6'oc, it's harder for him to hit you than if you're angled so he can hit your side plus part of your topside or underside, or your 6o'c plus your topside or underside.  If he can directly see your 12o'c profile, then you are flying straight at him and you're going to eat lead unless you get lucky and kill him first.

 

I hope this helps some.  ~S~

 

Oh, I forgot to mention, it also helps a lot to know the defensive gun layout of each and every enemy you might encounter, and how much range-of-motion each gun position has in order to mentally envision where the 'cones of fire' overlap and see where the gaps are.   

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[il2crashesnfails]

14 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

As a player who, admittedly, is very single-mindedly a Pe-2 pilot, and gets attacked quite often, I might be able to help with some observations. 

 

Flying straight up to the tail of an enemy at a similar speed only works well with fighters that have no rear gunner. 

There's been so many times players have slowly flown so close up my tail they can smell what I had for dinner yesterday and complain about over-powered tail gunner.  I guess they expect that since they're firing more powerful guns than the tail gunner, it should be as easy as pushing a 'WIN' button.  Keep in mind that while the attacker at 6o'c has more firepower, those bullets have to fly forward to hit the target.  The target's tail gunner might have less firepower, but the attacker is flying into the bullets being projected backwards - adding a bit of a 'force multiplier' to each of the defender's bullets.  Thus smaller bullets fired backwards can potentially hit with more force than the same size bullet fired forward the same distance to a target. 

If you must attack from a trailing position make sure you are attacking from above in a strong dive and going at least 150kp/h or faster than your target.  The faster you close the distance the less time the gunner can shoot at you. 

 

While there are some techniques I've found to bypass a rear-facing belly gunner and get snap shots into the target's belly, they're mostly impractical in anything other that high altitude 1v1 situations.  In other words don't risk it.

 

Like Centx said, try to attack from angles that prevent the gunners from aiming at you in the first place.  This means you may have to run in parallel pursuit of a target just outside of gun range until you can turn into the unprotected areas on the plane.  What may have been a messy 10 seconds might be better pursued with patience and made into a clean chase and attacked that takes comparatively much longer to set up.  Of course, that also depends on what kind of fighter cover is present and whether or not they are aware of you.  

 

If you find yourself in a head-on pass with a plane that has rear gunners, do not pull straight up after the pass.  All the top gunner needs to is spray in front of your plane and get lucky.  

Instead take a shallow dive away with random short up, down, left and right jinks to throw off the rear belly gunner.  The rear belly gunner should see your plane from your 6o'c straight-on which is a very small profile to hit when it's flying away from his gun post. Once you're out of gun range you are free to maneuver as needed.  Do not barrel roll.  It's too predictable for a gunner to shoot where you're going to be.  

 

Always think about what profile you present to a gunner.  If the gunner is looking at you directly from the side, or as I mentioned, direct 6'oc, it's harder for him to hit you than if you're angled so he can hit your side plus part of your topside or underside, or your 6o'c plus your topside or underside.  If he can directly see your 12o'c profile, then you are flying straight at him and you're going to eat lead unless you get lucky and kill him first.

 

I hope this helps some.  ~S~

 

Oh, I forgot to mention, it also helps a lot to know the defensive gun layout of each and every enemy you might encounter, and how much range-of-motion each gun position has in order to mentally envision where the 'cones of fire' overlap and see where the gaps are.   

 

thanks for in depth review, alot of things to consider!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I'm glad I could help.  Keep in mind that I'm not an expert by any means.  If there are pilots that can provide better tactics or debunk some of what I wrote, I fully welcome it. 

[=RS=Stix_09]

watch this, this is what u should do.
 (set at point of attacking pe-2, same principle with any plane with rear gunner)
 

 

note how he takes time to setup....

and pe2 is worse to attack than stuka, its faster , more durable and has more guns that can fire at you..

these pe2 guys, should have stayed together as a group and not separated , just made themselves easier targets

and sub to channels of good pilots like this is highly recommended as a new player..

And yes  AI does tent to do impossible shots (like in video shooting from crashed pe2 upside down on ground and hitting the plane as he flies over it)

[Nocke]

20 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 Keep in mind that while the attacker at 6o'c has more firepower, those bullets have to fly forward to hit the target.  The target's tail gunner might have less firepower, but the attacker is flying into the bullets being projected backwards - adding a bit of a 'force multiplier' to each of the defender's bullets.  Thus smaller bullets fired backwards can potentially hit with more force than the same size bullet fired forward the same distance to a target. 

Both planes bullets get the same velocity vector added, in a first approximation. Maybe you could think about the fighters bullets meeting a higher air drag than the bomber ones, but I doubt that would really make a difference. If both planes are moving roughly the same velocity, look at them as beeing in a common moving coordinate system. No bullet gets an advantage, or disadvantage, from that.

[=RS=Stix_09]

u can still get hit , but doing it this way minimizes your time in fount of gun (allowing them to get a bead on you)

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

1 hour ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Both planes bullets get the same velocity vector added, in a first approximation. Maybe you could think about the fighters bullets meeting a higher air drag than the bomber ones, but I doubt that would really make a difference. If both planes are moving roughly the same velocity, look at them as beeing in a common moving coordinate system. No bullet gets an advantage, or disadvantage, from that.

