Pilot killed without being hit.

[354thFG_Rails]

You're seriously arguing that these pilots are so good, they just shoot one bullet every time to get the pilot kill? Give me a break. Again it's a battery of machine guns, shooting out hundreds of rounds a second. One is going to find it's mark.

[Yogiflight]

19 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

Again it's a battery of machine guns, shooting out hundreds of rounds a second.

You might want to rethink this statement.

[SCG_motoadve]

43 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

Again it's a battery of machine guns, shooting out hundreds of rounds a second. One is going to find it's mark.

? might be close to 8 or 10 rounds per second, not hundreds.

Yes one bullet can find its mark and kill the pilot, but the very first bullet? time after time again? Just think about what are the chances.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

37 minutes ago, dogefighter said:

Yeah...and the disturbing thing is that some of them are testers

It's also disturbing that we get so many argumentum ad hominem posts.

[purK]

Some of you are clearly avoiding some very specific facts in favor of your own opinions though, and that's not a good thing.

6x M2 .50 cals firing at once can put out 80+ rounds per second, the chances of your pilot getting hit in that first burst are pretty damn high.

[No_Face]

20 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

the chances of your pilot getting hit in that first burst are pretty damn high.

That's right.

 

But is that the basic premise of this topic?

 

I know I'm using a translator to understand the English but it seems to me that the OP, talks about the pilot being killed when the bullets were not directed at him.

(The title of the topic being: Pilot killed without being hit.)

He also talks about machine gunners having lost a lot of effectiveness (although I think everyone agrees that they used to be far too effective).

 

It is only in the course of the messages that there started to be some off-topic remarks, talking about .50s, armor, that we saw messages that looked more like personal attacks, talking about the too frequent explosions etc.

 

Why, instead of saying "you're bad", "you're wrong", "I never liked you anyway!" or whatever, shouldn't we try to see whether or not the pilot dies where he shouldn't have.

The OP has made the track available (useless because it's incomplete, you need 2 or 3 files I think to be able to read the replays)
 

But we can still take information: Did it happen in single or multiplayer?
Have other players had the same experience recently?
If so, which planes shot at them?

Etc.
 

Maybe it's just a lag/netcode issue, maybe it's just an impression, but maybe there's a bug in the game.
 

EDIT : For example, instead of saying (I'm slightly distorting your words): "the plane shoots 80 bullets per second, it's normal to be killed instantly", to say: "the plane shoots 80 bullets per second, it's not all tracer ammunition, that can explain why we don't see on the replay the bullet that hit and killed the pilot" seems to be a bit more diplomatic.

EDIT 2 :Besides, the different statements in this topic are not necessarily incompatible:
-There may be hitbox problems
-It is possible that the planes explode too easily
-It could be that the gunners were too nerfed
-It may be that the .50's, while more effective than before, are still less effective than they should be because they don't have certain ammo belts.

Validating one of these sentences does not necessarily make the other sentences false.

Edited January 24, 2022 by No_Face

[6./ZG26_Custard]

25 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Some of you are clearly avoiding some very specific facts in favor of your own opinions though, and that's not a good thing.

Everyone is a little bias in their opinions, it’s human nature.  

The original post didn’t mention .50 cals. As Loke pointed out he has been getting instantly killed Many many more times than in previous builds and not just by .50 cals.

 Maybe that’s just more realistic and those flying larger ground attack aircraft were just taking advantage of a problem with the game? I don’t know?

What I do know is that 110’s P-38’s and the A-20’s don’t seem to be able to soak up very much damage and they explode very regularly. However, there is an added problem now of gunners not being able to hit the broadside of a barn. Again, this may be completely realistic?  This seems to be dependant on server-side settings but again I don’t know for sure.

I’m glad that the .50’s are shredding aircraft left right and centre but that’s not good if there are other issues with hitboxes or how some aircraft have their damage modelled.

This thread didn’t start out as a .50 cal thread but it turned into one and some folks just love to attack the person and not the argument.

I want things to be as accurate as possible given the limitations of a flight sim for allied and axis aircraft because despite what some people think, I fly both sides and have no agenda.   

