Me410 Gunner is Far Too Accurate

[357th_KW]

This issue has been noted by a number of users since the aircraft was introduced, but it’s so far out of line with other gunners in the game that I decided to do some experimentation, as well as some historical research on the topic.

 

In Game Testing

 

I set up a test scenario in the mission editor with myself in a P-51B making an attack on a single Me410, with Normal level AI, set to fly to a medium priority objective.  Unfortunately the 410 has a “fighter AI” that tries to dogfight with you - there is no way to force it to fly straight, as a high priority objective disables the rear gunners.  As a result, while making a basic diving attack, the AI starts trying to maneuver, giving the gunner only a couple brief opportunities where they can actually fire the gun.  In spite of this, the rear gunner was able to at least damage the engine, fuel tanks and oil or coolant on EVERY pass I made, often many of those at the same time.  In many cases like in the track I’m attaching, the gunner set my aircraft on fire and/or killed the pilot.  In game, the Me410 gunner on “normal” can very reliably kill attackers - if the pilot isn’t maneuvering so aggressively that the gunner is prevented from firing.  An example track.

 

As a control scenario I did the same diving 6 o’clock attack on a B-26 and a Ju88A set to "ace".  The Ju88 has the 13mm turret guns, so the same armament as the 410, but because it has a “bomber AI” it will fly straight and level and just let the gunners do the shooting.  The B-26 functions the same way, and has a pair of .50s in the tail turret, and a powered top turret with 2 x .50s.  Against these opponents I could generally make an attack with little or no damage, even with the gunner set to “ace”.  Another example track.

 

We can see that the Me410 gunner is much more accurate and deadly then other gunners in game, easily out performing them with a normal gunner vs ace gunners.  In fact players have even compiled videos of using the AI gunner to score numerous kills in MP.  Example here.

 

Historical Research

 

So how does this compare to reality?  Are the B-26 and Ju88A gunners under performing?  Or is the Me410 gunner wildly over performing?  To answer that question I started digging into the historical records of the Luftwaffe zerstorergruppen which operated the Me410.  In particular I looked at the mission they flew against the 8th Air Force in September 1943 through August 1944.  This represents the bulk of Me410 vs USAAF fighter encounters, and very good records are available.  I also had to cross reference any claims against US records, which are fortunately very complete and widely accessible.

 

A word on sources - to put all this information together I used the following references:

Day Fighters In Defence of the Reich - A War Diary, 1942-45 by Donald Caldwell

The Mighty Eighth War Diary by Roger Freeman

Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th Air Force by Kent D. Miller

The Pioneer Mustang Group - The 354th Fighter Group in World War II by Steve Blake

The 363rd Fighter Group in World War II by Kent D. Miller

4th Fighter Group ‘Debden Eagles’ by Chris Bucholtz

Messerschmitt Bf110/Me210/Me410 by Heinz Mankau and Peter Petrick

USAAF Missing Air Crew Reports through Fold3.com

USAAF Pilot After Action Reports from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org

And probably a few others that I’ve forgotten to mention

 

A note on aircraft identification - as is often the case, we see many examples of pilots mis-identifying their opponents.  You will see a number of cases where the Me410 is called an Me210 (none were ever used as zerstorers against the 8th AF in western Europe, and weren’t present in these battles) or a Ju88 (which did see a small amount of use in that role, but largely in ones and twos shadowing bomber formations).  In my final spreadsheet I’ve noted this and made sure to check if any Ju88 units were in action on those days.  

 

One of the first questions is how did US pilots approach the 410 (and other heavy fighters)?  Did they try to avoid the rear gunner?  Reading through their after action reports, and watching gun camera video of their attacks, we see this is not the case.  US fighter pilots appear to have almost always attacked from the rear, with little or no regard for return fire.  An example - targets are listed as Ju88s, but are in fact Me410s.  Another example.  The AAR associated with that previous clip - note he can see the gunner firing at him.  I've got many more AAR's (as well US Missing Air Crew Reports, and quotes from some other sources) linked in the tally sheet I put together, which I'll link below.

 

In the process of digging through all these encounters, I recorded every case where a US escort pilot recorded a claim (kill, probably or damaged) against an Me410 (or mis-identified Me210, Ju88 etc).  That total came out to 202.  So we know there were roughly that many engagements between Me410 gunners and US fighters, if not more - some 410s were operated without gunners, though that doesn’t appear to have been common, and there were likely other encounters that resulted in no claims that we simply don’t know about.  From these attacks and cross-referencing with German loss records, my estimate is that roughly 121 were shot down and another 55 damaged by US fighters in these engagements.  

