how to reduce tail gunners from damaging aircraft?

[il2crashesnfails]

I keep getting heavily damaged from tail gunners.
I posted a video in the video section on how I do it.

can I get some tips on how some of the more experienced deal with it?

Do you have to keep speed way up?

Edited November 19, 2018 by il2crashesnfails

[Legioneod]

Don't stay behind them for so long, do hit and run attacks, and try to come from an angle that the gunner can't see.

Basically try to come in from the least defended section of the bomber (usually the front or underneath) and just hit and run then come back for another attack, never sit behind or in range of the gunners.

[EAF19_Marsh]

For something like a Stuka or IL-2 I tend towards a low 4-5 o'clock coming in fast with a lead pursuit so that you do not have to 'turn' with the bomber but can get in your 1-2 second burst along its fuselage and exit underneath it.

 

As a rule of thumb, I'd say 100kph overtaking speed is probably minimum for any attack aft of the 3-9 line.

[CrazyDuck]

Yeah, it's tricky, especially if you are dealing with bombers in a fighter with only small speed advantage (like I-16 vs Ju 88).

 

Of course it's always best to attack either headon or from high 3/9 position and to keep your energy advantage over the bombers as high as possible - but while that works fine in a sterile, set up environment, it often fails in real mission scenarios. Why? Primarily because of 2 reasons:

 

1. Firstly you have to take off and climb to intercept the bombers, and

2. You have to shoot the bomber down before he reaches the target and releases the bombs.

 

These two factors often force you to attack from unfavourable angles (dead 6) since you simply have no time to set up a perfect approach (= to overtake the bombers and attack them headon, or to climb sufficiently above the bombers). And we haven't even considered the escort fighters...

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by CrazyDuck

[il2crashesnfails]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Don't stay behind them for so long, do hit and run attacks, and try to come from an angle that the gunner can't see.

Basically try to come in from the least defended section of the bomber (usually the front or underneath) and just hit and run then come back for another attack, never sit behind or in range of the gunners.

 

Yeah, no doubt I stay for too long.

 

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

For something like a Stuka or IL-2 I tend towards a low 4-5 o'clock coming in fast with a lead pursuit so that you do not have to 'turn' with the bomber but can get in your 1-2 second burst along its fuselage and exit underneath it.

 

As a rule of thumb, I'd say 100kph overtaking speed is probably minimum for any attack aft of the 3-9 line.

 

Seems like I'm attacking too slow and from wrong angles!

[Willy__]

Shoot and kill the gunners. Otherwise its a dice game, you can do passes with +300kph of speed difference and sometimes you will still be hit.

[Aap]

4 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

Of course it's always best to attack either headon ...

 

Head-ons were indeed used to attack heavy bomber formations in WWII, but with the bombers we have in this game, it is almost never the best option. All bombers in this game have forward firing weapons and in case of ground attack planes they often have bigger firepower than fighters, so not only would you expose yourself to enemy fire, you would also be outgunned in a head-on approach. Speaking of the Stukas in this video, they have 2 x 7,92 mm nose mounted guns compared to one 7,92 mm rear gun, so it does not improve your chances to seek head-on attacks.

[CrazyDuck]

4 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Head-ons were indeed used to attack heavy bomber formations in WWII, but with the bombers we have in this game, it is almost never the best option. All bombers in this game have forward firing weapons and in case of ground attack planes they often have bigger firepower than fighters, so not only would you expose yourself to enemy fire, you would also be outgunned in a head-on approach. Speaking of the Stukas in this video, they have 2 x 7,92 mm nose mounted guns compared to one 7,92 mm rear gun, so it does not improve your chances to seek head-on attacks.

 

As primarily IL-2 pilot I know precisely what you are talking about, since I'm still astounded how many pilots online attempt a headon with the IL-2. Leaving CAS planes and Stukas aside, versus level flying (formation of) twin-engine medium bombers, headon works best by far - at least in my experience. I virtually never get hit by their frontal turrets while inflicting serious damage either on engines, cockpit or wing fuel tanks from the front.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Speed and your relative direction versus the gunners are the two factors that I tend to think about when approaching a bomber. A close third is the firing arcs of the gunners.