 

Edit: The Devs have said they will look at damage modelling when they have time so I suppose we will have to wait and see?     

Edited January 24, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[purK]

What the OP experienced is absolutely a netcode thing, I've experienced it myself while viewing replays, what you see isn't always exactly what happened. We also can't see if the OP was hit with HE ammo also, which can cause pilot injuries even without a direct hit.

The topic of AP ammo and pilot kills was also brought up in this thread, so it became a relevant discussion.

For the record, I have not personally attacked or insulted anyone, or intended to. I posted only facts with proof, not opinions, insults, or bias.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Just now, Krupnski said:

For the record, I have not personally attacked or insulted anyone, or intended to. I posted only facts with proof, not opinions, insults, or bias.

I never said you did  

 

[purK]

21 minutes ago, No_Face said:

EDIT : For example, instead of saying (I'm slightly distorting your words): "the plane shoots 80 bullets per second, it's normal to be killed instantly", to say: "the plane shoots 80 bullets per second, it's not all tracer ammunition, that can explain why we don't see on the replay the bullet that hit and killed the pilot" seems to be a bit more diplomatic.

Nothing I have said was "undiplomatic" in any way. My comment about 6x .50s firing 80+ rounds per second was not specifically directed at the OP, but to show what they're capable of, and how your pilot is most certainly not safe from the initial burst of fire.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Krupnski

[No_Face]

3 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Nothing I have said was "undiplomatic" in any way. My comment about 6x .50s firing 80+ rounds per second was not specifically directed at the OP.

I took your sentence as an example because it was the last one posted, I used it to show how we can express our ideas without others taking these words as attacks. So that we can talk to each other but also listen to each other.

 

Just as I didn't target you when I talked about personal attacks.
If you took it personally, I'm sorry.

[purK]

9 minutes ago, No_Face said:

I took your sentence as an example because it was the last one posted, I used it to show how we can express our ideas without others taking these words as attacks. So that we can talk to each other but also listen to each other.

 

Just as I didn't target you when I talked about personal attacks.
If you took it personally, I'm sorry.

Still I don't quite understand how I became an example. Factual evidence should not be interpreted as an attack.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Krupnski

[Denum]

On 1/22/2022 at 10:23 AM, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

It seems more and more like Il-2 is being turned into an arcade game, rather than being a Combat Flight Simulator.
It's still completely wrong with the Hit box that each aircraft model has. If you look through the track file, you can clearly see that the Hurricane pilot is at no time close to hitting. Strangely enough, however, he ends up getting a pilot-kill.
One's ai rear-gunner who was probably a little too good before, he has now been replaced with Marty Feldman, can not hit jack shit, not even close too.
What happened to the G-Force effect? Were there too many fighter jockeys who cried?

Track file DOWNLOAD

 

 

Peeked your sorties this was the only one where I assume it was a PK that I could find. 

 

Far as I know the AP rounds don't have tracers and those will pretty much go through the entire plane. 

 

Judging from the angle of the circled shot I'd guess someone pulled up a hair and whistled a AP slug into the cockpit.

 

Just my interpretation of it. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Denum

[354thFG_Rails]

5 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

You might want to rethink this statement.

 

4 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

? might be close to 8 or 10 rounds per second, not hundreds.

Yes one bullet can find its mark and kill the pilot, but the very first bullet? time after time again? Just think about what are the chances.

Quick google search of the AN/M2 aircraft variant could fire 600-800 rounds a min. That’s 10-13 rounds a second. 6-8 gun battery’s you have 60,80-78,104 respectively. Browning 303 fires 1,150 rounds per min. That’s about 20 rounds a sec. 8-12 gun hurricane that’s 160-240 rounds a second… really what are we arguing? You still haven't decided what an AP 50 cal or 30 cal round should do to a person. Let alone a plane made out of aluminum. Unbelievable. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by QB.Rails

[SCG_motoadve]

2 hours ago, Krupnski said:

Some of you are clearly avoiding some very specific facts in favor of your own opinions though, and that's not a good thing.

6x M2 .50 cals firing at once can put out 80+ rounds per second, the chances of your pilot getting hit in that first burst are pretty damn high.

It just happens way too often in game, things were not as easy in real life, and the simulation can give a false sense that things are easier, for example slip stream is definitely not modeled, and this is big because will make gunnery a lot more challenging of what we have currently in game, (wish it was modeled though), I just find hard to believe first bullet hits happened as often in WWII aerial combat as we have in game.

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by SCG_motoadve

[=RS=EnvyC]

11 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

You might want to rethink this statement.

 

No he doesn't, a P47s battery of 8 AN/M2s firing at 850rpm delivers 113 rounds per second.

Edited January 24, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[357th_Dog]

21 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

It just happens way too often in game, things were not as easy in real life, and the simulation can give a false sense that things are easier, for example slip stream is definitely not modeled, and this is big because will make gunnery a lot more challenging of what we have currently in game, (wish it was modeled though), I just find hard to believe first bullet hits happened as often in WWII aerial combat as we have in game.

 

You are assuming it was the first first bullet when it was more so the first burst, which depending on the specific condition, and if it was 20mm AP and HE as outlined above, then that changes things. 

Again, the register listed on the stats website isn't a 100% accurate count of all the rounds fired, if anything it undercounts a significant amount.  You were more than likely hit by multiple rounds and because of the time of impact you simply think it's the very first bullet. 

 

[purK]

31 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

It just happens way too often in game, things were not as easy in real life, and the simulation can give a false sense that things are easier, for example slip stream is definitely not modeled, and this is big because will make gunnery a lot more challenging of what we have currently in game, (wish it was modeled though), I just find hard to believe first bullet hits happened as often in WWII aerial combat as we have in game.

 

You've seen the data, .50 cals are more than capable of penetrating most aircraft armor. And as you say yourself, there's other factors which aren't and probably never will be simulated to 100% accuracy in any sim. So why is the blame on the guns then, if their armor piercing capabilities are correct?

You also have to remember that some players have hundreds, even thousands of hours in IL2. More than the majority of WW2 pilots would have accumulated in all of their training and combat sorties. After so much time, it doesn't matter what forces are acting upon your virtual plane, some players will always be good and know exactly where to aim.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Krupnski

[[CPT]Crunch]

Another thing to consider, with few exceptions almost nobody taught the art of deflection shooting, it was not the norm, in game it is the norm.  Some early US gunnery instruction manuals explicitly state the guns are not to be fired when bank angle exceeds past the first bank angle tick mark on the artificial horizon, they point out almost no chance of making a hit for the average pilot.  We have hours and hours of time over many years just firing guns.  We are that good, we have the perfect environment to do it in, no noise, no cold, no vibration, no fatigue, no acceleration on the old bod, no fear, no fumes, no mess.

[Udmurt]

2 часа назад, Krupnski сказал:

You've seen the data, .50 cals are more than capable of penetrating most aircraft armor. And as you say yourself, there's other factors which aren't and probably never will be simulated to 100% accuracy in any sim. So why is the blame on the guns then, if their armor piercing capabilities are correct?

You also have to remember that some players have hundreds, even thousands of hours in IL2. More than the majority of WW2 pilots would have accumulated in all of their training and combat sorties. After so much time, it doesn't matter what forces are acting upon your virtual plane, some players will always be good and know exactly where to aim.

Absolutely true. And we should not forget about “lack of fear” issue. All of the pilots at war were aware of the deadly dangers. Most of virtual pilots are absolutely not. 

[357th_KW]

Here’s some historical data to add to the discussion.  This is taken from Donald Caldwell’s “Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich” and based on Luftwaffe casualty reports.  From the 4th quarter of 1943 through the end of the 2nd quarter of 1944, Bf110 zerstorer units (only looking at the daytime units here, not the night fighters) of Luftflotte Reich suffered 311 aircraft destroyed and 103 aircraft damaged.  That resulted in 282 crew KIA, 5 MIA and 174 WIA crew members.  That’s basically 100% odds that at least one of the two crew members was killed or wounded any time the aircraft was struck by enemy fire.  As the Luftflotte Reich zerstorer units would have only been engaging the 8th Air Force, enemy fire in these cases would have been almost exclusively .50 M2, with the occasional 20mm Hispano from a P-38.

 

Numbers for the Me410 over the same period were 159 destroyed and 72 damaged, resulting in 199 KIA, 5 MIA and 89 WIA.  Again, basically guaranteed that at least one of the crew was going to be wounded or killed anytime the aircraft was hit.

 

Obviously there were cases where neither crew member was hit, but they appear to have been the exception.  Being a zerstorer crew faced with late war fighters had a really high mortality rate.

[Yogiflight]

6 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

Quick google search of the AN/M2 aircraft variant could fire 600-800 rounds a min.

 

5 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

 

No he doesn't, a P47s battery of 8 M2s firing at 850rpm delivers 113 rounds per second.

My google search gave me a rate of fire of 600 rounds. This makes 60 rounds per second for the P-51 and 80 rounds for the P-47. This is far from 'hundreds of rounds'.

 

7 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

8-12 gun hurricane that’s 160-240 rounds a second

Nobody was ever talking about the Hurricane. Don't try to invent 'facts'.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Obviously there were cases where neither crew member was hit, but they appear to have been the exception.  Being a zerstorer crew faced with late war fighters had a really high mortality rate.

One thing that would be interesting to know is how many aircraft were claimed as shot down by Bf110 zerstorer units, particularly by the rear gunner. There certainly seems to be a problem with the accuracy of the AI Gunners (possibly dependant on server-side settings) at the moment. I will concede that they used to be far too accurate but now even if you're flying straight and level the Gunners don't seem to be able to hit the Broadside of a barn. 

[=RS=Haart]

The year is 2022, we're still arguing about realism/.50s etc.

 

Quickly, someone for good measure post the MK108 gif ?

I haven't bothered on the forums (or the game for that matter) for a while, but I thought I'd mention, there's somewhere to the tune of 11ft between the two outboard guns on the 51D, depending on engagement distance and convergence settings for the 51, there's the potential for at very least a 0-11ft wide box of death heading towards the cockpit, with nothing but 3mm of glass and 2mm of leather between that wall and Gustavo's head there in the canopy. 

 

 

[=RS=EnvyC]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

 

My google search gave me a rate of fire of 600 rounds. This makes 60 rounds per second for the P-51 and 80 rounds for the P-47. This is far from 'hundreds of rounds'.

 

Nobody was ever talking about the Hurricane. Don't try to invent 'facts'.

 

Then you really suck at googling. Here's a 30 second search, literally the first result and since I know you'll sook at the wiki link, the third link down since the others were War Thunder forum links says the same thing. The AN/M2 fires between 750-850 rpm, assuming best case scenario since it's IL2 that's 850 rpm. Its also stated in the in-game stat card, thankyou Gregor for pointing that out to me.

 

Stop lying

 

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/browning-machine-gun-caliber-50-an-m2/

Edited January 24, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[Barnacles]

I think all these questions could be very quickly answered if the Developers would be kind enough to just tell us the size of the pilot's hit box. If it's approximately the same size as an IRL human, I think objectively, given the penetrative value of hmg ap rounds exceeds anything a 110 has in terms of armour thickness, a bullet on target should incapacitate the pilot.

 

If they give a size that's twice the size it'll prove OP's point. 

 

I think it's very likely that pk's arising out of hits which on the client are not on target are due to net code eccentricity. 

 

 

[QB.Gregor-]

Alright I should be studing right now so perfect time for some procastination on the forum...

As others have pointed out OP's first example is something with the netcode. Here is what's most likely going on:

The hitdetection in Il2 is 100% clientside, I have yet to see an example in which that's not the case. This means when the hurricane hits your 110 on his screen (red) he will always deal damage regardless of delays. But because of these delays he will see the 110 a bit behind than it is on your screen. He is basically shooting at you from up to 200+ milliseconds in the past.

Adding to this effect, when he starts shooting it will also delay his shooting animation up to another 200ms further adding to the effect. You can see the blue hurricane on your screen looks like it is shooting way behind your 110/the blue blob.

Granted this might be not 100% accurate since there might be some interpolation trying to guess future aircraft position. Still, those can only do so much with higher pings if it is even implemented.

 

Another thing to consider is server tickrate, how often your client sends data to the server / the server sends to the clients. I don't have the exact numbers but seeing how your usual First Person Shooter is usually at 20-64hz I will assume 20hz for il2 in my example.

A P47 shoots 8x 850rpm which means it could send a max of 5.7 rounds hitting every server tick if the damage was send every tick. The damage will also have to be acknowledged by the target client to make sure the information didn't get lost. I'd assume the P47 wont send every tick (even if it does there can still be package loss and it has to send more at once) but instead will pack damage from multiple ticks into one package.

The result is that you might end up receiving damage from 20+ .50cals in an instant.

Edited January 24, 2022 by QB.Gregor-

[354thFG_Rails]

On 1/22/2022 at 11:23 AM, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

It seems more and more like Il-2 is being turned into an arcade game, rather than being a Combat Flight Simulator.
It's still completely wrong with the Hit box that each aircraft model has. If you look through the track file, you can clearly see that the Hurricane pilot is at no time close to hitting. Strangely enough, however, he ends up getting a pilot-kill.
One's ai rear-gunner who was probably a little too good before, he has now been replaced with Marty Feldman, can not hit jack shit, not even close too.
What happened to the G-Force effect? Were there too many fighter jockeys who cried?

Track file DOWNLOAD

@Yogiflight OP bud. I assumed it was a machine gun hurricane and I guess it was a Hispano armed one. 
 

Then I made a claim about machine guns firing hundreds of rounds a second which rustled some Jimmie’s apparently. 
 

Also I don’t know what google you use but this is from wiki. 
 

[ACG_Cass]

I think just as big a change has come from the correction of the dispersion levels on Hispanos, 303s and 50s. That additional spread goes a long way to increase the chances of hitting something vital. If you have a big cone of death out in front of you and something passes through it, there should be death. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

It appears the jury is still deliberating on how many. 50 rounds a person can take. 

[357th_Dog]

7 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

 

My google search gave me a rate of fire of 600 rounds. This makes 60 rounds per second for the P-51 and 80 rounds for the P-47. This is far from 'hundreds of rounds'.

 

Nobody was ever talking about the Hurricane. Don't try to invent 'facts'.

600 RPM is for the M2 Heavy Barrel (M2HB) which was found on ground vehicles and other infantry support emplacements. The AN/M2 found in aircraft had the 750-850 RPM fire rate. 

I wouldn't start accusing people of "inventing facts" when you were unable or unwilling to check and see what "M2HB" meant and the reason for the different ROF. 

Unless of course you're intentionally trying to decieve people. 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by 357th_Dog

[Denum]

7 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

One thing that would be interesting to know is how many aircraft were claimed as shot down by Bf110 zerstorer units, particularly by the rear gunner. There certainly seems to be a problem with the accuracy of the AI Gunners (possibly dependant on server-side settings) at the moment. I will concede that they used to be far too accurate but now even if you're flying straight and level the Gunners don't seem to be able to hit the Broadside of a barn. 

 

 

I would not expect many kills, it's a relatively small gun with a limited fire arc. 

 

I also agree they are a bit too inaccurate. I understand that from a realism perspective we are probably in the ball park. But from a game play perspective you truely are a sitting duck. 

 

This sortie attached is when I was caught by a 109 F4 that made several passes at me. Most were slow. My gunners didn't land a single round. Minus the 8 that I plugged into the tail on the way down.

 

 

I think they need to be a touch more accurate. But people also dislike how they are basically a rear facing radar. I think if there was a bit of RNG with the gunners ability to spot, that would help possibly?

 

Hard to please everyone. 

 

[Udmurt]

1 час назад, Denum сказал:

. 

 

I also agree they are a bit too inaccurate. I understand that from a realism perspective we are probably in the ball park.

. 

 

No, the current aiming and accuracy of AI gunners is totally unrealistic. Better than previous version, yes, but still absolutely unreal. 

[Denum]

57 minutes ago, 72AGs_Udmurt said:

No, the current aiming and accuracy of AI gunners is totally unrealistic. Better than previous version, yes, but still absolutely unreal. 

Gunner kills were pretty few and far between, the only reason the B17s had any success with it was the sheer volume of rounds in the air. 

The rear gunner mortality rate in 110s/iL2s is staggering dude. Flying coffin. 

A single bomber getting attacked was screwed. 

[Yogiflight]

@QB.RailsI have to apologize, I didn't look for the OP. Afterwards everyone talked about the .50 cals., so I thought you would, too.

What I had found by googling looked like the M2 with 600 rounds was used in WW II and the higher rate M2s were used from Corean war onwards. Now that I googled the AN/M2, I found an article which clearly showed the AN/M2 was used in American aircrafts during WW II.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

25 minutes ago, Denum said:

Gunner kills were pretty few and far between, the only reason the B17s had any success with it was the sheer volume of rounds in the air. 

According to the air force magazine, B-17 gunners accounted for more aerial victories than their fighter counterparts. I'm sure these numbers  are fairly exaggerated but there are no hard and fast records that I can find. It's also interesting to note that medium and light bomber aircraft showed similar success . 

Unfortunately, what we have now is Bomber aircraft that may as well fire a pop gun at fighters for all the good they are doing. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, 72AGs_Udmurt said:

No, the current aiming and accuracy of AI gunners is totally unrealistic. Better than previous version, yes, but still absolutely unreal. 

Great way to have 0 bomber or GA players in online games, lets make gunner AI as useless as it was in real life and then have 1-2 bomber guys try to do in game what it took 10-20 bombers min. while attacked by fighters constantly and have 0 escort. There is reason why AI gunners have to be unrealistic in unrealistic game enviroment... separate skill of AI gunners in novice = usless and there just for hollywood effects , veteran = skill of best real world gunner, Ace = skill and effect of superhuman. So then you have options, how its now all skill sets are useless...

Edited January 24, 2022 by CountZero

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Those interested in the article here is the link: 

 https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0491gunners/

 

 

[jdoe33]

The issue is definitely not the .50 cals or other gun models. I simply think the hitbox of the pilot and how pilot health is modeled are a much bigger issue. I am pretty sure that no matter where a .50cal will hit the pilot it will cause fatal damage (at least i've not been partially injured by a .50cal burst before in over a thousands hours of online play, yes this is ambigious information and doesen't have to mean anything).

A .50cal or any other AP gun won't immediately kill you if it pierces your hand or certain parts of legs/feet/shoulders (graze shot)/arms, as long as it doesen't pierce an artery, even in that case you'd still have 2-3 minutes to live till you bleed out (ik it's ridiculous to request having it modeled that accurately). You could be shot in the foot and in the hand and live on another day but the game PROBABLY (judging this by my own experience) would already consider you dead simply by having a finger and a toe hit just because of how Pilot HP works. 100HP - 2x50HP = 0 HP. It's most likely THAT simple. 

I'm fairly convinced that in the current model combined with bad netcode many times a pilot will die even though the bullet would've gotten nowhere near close to penetrating ANY lethal part of the body. Combined with the fact that probably the whole upper chest serves as a "hit this=pilot dead" hitbox even though that's most likely not how it would work in real life. THAT is why we see SO many pilot snipes and what Krup said about ppl being in a much more optimal environment. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by jdoe33

[Denum]

 

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

According to the air force magazine, B-17 gunners accounted for more aerial victories than their fighter counterparts. I'm sure these numbers  are fairly exaggerated but there are no hard and fast records that I can find. It's also interesting to note that medium and light bomber aircraft showed similar success . 

Unfortunately, what we have now is Bomber aircraft that may as well fire a pop gun at fighters for all the good they are doing. 

 Absolutely, but these claims are also multiple aircraft in formation fighting together, not one off on its alone somewhere. 

I think they are slightly too inaccurate but there's really way no to make a lone bomber have a viable defense without super human gunners. 

Look at the AA in game. One gun is fairly easy to sneak around and destroy. But get 4 or 5 shooting at you the metric changes quite a bit!

Try attacking 4 B25s in game. Its actually pretty hard to not get nailed without resorting to just pure boom and zoom from directly above.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Denum