 

Can you show the math equation that confirms this?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not seeing it.

 

Either way, I certainly wouldn't want to be the one that's using my single engine and propeller as cockpit armor as I park on the 6 of the bomber target. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 hours ago, Stix_09 said:

watch this, this is what u should do.
 (set at point of attacking pe-2, same principle with any plane with rear gunner)
 

 

note how he takes time to setup....

and pe2 is worse to attack than stuka, its faster , more durable and has more guns that can fire at you..

these pe2 guys, should have stayed together as a group and not separated , just made themselves easier targets

and sub to channels of good pilots like this is highly recommended as a new player..

And yes  AI does tent to do impossible shots (like in video shooting from crashed pe2 upside down on ground and hitting the plane as he flies over it)

 

Yes, the Pe-2 guys should have stayed tighter together, but they're biggest mistake was trying to do a deck run to the target.  Flying low like that completely removes the defensive option of diving.  They could only turn left or right or climb.  Climbing is an energy bleeder.  Turning horizontally left or right as hard as is needed to evade are also energy bleeders.  I find that most enemies that shoot down my Pe-2 get me right after I've dive bombed to the deck and can't yet climb back up or turn hard because the ground AAA will get me.  Trying to do a 'stealth' deck run to the target in a bomber is nearly guaranteed suicide.  

 

[[PFR]Sarpalaxan]

3 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Can you show the math equation that confirms this?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not seeing it.

 

Either way, I certainly wouldn't want to be the one that's using my single engine and propeller as cockpit armor as I park on the 6 of the bomber target. 

Well, if you fly let's say 400kp/h and shoot forward with a velocity of 800kph the bulles is Traveling trough the air at 1200kp/h relative to the ground and without ans wind will expirience drag according to this speet. Fiering backward on the other hand the bullet travels at 400kp/h relative to the surrounding Air. But i'me not sure how much velocity that will cost over the distance of 200meters since the bullet is only subjectet do this drag for about a second.

 

P.s. Altho if you plan your Attack right the enemy's bullets will be expiriencing the drag for 0.00000000001422 seconds longer due to timedialation.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Sarpalaxan

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Yes, the Pe-2 guys should have stayed tighter together, but they're biggest mistake was trying to do a deck run to the target.  Flying low like that completely removes the defensive option of diving.  They could only turn left or right or climb.  Climbing is an energy bleeder.  Turning horizontally left or right as hard as is needed to evade are also energy bleeders.

 

Imho, it's a little confusing to call climbing "an energy bleeder". It's accumulating potential energy at the cost of time (engine doing work) or kinetic energy (loss of velocity). Of course going vertical when there is a close six is suicidal; not only it will make the plane slow but will expose wings and top of fuselage for easy shots by the enemy.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

9 hours ago, Sarpalaxan said:

Well, if you fly let's say 400kp/h and shoot forward with a velocity of 800kph the bulles is Traveling trough the air at 1200kp/h relative to the ground and without ans wind will expirience drag according to this speet. Fiering backward on the other hand the bullet travels at 400kp/h relative to the surrounding Air. But i'me not sure how much velocity that will cost over the distance of 200meters since the bullet is only subjectet do this drag for about a second.

 

P.s. Altho if you plan your Attack right the enemy's bullets will be expiriencing the drag for 0.00000000001422 seconds longer due to timedialation.

 

I'm still not sure how this works out.  I'll try to look around the internet for the actual equation. 

 

7 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Imho, it's a little confusing to call climbing "an energy bleeder". It's accumulating potential energy at the cost of time (engine doing work) or kinetic energy (loss of velocity). Of course going vertical when there is a close six is suicidal; not only it will make the plane slow but will expose wings and top of fuselage for easy shots by the enemy.

 

Perhaps you're right that calling it an "energy bleeder" is the wrong term. 

 

One thing that is for certain is that it doesn't take a very steep angle of climb for a Pe-2's engines to no longer be able to add or maintain the current speed.  Trying to climb from the deck at an angle steep enough to then be able to dive at a high angle as well is not very effective since it takes a rather shallow climb angle to still maintain or not lose speed.  From the view of an attacker, climbing a Pe-2 at an angle where you don't gain or lose speed is almost the same as if the Pe-2 was flying level. 

 

In my experience diving steeply and pulling up at the same angle will not return you to the same altitude you started the dive from.  It's a "diminishing returns" situation. 

[il2crashesnfails]

3 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

In my experience diving steeply and pulling up at the same angle will not return you to the same altitude you started the dive from.  It's a "diminishing returns" situation

 

 

That I agree with!

On 11/19/2018 at 8:13 PM, Haza said:

I think most rear gunners are like "Bob the Builder" when it comes to shooting down aircraft!

Can he do it? "Yes he can"

 

?

 

 

hhaha,

the gunner actually damaged both ailerons, I had to use rudder to help tilt plane.

[=RS=Stix_09]

15 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Yes, the Pe-2 guys should have stayed tighter together, but they're biggest mistake was trying to do a deck run to the target.  Flying low like that completely removes the defensive option of diving.  They could only turn left or right or climb.  Climbing is an energy bleeder.  Turning horizontally left or right as hard as is needed to evade are also energy bleeders.  I find that most enemies that shoot down my Pe-2 get me right after I've dive bombed to the deck and can't yet climb back up or turn hard because the ground AAA will get me.  Trying to do a 'stealth' deck run to the target in a bomber is nearly guaranteed suicide.  

 

 

The reason people fly low is you are harder to see against trees (this varies somewhat depending on map, and your skin and time of day and weather).

If they can't see you they can't attack you, AND you also have to fly an unpredictable route to target.

 

So I'm not sure altitude unless you are very high will help much(you are just a more visible target), all fighters will outdive and out climb you and out turn you, and you will not buy much time, but yes you may have some options to but IMHO a tight pack is better as it has more guns and harder to hit without taking fire. (and  you must  to maneuver as a group not solo). A little Alt yes, so you can all dive shallow and get more speed is a good thing ,speed makes dive bombing a lot harder to line up.

Also ALT allows another avenue to be attacked from (pe2 in this case has belly gunner). If low you don't want to be right on deck either  if u have belly rear gunner, just off it .

 

Slow shallow turns are the way to go, be unpredictable and stay grouped. (the idea is trying to be harder to hit and put rear guns in fire arch)

 

I think the best way(without escort)  is first  very high alt (and you will be con trailing and likely seen , then they decide to take time to come up, which most won't) and it allows a slow dive to get speed also or 2nd very low alt and hide in trees (but this is only good on way to target and if you fly an about unpredictable route.

 

So the only real way to do this (as was done by actual pilots) to have best chance is fighter escorts.

 

 

And a large group of you in the pe2's

Most opt for low lvl bombing as its just easier and quicker to do in game.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Stix_09

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 minutes ago, Stix_09 said:

 

The reason people fly low is you are harder to see against trees (this varies somewhat depending on map, and your skin and time of day and weather).

If they can't see you they can't attack you, AND you also have to fly an unpredictable route to target.

 

So I'm not sure altitude unless you are very high will help much, all fighters will outdive and out climb you and out turn you, and you will not buy much time, but yes you may have some options to but to be honest a tight pack is better as it has more guns and harder to hit without taking fire. (and  you need to manuver as a group not solo)

 

I think the best way(without escort)  is first  very high alt (and you will be con trailing and likely seen , then they decide to take time to come up, which most won't) or 2nd very low alt and hide in trees (but this is only good on way to target and if you fly an about unpredictable route.

 

So the only real way to do this (as was done by actual pilots) to have best chance is fighter escorts.

 

 

 

I've found that if I fly solo my best success comes from hiding in whatever cloud cover is available and, as you said, flying an unpredictable route.  Also, when in clouds I set the gunners to short range in case I have a near-detection and only get caught because the enemy pilot is wondering "Why are tracers coming out of that cloud?" lol 

 

While fighters are better in climbs, turns and dives, they also are much more prone to 'control lock' at higher speeds than the Pe-2.  I imagine it might be a bit different in real life  where it could take a lot of strength to control a plane, but without potential to strain or tear one's back muscles pulling out of a dive, the Pe-2 wins in that respect. 

 

There are other factors to add to this, such as well-timed turning,  that will leave the opponent temporarily 'locked up' and unable to change his trajectory into a leading shot, but I fear this is getting into the area of thread Hijacking.    

 

I'm going to spend the next week or two trying to make videos of both attacking bombers and defending in a bomber.  If I'm successful, I may open a new thread that covers that topic.

 

In the meantime we should stick to the what the OP is asking advice on.  Namely, knowing the enemy and knowing how to successfully attack enemies with gunner stations with as little risk to one's own plane as possible.  

 

 

 

 

[=RS=Stix_09]

fair enough, but also knowing your enemy (in this case the pe2) tactics is how you defeat that tactic in your fighter....its all related.

 

And not all fighters lock up at speed, and not enough speed is involved here to cause that, and thats in control of the fighter too.. (only really occurs to any real degree above 600kps in some planes, way above most bombers speed  in a shallow dive or you are on deck , and losing speed again)

 

And I'm talking about bomber speed making targeting harder (eg 500km/hr vs 400) , not impossible... (Catching and lining up targets , speed limits/delays  fighters options, and gets u on target or in a safer zone faster too)

 

also solo bomber flight is not what I was talking about here, solo your best defense is not being seen....

Edited November 21, 2018 by Stix_09

[[PFR]Sarpalaxan]

14 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I'm still not sure how this works out.  I'll try to look around the internet for the actual equation. 

 

Ok You want formulas? Why not. Drag is calculated as followed

Force of drag = 0.5xdensity of Air x Velocity relative to the Air x surface exposed x coefficient of drag.

If you use to identical guns and bullets the only factor that changes is relative speed which for a forward fired bullet is Muzzle Velocity + IAS (Intake Air Speed) and for the rear gunner would be Muzzle Velocity – IAS

 

To make a Rough calculation of speed loss you would then would apply the drag Force to the weight of the bullet resulting in Meters per second per second of deceleration which you multiply by the duration of travel in seconds. This should result in the Speed in m/s on impact.

However, I don't know how exact this is calculated in game and if it makes that much of a difference. Many bullets fragment on impact anyway, the exposure to the drag is relatively short and most times rear gunners and fighters don't have the same Weapon.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

1 hour ago, Sarpalaxan said:

Ok You want formulas? Why not. Drag is calculated as followed

Force of drag = 0.5xdensity of Air x Velocity relative to the Air x surface exposed x coefficient of drag.

If you use to identical guns and bullets the only factor that changes is relative speed which for a forward fired bullet is Muzzle Velocity + IAS (Intake Air Speed) and for the rear gunner would be Muzzle Velocity – IAS

 

To make a Rough calculation of speed loss you would then would apply the drag Force to the weight of the bullet resulting in Meters per second per second of deceleration which you multiply by the duration of travel in seconds. This should result in the Speed in m/s on impact.

However, I don't know how exact this is calculated in game and if it makes that much of a difference. Many bullets fragment on impact anyway, the exposure to the drag is relatively short and most times rear gunners and fighters don't have the same Weapon.

 

I think we may be looking at the problem in two different ways.  You're looking at muzzle velocity based on speed relative to the ground being used as a reference point and drag effects of bullets being fired forward or backward.  I'm looking at the actual closure speed between the bullet and the target.  

 

For example:

If car 'A' (aka the forward plane) is traveling 50kp/h and another car (the bullet) is following behind at 65kp/h, then the closure speed at impact will be 15kp/h.  That's a minor fender bender.  At most some time in the repair shop.

If car 'B' (aka the plane behind) is traveling at 50kp/h and another car (the bullet) is traveling head-on at 15kp/h, then the closure speed at impact will be 65kp/h.  That's a potentially fatal accident.  At the very least the cars will be totaled. 

If car 'C' is moving at 55kp/h toward another car that is parked ( 0k/ph), then the closure speed at impact will be 55kp/h. Again, another catastrophic impact.

 

I think these concepts pretty clearly show the 'force multiplier' I spoke of, and this is without even trying to factor in the effects of inertia upon the impacting objects.  

 

I don't think a millisecond or two of drag effect on the bullet is anything relevant to the actual factors that need to be considered.  This isn't about muzzle velocity relative to the ground either.  This is simply about the velocity of the bullet, once projected from the gun platform, relative to the target and the closure speed between the two.  Just because the base velocities of bullets are high enough to reach targets, forward or behind, and damage them does not mean the above concepts do not apply. 

 

If the bullet is forward-fired from a forward-moving platform to the target ahead which is moving at the same speed as the platform, then the velocity added to the bullet by the motion of the platform is nullified relative to the speed of the target.

 

However, if the bullet fired from a forward-moving platform toward a target that is behind and moving forward in the same direction as the platform, then the platform's forward speed should be subtracted from the bullet's muzzle velocity before closure speed to the target is calculated. 

  

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[unreasonable]

@Mobile_BBQ Sarpalaxan's posts include this point.  In the absence of the effect of air resistance, the collision speed of the fighter's bullets hitting the bomber and the bomber's bullets hitting the fighter is identical if they are firing the same round at the same MV, when they are moving in the same direction at the same speed.  

 

For the fighter's bullets the initial vector is MV + speed of fighter.  At impact, the collision speed =  MV + speed of fighter - speed of bomber.  If the fighter and bomber are at the same speed this cancels out, so the impact speed = MV.

 

For the bomber's bullets, the initial vector is MV - speed of bomber. At impact the collision speed = MV - speed of bomber + speed of fighter. Again cancelling out to MV.

 

This will not hold in real life since air resistance matters because of the squared velocity in the formula.  Relative to the air the fighters bullets are travelling a fair bit faster: square that and you get a much higher drag force. So the fighter's bullets will slow much faster so that not only is their energy at impact reduced more than the bomber's bullets but the trajectory will be less flat making aiming harder. 

 

Clearly this is a function of range: once the fighter is very close the difference is minor but if the fighter is tagging along 500m behind a bomber the difference will be quite noticeable. Imagine being on the ground firing a HMG: first with no wind, then into a 300kph wind, then with that wind behind your back. 

 

I have not tested out this specific thing yet but it is clear that the game models both the initial vectors of the planes into the initial vector of bullets and the effect of wind resistance. To see this clearly fly a He111 and fire out sideways from the waist gunner position.  The shots fall behind over time due to side wind resistance but start with the plane's vector added to the MV.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Again, it appears to me that you are talking about airspeed and imparted muzzle velocity relative to the ground, not the closure rate of the bullet relative to the target and whether or not a plane will be hit harder flying into the bullet or away from a bullet of the same size.

 

I guess the only way to settle this is to try to find the actual mathematical equation to solve this. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Again, it appears to me that you are talking about airspeed and imparted muzzle velocity relative to the ground, not the closure rate of the bullet relative to the target and whether or not a plane will be hit harder flying into the bullet or away from a bullet of the same size.

 

I guess the only way to settle this is to try to find the actual mathematical equation to solve this. 

 

I have just given you the mathematical equation for the initial vectors and the collisions in the absence of air resistance - you calculate the initial vectors for both planes and their bullets relative to some fixed scale of reference, either the ground or the air, and having done that you can calculate the collision speed as I did in the previous post.  You can add in any numbers you want.  

 

Sarpalaxan also gave you the mathematical equation for drag.  You can also find a ballistics calculator online and see the effect of adding a head or tail wind to the behaviour of a bullet.  You can assume what you like about the effect of air resistance but it is very real and material in this case: the bomber will be able to open fire at longer range than the fighter.

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

OK assuming for argument sake that I'm a) either bad at math, or b) I just can't envision the problem, which may mean that c) you're both right.  (Trust me, if I do see it, I'll admit it.) 

 

Is my assumption that the inertial effects of the bullet hitting the target traveling the same direction will be less than that of a same-sized and velocity bullet impacting an object travelling in an opposite direction correct?

 

If that's the case, then my original statement that started this whole mess was still correct and this velocity math argument was irrelevant the whole time.

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:49 AM, Mobile_BBQ said:

The target's tail gunner might have less firepower, but the attacker is flying into the bullets being projected backwards - adding a bit of a 'force multiplier' to each of the defender's bullets.  Thus smaller bullets fired backwards can potentially hit with more force than the same size bullet fired forward the same distance to a target.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Is my assumption that the inertial effects of the bullet hitting the target traveling the same direction will be less than that of a same-sized and velocity bullet impacting an object travelling in an opposite direction?

 

The key point here is velocity of bullet relative to what.

 

Imagine instead of planes and bullets you are in a pistol duel.  20 paces apart, matched pistols, fire one shot simultaneously, still air.

 

Obviously the impact speed in this case ~= the MV (less air resistance effect, which is the same for both pistols).

 

Now imagine that you are having this duel in a moving, enclosed train.  Person F is facing towards the front of the train, person B facing the rear.  They fire: what is the impact speed of the bullets when they hit their targets? Same as if the train is not moving, irrespective of how fast the train is moving. The bullets already have a vector before they are fired relative to the ground: as do the targets. But as they are the same for F and B they cancel out. 

Put the duelists on an open flatbed car moving at speed through still air and their bullets will now have different speed relative to the air, and hence different effects from air resistance, but that is all.

 

You are right that the speed of impact will have an effect: but you get this by adding the vectors in the way described earlier which also works for a head on attack or strafing a ground target, in which case the vectors do not cancel out. 

 

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I want to make it clear, I'm not trying to be difficult.  You've got me convinced I want to learn something.  I admit being a bit thick skulled but please don't think I'm trying to frustrate you.

 

Ok, assuming that the people on the train are, for all intents and purposes, standing still and the train is not moving, or moving equally. They fire bullets of equal velocity at each other and experience an equal impact.  How does it affect this scenario?  (Assuming that most attack passes on a bomber involve fighters being significantly faster than said bomber)

 

There are 3 planes:  A (fighter traveling at 500kp/h), B (bomber traveling following 6 o'clock of A at 400kp/h), and C (fighter at 6 o'clock of B traveling 500kp/h).  All 3 planes are traveling in a straight line.  Air resistance and trajectory due to gravity are removed for this scenario. Only pane B is armed. It has two identical guns - one firing forward, and one firing aft.  Both guns have a stationary MV of 600k/ph. 

 

When Plane A is 500 meters from Plane B, Plane B fires.  Plane B: 400kp/h  + 600kp/h MV - Plane A: 500kp/h = a closure speed of the bullet to the target of 500kp/h.

When Plane C is 500 meters from Plane B, Plane B fires backward into it.  600kp/h MV - Plane B: 400kp/h + Plane C: 500kp/h = a closure speed of the bullet to the target of 700k/ph.

The other difference, though I haven't calculated it is that the bullet will take a longer distance / time to reach Plane A than Plane C, but that should be obvious.

 

It appears that, if I have applied the formula correctly as you intend me to, that my original statement that started this debate is still correct and only when all planes are traveling an equal speed are things truly equal.

                                   

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[unreasonable]

The formula is right but you are confusing yourself with an over complicated example. The reason you get different results is because the bomber in your example is falling behind target A while target C is catching up.   I think it is just easier to look at the fighter and bomber in the case where the fighter is catching up with the bomber,  eg:

 

fighter speed 400 kph

bomber speed 300 kph

bullet MV  2700 kph (= 750 m/s)

 

fighter bullets = 2700 + 400 = 3100  

bomber velocity at impact = 300

impact velocity = bullet  - bomber  = 2800

 

bomber bullet = 2700 - 300 = 2400

fighter velocity at impact = 400

impact velocity = bullet  + fighter  = 2800

 

Both the impact velocities are 100kph higher than the base MV since the difference between the two plane's speed is 100kph. But this affects them both equally (air resistance aside).

 

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I see what you're saying in a A to B and B to A exchange.  It does show both viewpoints of an "on 6" attack.  And it does show the velocities as equal. 

 

I calculated strictly from the viewpoint of B to A and B to C.  I did so to show that - from the bomber's perspective - the rearward-firing gunner has a bit more defensive power vs. an incoming fighter than the bomber pilot operating his guns vs. a fighter out in front pulling away.  

 

I think that once you apply the proper perspective to each calculation, both are correct.

 

Even though you've shown equal velocities in the A-B, B-A exchange,  I'm not entirely sure about the inertial effects of the bullet impacting the plane traveling in the same direction (being hit from behind) vs. the plane flying opposite to the bullet (being hit head-on).  The bullets may carry the same velocity and energy, but it seems to me the energy impact on the plane being hit head-on would be dissipated/distributed into the target almost instantaneously whereas the bullet hitting the tail-on plane would dissipate slightly slower over more time and distance due to both objects already traveling in the same direction.   

 

I suppose that if both planes were of equal mass and the bullets had enough mass to accelerate the tail-on shot and decelerate the head-on shot, the respective acceleration and deceleration would be equal, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.  It seems to me the energy reaction vs. the inertial resistance impacting the head-on shot would be much more drastic.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[unreasonable]

When bullets strike planes the momentum change of the whole plane is pretty much irrelevant, but it is still calculated based on the relative collision speed.  Bullets cause damage because the local energy transfer creates momentum changes that break things, plus the heat damage. 

 

Momentum = mass * velocity. Bullets have typical masses of 10g ie 0.01kg, compared to say 3000kg for a Bf109. 

 

So bullet momentum = 750m/s * 0.01 = 7.5 kg.m/s  

Fighter momentum =  111m/s * 3000 = ~ 333,000 kg.m/s

 

The reason the bomber's bullets can be more damaging is purely due to the fact that the fighters bullets are decelerated faster due to wind resistance, so the effect is a function of range.

At some point you have to just accept that this is how it works, so I will not comment further.

 

 

 

 

 

[il2crashesnfails]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The reason the bomber's bullets can be more damaging is purely due to the fact that the fighters bullets are decelerated faster due to wind resistance, so the effect is a function of range. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this seems to make sense. From a lay mans point of view!

[Lusekofte]

I think the gunner problem is part of a bigger more difficult issue. AI.

You should get punished if you fly directly in to a gun/cannon. This is one of the reasons, a high % of attacking aircraft got hit while attacking large allied formations. You would be a easy target for some of them. 

The effectiveness of the gunners weapon is another story. Personally I believe it match the effectiveness of guns and cannons on the plane attacking. The sting from defensive armament in this game , is in my opinion there for creating a balance, because the developers knew from the very start that fighter pilots would not bother to protect bombers, they would be occupied shooting down fat easy opponents and get pissed off by their sniper gunners.

So in all I am very satisfied with the gunners, they do the job my fellow fighter pilots should have done

Edited November 22, 2018 by LuseKofte

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

When bullets strike planes the momentum change of the whole plane is pretty much irrelevant, but it is still calculated based on the relative collision speed.  Bullets cause damage because the local energy transfer creates momentum changes that break things, plus the heat damage. 

 

Momentum = mass * velocity. Bullets have typical masses of 10g ie 0.01kg, compared to say 3000kg for a Bf109. 

 

So bullet momentum = 750m/s * 0.01 = 7.5 kg.m/s  

Fighter momentum =  111m/s * 3000 = ~ 333,000 kg.m/s

 

The reason the bomber's bullets can be more damaging is purely due to the fact that the fighters bullets are decelerated faster due to wind resistance, so the effect is a function of range.

At some point you have to just accept that this is how it works, so I will not comment further.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that you're a busy person with things to do.  I, on the other hand, have a fair amount of time being that it's a holiday here.  Today, I get to be thankful for being fat and happy before I enjoy a meal that will probably make me fatter and happier.  So, let me be fat and happy while I explain why wind resistance - while still a factor - is not a major factor in this.

 

Let's assume the bullet that hits the bomber on it's 6o'clock doesn't pass completely through and lodges into the plane.  The bullet only needs to decelerate to the same velocity as the bomber to reach an equilibrium state with the bomber and all energy between said bomber and bullet is dissipated.  The bullet only comes to a complete stop when the plane comes to a complete stop.   The factors are the bomber's velocity, the bullet's velocity at impact relative to the target, and the inertial resistance vs. the bullet the bomber requires to slow the bullet to an equal velocity and vector with said bomber.   

 

Let's also assume that the bullet fired from the bomber hits the fighter at it's 12o'c, does not completely pass through and lodges into the plane.  There are more force factors at work than the bullet that hit the bomber's 6 o'c before the bullet reaches an equilibrium state with the fighter and all energy is dissipated.  First the bullet must be decelerated by the mass of the fighter.  Next, for an incredibly miniscule fraction of a second, the bullet comes to a complete stop. After that, the fighter's mass acts on the bullet to accelerate the bullet to a velocity and vector that is equal to the v/v of the fighter.  The factors are the fighter's velocity, the bullet's velocity at impact relative to the target, the inertial resistance vs. the bullet that the fighter requires to bring the bullet to a stop and the force then required from the fighter to accelerate the bullet into the new vector and velocity that brings the bullet to an equilibrium state with the fighter and all energy dissipated. 