 

Basically you want to approach with the kind of speed that minimizes your time spent near the gunners along a trajectory that makes it difficult to get the precise deflection angle for them to attack you with. Come in from high or low and at a 45 degree angle and make your gun run only in the last few seconds is what I recommend. No attack against a small bomber formation with a half dozen guns firing at you is foolproof... but it does help minimize your chances of damage.

 

Choosing a type of aircraft that is better suited for the job helps too. A FW190 with armored glass (especially the A-8 version) for example is purpose built for bomber interception. Aircraft like the Bf109 too can at least give a slightly better chance by using armored glass windscreen (on the F-4 and F-2) and gunpods to boost available firepower. These come with compromises.

 

For the Allied side there are less purpose built types for bomber intercept although you can certainly try and make yourself better suited in a few examples. If you're flying a I-16... hopefully you've got the 20mm ShVAK cannons. The MiG-3 with UB or ShVAK modifications boosts firepower considerably (and the UB 12.7mm work better in some ways because of their flatter trajectory). The La-5 is pretty good at bomber intercepts thanks to its firepower and its radial engine that provides a little protection.

[il2crashesnfails]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Speed and your relative direction versus the gunners are the two factors that I tend to think about when approaching a bomber. A close third is the firing arcs of the gunners.

 

Basically you want to approach with the kind of speed that minimizes your time spent near the gunners along a trajectory that makes it difficult to get the precise deflection angle for them to attack you with. Come in from high or low and at a 45 degree angle and make your gun run only in the last few seconds is what I recommend. No attack against a small bomber formation with a half dozen guns firing at you is foolproof... but it does help minimize your chances of damage.

 

Choosing a type of aircraft that is better suited for the job helps too. A FW190 with armored glass (especially the A-8 version) for example is purpose built for bomber interception. Aircraft like the Bf109 too can at least give a slightly better chance by using armored glass windscreen (on the F-4 and F-2) and gunpods to boost available firepower. These come with compromises.

 

For the Allied side there are less purpose built types for bomber intercept although you can certainly try and make yourself better suited in a few examples. If you're flying a I-16... hopefully you've got the 20mm ShVAK cannons. The MiG-3 with UB or ShVAK modifications boosts firepower considerably (and the UB 12.7mm work better in some ways because of their flatter trajectory). The La-5 is pretty good at bomber intercepts thanks to its firepower and its radial engine that provides a little protection.

 

ok speed and direction.

I was going way too slow and from wrong attack point

[Ehret]

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

For the Allied side there are less purpose built types for bomber intercept although you can certainly try and make yourself better suited in a few examples.

 

The P-39 is the very definition of a bomber interceptor. If the 37mm M4 is good for something it's shooting at big planes. Your pilot is well armored in the Airacobra - not only you have the usual front plates and glass but the nose is armored too to protect the gearbox. (will add to pilot safety as well)

 

The Kittyhawk will do fine as a bomber interceptor too; 6x heavy machine-guns are capable enough and the whole air-frame is robust to withstand some hits.

 

Finally, the Spitfire with good climb and with dual 20mm Hispanos - if you land a single burst the target is done, basically.

 

39 minutes ago, il2crashesnfails said:

ok speed and direction.

I was going way too slow and from wrong attack point

 

The most important speed is the angular velocity in the relation to the target. You want approach in an arc like maneuver and extend hiding under target's wing.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Ehret

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

The P-39 is the very definition of a bomber interceptor. If the 37mm M4 is good for something it's shooting at big planes. Your pilot is well armored in the Airacobra - not only you have the usual front plates and glass but the nose is armored too to protect the gearbox. (will add to pilot safety as well)

 

The Kittyhawk will do fine as a bomber interceptor too; 6x heavy machine-guns are capable enough and the whole air-frame is robust to withstand some hits.

  

Finally, the Spitfire with good climb and with dual 20mm Hispanos - if you land a single burst the target is done, basically. 

  

 

The most important speed is the angular velocity in the relation to the target. You want approach in an arc like maneuver and extend hiding under target's wing.

 

I always forget about the P-39... time to change that. Yes, that 37mm is absolutely idea for wrecking bombers! (So is the 37mm option on the LaGG-3 for that matter)

Edited November 20, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive