russian bombers

[[DBS]Browning]

7 minutes ago, imaca said:

But controlling a hand held gun with slipstream and gforce to contend with in real life would be much more difficult than moving a mouse. That's why power operated gun turrets were invented.

Power turrets where mostly an adaptation to allow for mounting several guns in one turret. I can't think of any powered turrets that only housed one machine gun. If such a turret existed, it must be rare. 

However, I don't think that takes away from the point you where making, which is a good one!

Perhaps it is the case that gunnery is to easy for human players. I don't know if that is true and I can't think of a good way to find out, but if it is true and if when gunnery was made harder for humans, the AI started to out perform us, then certainly they should be brought back in line with human players. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

I am not so sure the argument about turrets is necessarily valid.  Turrets are not just for putting bigger guns on.  Sometimes turrets were fitted just to allow a better arc of fire than something swivelling on a fixed axle while retaining the same guns and often stayed unpowered. The powered versions were  installed to handle the momentum of swinging heavier guns.  It is true that the PE2s upper guns were affected by the slipstream when at 90 degrees to the fuselage, hence the 'bunny ears' to compensate, but would the single ventral gun facing backwards with a more limited arc of fire have been so affected by the slipstream?  As previously noted, most low attacks are very simple straight low-6 approaches needed very little movement on the gunners part to brings the gun to bear on the target.   Obviously I have no real life experience but it 'feels'  to me that while trying to swing a gun through 180 degrees in a 400kph wind would be difficult,  dipping a single narrow barrel down 20 degrees with no sideways deviation and holding it steady on what is a stationary or slow moving target would be a lot easier.    Just my uneducated feeling.

 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Goof of you to bring this up.

 

Let´s do a little deep dive into this,

 

1.Pe was a shared kill

2. He by himself

3. By himself but got shot down

 

It took a total of 200 so around 70 hits per pe2 with a fw 190 which has 2 20 mils (and rember one is shared)

A rough estimate and a conservative one would be that around 1/3 of the bullet hits are Minen the other 2/3 7.92

 

So it takes around 25 - 20 mil hits to down a pe2.... that sounds more like a b17.

 

Here is an example of how many hits it takes to down a Ju88

 

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/4115341/?tour=46 17 hit total

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/4102046/?tour=46 15 hits

 

You also want to know how many Gunners were killed? 2!.... yeah ?

 

 

OMG what a weard concept not all bombers can be shoot down by same amount of bulets lol

 And after what number of hits he would be destroyed, but player was attacking it just to confirm kill and prevent it to reach objective as in game you dont care and dont try to save your crew when your just leaking fuel from one pass, in game you go and dive on target even when your on fire. Comparing real life to online game behavior of bombers is not accurate. Online if you can fly no mather how hard you damaged youll still be going to target, in real if you get hit once youll brake home, or even bail.

 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

5 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

OMG what a weard concept not all bombers can be shoot down by same amount of bulets lol

 

Already thought that the (weired) concept of averages was a little too complicated for you....

Edited March 15, 2019 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Leon_Portier]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

[...]Do a simple test, as I have, and experiment offline with both the PE2 and the JU88 using both stupid 6 attacks and safe slashing flank attacks.    You will then see that both are dangerous if not attacked sensibly but both *can* be shot down from 6 if you are happy to lose your engine and both can be shot down easily & quickly using sensible tactics.  You will also see that the better armour and heavier rear gun favours the PE2 in these encounters but it is not out of proportion when you consider the advantages the PE2 had in real life.

I can second this. Using QMB to fight both Ju88 and PE2s, all without bombs, in a Lagg. Concluding that the big boys are not mere target drones but mean serious business.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

If such a turret existed, it must be rare. 

Avenger had it, I think it was restricted by weight and space , Blenheim early too, nativity made them believe that the plane could outrun fighters

[EAF19_Marsh]

22 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

In my limited experience using the lower gunner  it always seemed much easier to get kills.  People attacking from below come in quite straight so they can pull up and rake you as they pass behind and above you.   It makes it a very easy gun solution because you just aim in front of them and adjust backwards and you cannot miss filling the engine and cockpit area with concentrated fire.  It is far easier than shooting someone making a dead six attack.

 

Sure, like most of these things at leat half the issue is with the attacking pilot. Just that the mounting itself should - IRL - limit the accuracy given it being hand-operated in a cramped position and you are fighting the slipstream etc.

[[DBS]Browning]

 

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Like you, I have no experience firing from planes and even if I did, I doubt the subjective experience could be compared to the sim in a meaningful way. 

I also agree that it makes intuitive sense that some things would be easier and other things harder. 

I suspect the biggest factor is the difference in the mind of a person who is actually fighting for his life. That is certainly soothing we can't simulate. 

Many of the factors that might make gunnery in bombers harder in real life also apply to the gunnery of fighters as well. Perhaps people should be wary about requesting bomber gunnery to be made harder, else they might find that the same standard is applied to fighter gunnery as well. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by [DBS]Browning

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Perhaps I need to campaign that the  JU88 is obviously too good because most Red Pilots would rather attack a JU52

 

Yet there are plenty of records for exactly this, the JU52 being vulnerable. Yet there are none of the absolute superiority of the pe2. I tihnk you are slowly cathing on to my point

[356thFS_Melonfish]

I can't believe this thread is already on it's third page?

are you guys seriously going to just keep arguing in circles?

 

if your attacks don't work, change tactics.

 

[CountZero]

4xpe2 attacked 3xdestroyed, 1 shared, no damage taken, only damage he has is from hiting frendly objects while attacking bombers. Oh and look 3 gunners killed  from them
http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/log/4133462/?tour=46

 

so how come some can do it and most cant

 

what more to ask for, 5-6 7 pe-2s to destroy with one 190,

just attack them correctly and no problem, you can get hit from time to time by one or two lucky hits like on any bomber as ai is set to ace, but like famos theologians said, "get gud and stop blaim the game".

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

4 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

4xpe2 attacked 3xdestroyed, 1 shared, no damage taken, only damage he has is from hiting frendly objects while attacking bombers. Oh and look 3 gunners killed  from them

 

You set a new record at being wrong!

4 Pe2s 2 shared. Shots hit 210

so again around 70 hit for each pe2 ? and appr 20 MG

 

thanks for confirming my theory!

9 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

so how come some can do it and most cant

 

Who said it could not be done? You dont really understand the point of the discussion right?

[CountZero]

23 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

You set a new record at being wrong!

4 Pe2s 2 shared. Shots hit 210

so again around 70 hit for each pe2 ? and appr 20 MG

 

thanks for confirming my theory!

 

Who said it could not be done? You dont really understand the point of the discussion right?

lol

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/4133462/?tour=46

i see 3, buy new glases

 

Yes it can be done when you know how, but most dont know so they just sit on enemy 6 and blaim devs when they get shoot down 

[CrazyDuck]

Anecdotes mean nothing.

Objective, thorough tests mean something.

 

Yet people provide the former abundantly, but no hero in sight to provide the latter.

[CountZero]

another one, 4 pe2 attacked 3 destroyed got even gunners killed, not even hit by them, 109, 100 hits

( whole mission in 90min,4 sorties with 109, he shoot down 12 airplanes, 6xope2, 2xil-2, 2xyak1, 1xlagg3 and 1xi16, and didnt even get hit by ace gunners on oPe-2s gunners, better ask guy for tips then complain about no problem, NBSI guys clearly know what they are doing and how to deal with oPe-2 )

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/log/4133544/?tour=46

 

but its imposible, thuse pe-2s are just to op ?

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Royal_Flight]

8 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Already thought that the (weired) concept of averages was a little too complicated for you....

 

If you’re going to criticise someone’s spelling, at least spell the word properly yourself. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

2 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

If you’re going to criticise someone’s spelling,

 

aha ok, so where exactly did I do that, thinking of it, I do criticize your reading skills

Edited March 15, 2019 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[gimpy117]

I find it to be hit and miss, sometimes my IL2 can take loads of damage and keep going, other times one good shot does it. I think a lot of it is due to gunnery and luck. 

[[DBS]Browning]

On 3/14/2019 at 6:37 PM, [DBS]Browning said:

It's durability vs other planes is something that can be tested experimentally.

If we set some AI planes against player controlled bombers flying at the same speed with guns disabled, then the average time taken by the AI to shoot them down over 10 or more runs should give a reasonable measure of durability without introducing any human bias. 

I don't have time to do this until Sunday however, so perhaps someone else would like to?

 

OK, I had time to run this test. I only ran it a total of 8 times per plane and I only compared the Pe2 against the Ju88 (I would have liked to do the A20, but I don't own it) so it is a small sample size.

 

The Pe2 took an average time of 4min 8sec to be shot down, whilst the Ju88 took an average of 2min 53sec to be shot down.

 

It does look like the Pe2 is tougher than the Ju88! I'm surprised by the result.

[56RAF_Roblex]

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

OK, I had time to run this test. I only ran it a total of 8 times per plane and I only compared the Pe2 against the Ju88 (I would have liked to do the A20, but I don't own it) so it is a small sample size.

 

The Pe2 took an average time of 4min 8sec to be shot down, whilst the Ju88 took an average of 2min 53sec to be shot down.

 

It does look like the Pe2 is tougher than the Ju88! I'm surprised by the result.

 

In what way were you surprised?   We know the PE2 is supposed to be tougher, that is historical fact,  but do you think the extra 1:15 was too long or too short?    Do you have the stats for *how* they died?   I would expect the JU88 to have more pilot deaths than the PE2 as the crew compartment in the PE2 was armoured .  Also the actual structure was stronger so kills from taking wings off should be fewer on the PE2.   Engines should be much the same and I would be surprised if you saw a difference in engine fires except for the fact that the attacks were random and ten attacks is not enough to normalise them.   I can't comment on what damage follows engine fires on each.  I know the He111 rarely survived an engine fire as it ignited the fuel tank in the wing root but I don't know if the PE2 or JU88 had a similar weakness.

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by 56RAF_Roblex

[[DBS]Browning]

It's not really appropriate to look at the cause of death in the tests because there is too much of a difference between the point at which the plane could no longer RTB over any distance, and the point at which the the plane actually came off level stab and crashed. 

Even when the plane is severely crippled and can not fly for much longer, the AI will keep shooting until something catastrophic happens so wing breaks, PKs, fire etc. will be over represented in the results whilst fuel leaks will never make an appearance.

There are other ways to test this that I may try in the future....some kind of flak gauntlet perhaps?

 

That said, The Ju88 most often went down after it's damaged engines could no longer produce enough power to stay level. I didn't see that happen in the Pe2 nearly as much. That may be in part due to the Ju88's higher stall speed. Both planes where flying at throttle settings that produced an undamaged speed of 320-330kph in the tests and I didn't adjust the throttle to compensate for engine damage.

Edited March 17, 2019 by [DBS]Browning

[Mac_Messer]

On 3/15/2019 at 11:49 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Sure, like most of these things at leat half the issue is with the attacking pilot. Just that the mounting itself should - IRL - limit the accuracy given it being hand-operated in a cramped position and you are fighting the slipstream etc.

That`s half the story. What about AI planes` gunners firing when engaged in high G maneuvers? You can do a defensive circle with IL2/Pe2 while pulling the stick all the way and still your AI gunners will do the job just fine.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

On 3/18/2019 at 3:13 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

In what way were you surprised?   We know the PE2 is supposed to be tougher, that is historical fact,  

 

 

I’m interested to know about the Pe2 airframe and why it was so tough. It’s a very broad statement to claim as historical fact. What was it about the airframe’s design that made it durable compared to others?

 

RGDS

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bilbo_Baggins

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

OK. I say the PE2 is supposed to be 'tougher' (than the  JU88) and you challenge me to explain how I can claim the PE2 was 'so incredibly tough' .   I don't think we have a common base for intelligent discussion here ?     You just continue to make up imaginary conversations then argue against them.  I am no longer needed and will not be drawn in again.  Bye.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

OK. I say the PE2 is supposed to be 'tougher' (than the  JU88) and you challenge me to explain how I can claim the PE2 was 'so incredibly tough' .   I don't think we have a common base for intelligent discussion here ?     You just continue to make up imaginary conversations then argue against them.  I am no longer needed and will not be drawn in again.  Bye.