 

I don't think it takes a genius to see there is more force at work/required to solve the equation for the plane being hit at 12o'c than the one being hit at 6o'c - even if the identical bullets they are struck with impact with identical closure speeds. 

 

I still stand by my original comment that started this whole mess:

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:49 AM, Mobile_BBQ said:

 ...Keep in mind that while the attacker at 6o'c has more firepower, those bullets have to fly forward to hit the target.  The target's tail gunner might have less firepower, but the attacker is flying into the bullets being projected backwards - adding a bit of a 'force multiplier' to each of the defender's bullets.

This does not say that the fighter with greater firepower -aka volume of fire, velocity of fire, larger mass bullets - is weaker offensively than a small caliber bullet being shot into it's 12o'c. 

It does say that an identical mass and velocity bullet will impact with less force upon the fighter if it's being shot into it's 6o'c instead.  Or in layman's terms: Don't use your engine as cockpit armor while you park on the enemy's tail and hammer at him. 

 

At some point you have to just accept that this is how it works, so I also will not comment further.    

[unreasonable]

30 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

 

I don't think it takes a genius to see there is more force at work/required to solve the equation for the plane being hit at 12o'c than the one being hit at 6o'c - even if the identical bullets they are struck with impact with identical closure speeds. 

 

 

It took genius in the shape of Galileo, Newton etc to develop the concept of the inertial frame of reference which you apparently think is incorrect.  I have already demonstrated in a worked example that the collision speed of the two bullets is the same, in the absence of air resistance, as is their mass in our assumptions. That is all that matters, because whether you use momentum = mass * velocity, or kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2, there are only two terms to look at. The momentum or energy transfer is identical. 

 

Quite frankly I do not care how much you are confusing yourself but I do worry that you may be confusing other people, hence my final, final comment.  

[[PFR]Sarpalaxan]

Welp, I for my part don't mind diving in to Mathematic formulas and stuff, numbers are fun. So Let's go right in to it.

1.     Yes, if you shoot at something moving towards you. (aka the plane behind having a higher velocity than the plane in front) both party's bullets will have a higher impact speed.) If they move away from each other both will have less impact.

2.     I Think your mistake lies in perspective. You say that b would travel in the same direction as A's bullet and A would travel in the opposite direction as the bullet. Both are true if you take the ground as reference point. However, without drag this refferencepoint is not really helping. From the fighter's point of view, the bomber is traveling towards him, from the rear gunner's point of view the fighter is traveling towards the bomber. If you take the bullet as reference the fighter is moving towards it. Impact speed is always equal to the difference in velocity from the bullet and the target. If a bullet now decelerates from 1200 to 400 or from -400(as in traveling in the opposite direction to the target in relation to the ground) to 400 it's always 800kph difference.

3.     BUT (and yes it's a big but, one that Sir Mixalot would like) What do you hit if you hit a plane from behind? First tail rudder, then Fuselage, maybe a gunner and a few spars. What do you hit when you shoot the front of a fighter? Propeller, Engine of the front window and with a bit of penetration the Pilot behind it. So if you do hit you will have a higher probability of hitting something vital.

4.     Second but (like the one some people have for a face) Manny bullets don't really work on impact speed. I Remember equipping Panzersprenggranaten (Armour Explode Grenades) in IL-2 CoD so if they penetrate the armour which is typically found in the pilot's seat and in the front window. (results may varie) they will do the thing they are built to do. (in most cases go boom)

I Hope this clears your confusion. So remember kids, no matter how interesting something is, a mathematician can destroy all the fun quicker than you can divide the enemy's Jug with your Zero.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

12 minutes ago, Sarpalaxan said:

Welp, I for my part don't mind diving in to Mathematic formulas and stuff, numbers are fun. So Let's go right in to it.

1.     Yes, if you shoot at something moving towards you. (aka the plane behind having a higher velocity than the plane in front) both party's bullets will have a higher impact speed.) If they move away from each other both will have less impact.

2.     I Think your mistake lies in perspective. You say that b would travel in the same direction as A's bullet and A would travel in the opposite direction as the bullet. Both are true if you take the ground as reference point. However, without drag this refferencepoint is not really helping. From the fighter's point of view, the bomber is traveling towards him, from the rear gunner's point of view the fighter is traveling towards the bomber. If you take the bullet as reference the fighter is moving towards it. Impact speed is always equal to the difference in velocity from the bullet and the target. If a bullet now decelerates from 1200 to 400 or from -400(as in traveling in the opposite direction to the target in relation to the ground) to 400 it's always 800kph difference.

3.     BUT (and yes it's a big but, one that Sir Mixalot would like) What do you hit if you hit a plane from behind? First tail rudder, then Fuselage, maybe a gunner and a few spars. What do you hit when you shoot the front of a fighter? Propeller, Engine of the front window and with a bit of penetration the Pilot behind it. So if you do hit you will have a higher probability of hitting something vital.

4.     Second but (like the one some people have for a face) Manny bullets don't really work on impact speed. I Remember equipping Panzersprenggranaten (Armour Explode Grenades) in IL-2 CoD so if they penetrate the armour which is typically found in the pilot's seat and in the front window. (results may varie) they will do the thing they are built to do. (in most cases go boom)

I Hope this clears your confusion. So remember kids, no matter how interesting something is, a mathematician can destroy all the fun quicker than you can divide the enemy's Jug with your Zero.

1. OK. True. But that's what I originally meant before this whole debate got started.  Firing forward at a plane pulling away from you has less impact than firing backward at a plane closing in on you, not "you will have better/more hitting power than the attacker".  To simplify: "flying into bullets is more dangerous than flying away from bullets."  Perhaps I originally worded it confusingly.  It made sense to me, I swear. (lol)  Honestly, I wasn't exactly sure what everybody was going on about disputing the original statement I made.

 

2. OK. Removing a 3rd reference point, aka the ground, I can see how both planes would respectively appear to be moving toward each other.  I admit, I missed that.

 

3. The real point I think we can all agree on:  Don't use your engine as armor against the rear gunner as you park on his tail and hammer.  Do your best to punch him in the face without getting punched in the face as well.  Shout out to good ol' Sir MixAlot.

 

4.  It makes sense.  The bullet barely has the velocity to cause a lot of damage, but can carry a secondary burst that can potentially do a lot of damage.  

 

Anyway, let's just call this done.   I still have some physics questions I'll study up on in my own time. 

 

 

[SCG_Schneemann]

20 hours ago, unreasonable said:

bomber bullet = 2700 - 300 = 2400

Except the bomber isn't firing forward 

 

It's closure speed... assume initial bullet velocity is the same for both guns, then it's just the difference in airspeed. Both aircraft are moving in the same direction, fighter sees bullets hitting him at base bullet velocity PLUS aircraft speed delta, bomber sees base bullet velocity MINUS aircraft speed delta. Bomber bullets have less distance to travel, so get hit with less drag due to time before impact. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by SCG_Schneemann

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, SCG_Schneemann said:

Except the bomber isn't firing forward 

 

It's closure speed... assume initial bullet velocity is the same for both guns, then it's just the difference in airspeed. Both aircraft are moving in the same direction, fighter sees bullets hitting him at base bullet velocity PLUS aircraft speed delta, bomber sees base bullet velocity MINUS aircraft speed delta. Bomber bullets have less distance to travel, so get hit with less drag due to time before impact. 

 

 

The bomber is firing backwards, but the bullets it is firing are traveling forwards before they are fired, with the same vector as the bomber. Firing at the MV does not make that vector miraculously disappear. Hence the forwards vector is subtracted from the MV vector to get the bullet speed through the air which is the determinant of drag.  

 

Firing into a 300 kph gale will have a very different effect on trajectory than firing with one at your back, even if the difference in airspeed is zero.   

 

edit: still a bit frustrated at not getting this point over clearly so imagine another scenario. Two identical spaceships each armed with one gun are in deep space far from any matter. So there is no air resistance nor is it easy to fix their position relative to some outside frame.  They are taking pot shots at one another. They could be getting closer together, further apart or maintaining their distance but you can only see the movement relative to the other spaceship.  So if there is closure or separation there is no way of telling if that is because one is moving or both are moving relative to the rest of the universe, or if moving in which direction on a line drawn between them. 

 

In this case the impact velocity is just the weapon MV plus/minus the closure/separation rate. Obviously this is the same for each target. It also clearly makes no sense to say that the shots from one spaceship have less distance to travel than from the other: closure or separation affects both identically. 

 

Now take out air resistance (and the other RL complications) and this is exactly the same as the bomber/fighter case we were discussing.  

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by unreasonable

[Arfsix]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

edit: still a bit frustrated at not getting this point over clearly so imagine another scenario. Two identical spaceships each armed with one gun are in deep space 

 

     Never mind the physics theory, the important question is what type of rivets, flush or normal, do the space ships use, how many of each are there, and do you have any flight report documents as evidence of what you have posted?  

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 hours ago, Arfsix said:

     Never mind the physics theory, the important question is what type of rivets, flush or normal, do the space ships use, how many of each are there, and do you have any flight report documents as evidence of what you have posted?  

 

Rivets!? I put mine together with nails I salvaged from an old shack I found in the woods. 

 

It's all relative to what's relative to other relatives, possibly your/my/other's/our relatives.  Said relatives may or may not be firing backward in the direction of other relatives who may or may not be relatively overstuffed from Thanksgiving dinner.  Other relatives may or may not be emanating particles in all directions from the comfort of an overstuffed lounge chair.  And so on... And so forth... 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Mobile_BBQ

[il2crashesnfails]

20 hours ago, unreasonable said:

inertial frame of reference

 

actually learned a new thing today!