Turret gunners accuracy

[PatrickAWlson]

On 9/24/2021 at 12:17 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

Except about half of the LW planes shot down were by US gunners in western Europe air war. They were not effective as expected, as in to prevent bomber causalities and not needing escorts, but they were effective otherwise. Just not superhuman as they are in certain scenarios in-game.

 

There are several factors at play here, some of which being actual areas defensive guns cover, type gunsights used and defensive gun caliber - the latter where US bombers had the advantage. 

 

Spot on.  Eight people per plane firing as many as 12 machine guns at a time.  A 54 plane box is firing 650 .50 calibers.   That's a lot of lead in the air.  Still, it's mostly badly aimed lead using manual sighting against targets flying at over 350 MPH.

 

I have often wondered about the value of side gunners.  Their field of view kind of stank given that most passes were between 11 and 1 or 5 and 7.  When they did spot an enemy fighter the movement of their plane, combined with the movement of the target, combined with the need to swivel a heavy .50 MG, combined with the brief time the target was in their sights, makes me wonder how they hit anything.,

[[DBS]Browning]

3 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I have often wondered about the value of side gunners.  

 

I suspect that the game is a good indicator of how useless they are for shooting down planes. 

 

However, they have other uses. 

.

They deter the enemy from attacking from the side. If the side was the only place without guns, the enemy might attack the side more. By deterring this with side gunners, the enemy is more likely to attack elsewhere, such as the six o'clock, so the side gunners indirectly make the other guns more effective. 

 

They provide a morale boost to the crew. No one likes to feel like they have a weak spot, especially if they think the enemy is likely to exploit it. 

 

They allow for some extra crew to spare in the event of a death, injury, fire or other problem, or more general assistance, such as fuel or radio management. 

 

I'm sure there are other reasons, alrhough I'm not convinced they are worth the extra weight. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

IIRC late in the war when it was expected not to be engaged as often, they left the waist gunners on the ground (probably the guns too). Typing from memory here, so don't quote me on that.

Edited September 25, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I suspect that the game is a good indicator of how useless they are for shooting down planes. 

 

However, they have other uses. 

 

They deter the enemy from attacking from the side. If the side was the only place without guns, the enemy might attack the side more. By deterring this with side gunners, the enemy is more likely to attack elsewhere, such as the six o'clock, so the side gunners indirectly make the other guns more effective.

 

I think if flank attacks were practical, the Germans would've made that their preferred attack form, and not the 12 o'clock high.

 

If there had been a way to accurately intercept bomber formations from a near-perfect 9 or 3 o'clock (high) approach, thereby reducing potential return fire to only the dorsal turret and waist guns, that would theoretically be superior to the head-on attack; mainly in reducing the high rate of closure on the target while still being difficult for defenders to hit.

 

However, not only would that kind of intercept course take good piloting (estimating intercept timing and trajectory), it would also take decent enough gunnery to lead the target properly. Both talents would be in short enough supply up to 1943, and practically non-existent after '44.

 

For the average pilot, the only practical way to attack a bomber is from either dead ahead or dead astern. Since the latter is slightly more suicidal than the former, the Germans went with frontal attacks. I use German tactics as the gold standard of how to combat enemy bomber formations, since they had the most opportunity, and the greatest need, to combat large formations of heavy bombers. Meaning: if they couldn't figure out a better way to bring bombers down, then no one else would either.

 

The Japanese are the next obvious candidates; but since they lacked both the numbers and the performance of German planes, their tactics were more along the lines of doing the best they could within severe limitations. They didn't really have the luxury of being able to intercept bomber formations at will, under favorable conditions, as the Germans briefly had at times during 1943. Lack of radar and defense organization were the other main impediments to Japanese air defense, besides their small numbers of home defense fighters and mostly inadequate top speeds.

 

So, very long story short: no, I don't think waist gunners were effective in their specific defensive role; given the low probability of successful flank attacks to begin with.

 

That said, they did provide an extra gun firing mostly blindly into the air around a bomber formation, and every visible tracer moving around the German fighters was that much more intimidating, especially to inexperienced pilots.

 

In that sense, I would say they had some value. But I would wager the lion's share of gunner kills came from the dorsal turret and the tail position.

Edited September 26, 2021 by oc2209

[oc2209]

Did a few quick tests with the new gunner AI. All on Ace level.