 

Perhaps you’ve been mistaken for someone else. I just came in here looking to learn about the airframe since it sounded like you might know something.

 

For example, I am interested to know if the rear gunner compartment has what kind of an armoured bulkhead in that thin aft part of the fuselage and if it differed between early and later series. When inside as gunner it is hard to tell. 

 

Can we not have a discussion about these design facets of this airframe and what gave it it’s resilience? I have seen the armour and airframe schematics of the Il-2 which was interesting, however such details about the PE-2 I haven’t come across.

 

RGDS

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Haza]

On 3/13/2019 at 10:58 PM, Grancesc said:

If you have hit a Pe-2 with your cannons hard, then it will continue to fly for a long time. The outline of the hit bomber emitting thick smoke will be hardly visible to you as the attacking fighter. Nevertheless, the rear gunner will hit you with sniper precision despite the smoke and hard evasive maneuvers of the bomber. How can it be that the gunner sees his target und the fighter not? Radar-controlled gun turrets?

 

I agree with all the people who think the AI gunner precision and the toughness in the Pe-2 are unrealistically modeled in this sim. In contrast, other bombers behave realistically in this regard. For me this is a nuisance.

 

I think perhaps the Russian's had invented IR sights and then kept very quiet!  However, it is getting to the stage where I'm now looking forward to Bodenplatte and BOP as I'm over the amazing abilities of gunners.  I would be interested to see how many PK's the Pe-2 gets over other aircraft, including fighters!

 

[9./JG54_GERMANWOLF]

pe aim biot

[Royal_Flight]

17 hours ago, 9./JG54_GermanWolf said:

pe aim biot

 

You're welcome to wing up with me the next time I take a Pe-2 on a 90+ km round trip to hit a target way behind the lines and try to get home without being intercepted. 

[CountZero]

29 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

You're welcome to wing up with me the next time I take a Pe-2 on a 90+ km round trip to hit a target way behind the lines and try to get home without being intercepted. 

i dont think he ever try pe2 or have any intention to do so, hes mined is set its all conspiracy ugenst the axis ?

[Royal_Flight]

9 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

i dont think he ever try pe2 or have any intention to do so, hes mined is set its all conspiracy ugenst the axis ?

 

Well he’s welcome then to join me in a Ju 88. 

Similar experience but even more of an eye-opener on how the perception of gunners is about as inaccurate as the gunners themselves generally are. 

[JG7_RudeRaptor]

Does the Pe, Ju, IL2, etc.... Ever run out of ammo while under Ai control ??

[CountZero]

24 minutes ago, JG7_RudeRaptor said:

Does the Pe, Ju, IL2, etc.... Ever run out of ammo while under Ai control ??

Yes

[Haza]

I think from my experience is that most Pe-2 players will tree hug to the target and as such the ability to take diving attacks etc is removed and you end up in a chasing game then means you end up on the 6.  I also note, that the tree top players are those usually on servers where the GPS is turn on. In addition, when there is no GPS, most players need to climb to be able to navigate and as such the whole dynamics of the game changes and you see less suicide type actions such as base vultching.

 

That said, most players will complain if the GPS is turned off, yet will also complain if their aircraft is not historically modeled etc, so not sure why you want a true representation of a WW2 aircraft/game, then expect to use GPS. I'm really hopeful that with Bodenplatte, perhaps we will see newer servers and indeed with Bodenplatte there will perhaps be less bombers and thankfully no Pe-2's, so the future is looking brighter already with Bodenplatte.  

 

Regards

19 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

You're welcome to wing up with me the next time I take a Pe-2 on a 90+ km round trip to hit a target way behind the lines and try to get home without being intercepted. 

 

I'm sure you will get intercepted, while taking down a few 109s, but I bet you get home for tea and medals!