 

These are the results:

 

109G-6 Late vs 4xB-25s:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The above attack approach is what I consider pretty good. I always feel more aerobatic in a 109 than I do in a Focke-Wulf, hence the more elaborate maneuver to get into position. In the following clips, I pretty much just plow into the formations without caring about being shot.

 

Fw-190 vs 8xB-25s:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Fw-190 vs 8xPe-2s:

 

Spoiler

 

 

My overall verdict is that the AI isn't nearly as accurate as it was. But it's still plenty dangerous when you hang your ass out in front of it. So, all in all, pretty reasonable. I'll try going against German planes next.

[oc2209]

The German MG 81z is still problematic in the hands of AI.

 

Here's my Spit vs Ju-88 attempt:

 

Spoiler

 

 

My gunnery isn't impressive in either of these clips, but that's beside the point. I can't quite tell which Ju-88 got me, but it had to be one that was pretty damn far away regardless.

 

Even though I should have cut the clip after I was heavily wounded, I decided to leave my escape method for others to see, just for fun. If you're ever near-dead, I've found the only way you can successfully bail out is to stall the plane and fall out of the cockpit. Otherwise you just get stuck in the plane and crash.

 

Here's the P-47 vs He-111 attempt:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I was much luckier in the '47, especially considering how lazy my maneuvers were.

[migmadmarine]

Yea, my impression currently is the rate at witch and sorts of shot that the AI lands now feels pretty good, but the worst of the wild shots are far more unreasonable than in the past, so the gunner will sometimes just fire at empty air in a way that feels pretty unconvincing. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

@oc2209 I don't see a problem with German MG 81. You were pretty much stationary during some maneuvers there.

 

B-25s weren't an issue before the patch for me if using proper tactics. Also they should be able to "reach" longer due to .50s.

 

Last but not least, most of this SP testing doesn't show their maximum accuracy since all AI bombers are constantly maneuvering and thus throwing off gunner's aim.

 

Side attacks can be as dangerous as head on attacks if done properly:

 

 

 

 

Some people think that the concept of "sitting on a bomber's 6OC" should be a valid tactic. No, the only valid tactic there is to get shot down.

 

Just like the video above show, there is much more to attacking a bomber than approaching it from 6OC. Especially if attacking a bomber formation.

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

@oc2209 I don't see a problem with German MG 81. You were pretty much stationary during some maneuvers there.

 

 

In the Spit, I was stationary... at between 400-500m from the nearest Ju-88.

 

So yeah, I do see being heavily wounded at that range by an extremely accurate burst as problematic.

 

12 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Some people think that the concept of "sitting on a bomber's 6OC" should be a valid tactic. No, the only valid tactic there is to get shot down.

 

Just like the video above show, there is much more to attacking a bomber than approaching it from 6OC. Especially if attacking a bomber formation.

 

 

The purpose of my clips wasn't to show proper attack technique (as the 109 recording was the only one I attempted an evasive approach with), but rather to test the gunner accuracy.

 

Overall accuracy is reduced at Ace level, but there are still instances where it's capable of its old ability to get exceedingly accurate bursts at long range, even with light machine guns.

 

The reason why I say the MG 81z is a problem is that there's no way an LMG should be more dangerous to approach than twin .50s, and yet that is what we see here. The AI is clearly more capable at aiming the hand-held LMG than it is with the turret-mounted .50s. Which, again, is somewhat antithetical to what we know of reality.

[[DBS]TH0R]

41 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The reason why I say the MG 81z is a problem is that there's no way an LMG should be more dangerous to approach than twin .50s, and yet that is what we see here. The AI is clearly more capable at aiming the hand-held LMG than it is with the turret-mounted .50s. Which, again, is somewhat antithetical to what we know of reality.

 

In that context, yes - .50s should be more lethal and reaching further. Have you tried He-111H-16 with its 20mm in comparison?

[oc2209]

37 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

In that context, yes - .50s should be more lethal and reaching further. Have you tried He-111H-16 with its 20mm in comparison?

 

I haven't done any frontal attacks versus the H-16, no. I gave its other gunners plenty of opportunities to hit me in the P-47 clip, though.

 

I just made this Tempest vs Ju-88 recording to test the difference between the upper Ju-88's gun accuracy and the lower (the MG 81z in the ventral tray). Sure enough, when I assiduously avoid getting beneath the Ju-88s, I was hit much less often:

 

Spoiler

 

 

At the end of the clip I totally botch my attack, which leaves me exposed to the Ju-88's upper gunner for too long, and at too close a range. He gets in a good burst that wounds me at 90m. I consider that perfectly plausible. But otherwise I'm virtually unhittable against the upper gunners when I keep my distance. Which I also think is realistic.

 

So far, with multiple tests, I've only been truly pasted by the MG 81z once. So it's not happening nearly as often as it was.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

It seems to me that the Flak has been reduced in accuracy as well, not just the aircraft gunners. There's a mission I'm making that I repeatedly had to reduce the Flak density of to make it even survivable, but after the update I'm barely hit.

 

Nice!

[[DBS]Browning]

I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the aircraft gunners and flak gunners share a good deal of code.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

@CountZero They(gunners) do not need to be idiots. Just more believeable than we have now. No high angle high speed attacks resulting in snapshots between your eyes etc. Or changing guns from side to side in a split second. Or all seeing sphere of vision. You name it.

 

A lone bomber would be a relatively easy prey for prowling fighters, even a single one. The strength is in numbers, not in solo flying deathstars. And even in formations life was not peachy. 

 

TL;DR Gunners should be taken in account when engaging, but survivable by using surprise attacks or angles etc.

[[DBS]TH0R]

7 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

A lone bomber would be a relatively easy prey for prowling fighters, even a single one. The strength is in numbers, not in solo flying deathstars. And even in formations life was not peachy.

 

Lets not take this statement as written in stone. It still depends on proper approach and attack patterns, and of course - gunner skill level. A single bomber (e.g. B-17G) should be capable of downing a fighter or two if they decide to approach it straight and level without any evasive maneuvers. Especially if engaged by single fighter at the time.

[CountZero]

On 9/28/2021 at 11:33 AM, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

@CountZero They(gunners) do not need to be idiots. Just more believeable than we have now. No high angle high speed attacks resulting in snapshots between your eyes etc. Or changing guns from side to side in a split second. Or all seeing sphere of vision. You name it.

 

A lone bomber would be a relatively easy prey for prowling fighters, even a single one. The strength is in numbers, not in solo flying deathstars. And even in formations life was not peachy. 

 

TL;DR Gunners should be taken in account when engaging, but survivable by using surprise attacks or angles etc.

From what  i see online small number of bomber players that play, play alone or at top in pairs, there is few times bomber players show up and do small formations of less then 10. This is nothing compared to what you would have in real ww2 most of times. So if they start making ai gunners even more to likings of fighter players, i dont see any reson for bomber players to take bombers, they will be taking fighters with bombs to do objectives, and that will resolt in no more bomber airplanes in game as no one will be using bombers. My opinon is leve ace skill as its is, and any more adjustments to make ai gunners to likings of fighter players do to normal or veteran ai skill, so mission maker have option of using stupid ai for SP and ace for MP if he wonts bomber players. If fighter player dont risk of getting hurt when he attacks single bomber in MP (because MP cant be historical for bombers) there will be no bomber players and only time you gona se bomber is once or twice a month when bomer group have its meating, and even they gona be bored by getting shoot down before they even regroup and head to trget by overwhelming number of fighters.

Edited September 29, 2021 by CountZero

[Luftschiff]

Again, as someone who flies bombers extensively, usually in pairs or triples - we don't want them to be more stupid, or necessarily less accurate. 

Read the thread properly, the issues were identified several times and illustrated with animations and bullet points.

 

The key issue is to have them behave within the laws of physics, like AI pilots do. No more pinpoint accuracy while spinning to their death in a stricken plane subjected to 8G, no more telepathic link that allows gunners to trade off targets to guns who cannot even see the supposed enemy. The changed made in the patch sound like a wonderful start to a problem that's plagued the game for years. 

 

Time will tell if it's enough, or even too much - but you're not only making a mountain out of a mole hill, the mole hill is made from straw. 

That said, I do wish flying heavies was more feasible than it currently is. Between the bomb nerf, increased allied firepower and 'hidden' objectives on many servers, it's gotten very difficult to find a good use case over 110's or P47's. But that's not the issue here.