 

So how did Me410 gunners perform?  I can find 18 claims for aerial victories from Me410s.  By cross-referencing these with US loss records, and reviewing US records for other losses that might have been unclaimed, or where the claims might be missing, I find 12 actual US fighter losses.  Of those losses, 3 US fighters were definitely shot down by the forward armament of the 410s.  Another 2 were definitely lost due to collision.  2 others seem to have very likely been due to forward armament or collision.  That leaves us with 5 remaining losses - of those, 4 we simply don’t know what happened.  The aircraft disappeared in the vicinity of Me410s, and could possibly have fallen victim to tail gunners.  The final remaining loss was definitely reported as shot down by a Me410 tail gunner.  So Me410 tail gunners definitely destroyed 1 US fighter, and may have destroyed as many as 5, out of 200 or more engagements.  Here's my spreadsheet, listing all of this information along with associated links to AARs and gun camera video.

 

Based on the historical record, the Me410 gunner is far too effective.  In reality the aircraft had a short service life, with extremely high casualty rates, and proved unable to defend itself adequately from Allied fighter escorts.  In game, the story is the complete opposite, where a fighter attacking an Me410 is very likely to be shot down, or at least damaged to a degree that the aircraft would have been lost in the real world, where they needed to fly back to the UK from deep inside Germany.  In reality, the loss of a fighter attacking an Me410 due to the rear gunner probably only occurred a handful of times in all theaters.

 

Hopefully, as the Dev team pushes forward with their plans to improve modeling and realism in the new year, this issue with the Me410 gunner will be addressed.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I agree, got sniped from long range by a 410 gunner last night when attacking from high 7 o'clock position.

[86th_Buzzi]

Impressive research on this. Well done ?

[Juri_JS]

That's an interesting research 357th_KW. Here some additional information from the German side:

 

In Luftwaffe victory lists I can only find a single fighter claim by a gunner/radio operator in a Me-410 equipped Zerstörer unit.

 

On 16.06.1044 Unteroffizier Rieder claimed a P-51 near Komárom.

 

The loss of Morris on 07.07.1944 to a Me-410 gunner doesn't appear in Luftwaffe records. The three P-38 claims by ZG 26 on this date were apparently all by pilots.

 

There are also some claims by Me-410 gunners of KG 2 and KG 51, but these were all during night intruder missions over England.

 

 

 

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

no bias here, nope.  None at all

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Thanks for this @357th_KW. This leads me to believe that complaints about the other gunners in the game being ineffective are overblown and that tailgaters are no defense against a well-flown fighter in real life.

[Roland_HUNter]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:03 AM, 357th_KW said:

This issue has been noted by a number of users since the aircraft was introduced, but it’s so far out of line with other gunners in the game that I decided to do some experimentation, as well as some historical research on the topic.

 

In Game Testing

 

I set up a test scenario in the mission editor with myself in a P-51B making an attack on a single Me410, with Normal level AI, set to fly to a medium priority objective.  Unfortunately the 410 has a “fighter AI” that tries to dogfight with you - there is no way to force it to fly straight, as a high priority objective disables the rear gunners.  As a result, while making a basic diving attack, the AI starts trying to maneuver, giving the gunner only a couple brief opportunities where they can actually fire the gun.  In spite of this, the rear gunner was able to at least damage the engine, fuel tanks and oil or coolant on EVERY pass I made, often many of those at the same time.  In many cases like in the track I’m attaching, the gunner set my aircraft on fire and/or killed the pilot.  In game, the Me410 gunner on “normal” can very reliably kill attackers - if the pilot isn’t maneuvering so aggressively that the gunner is prevented from firing.  An example track.

 

As a control scenario I did the same diving 6 o’clock attack on a B-26 and a Ju88A set to "ace".  The Ju88 has the 13mm turret guns, so the same armament as the 410, but because it has a “bomber AI” it will fly straight and level and just let the gunners do the shooting.  The B-26 functions the same way, and has a pair of .50s in the tail turret, and a powered top turret with 2 x .50s.  Against these opponents I could generally make an attack with little or no damage, even with the gunner set to “ace”.  Another example track.

 

We can see that the Me410 gunner is much more accurate and deadly then other gunners in game, easily out performing them with a normal gunner vs ace gunners.  In fact players have even compiled videos of using the AI gunner to score numerous kills in MP.  Example here.

 

Historical Research

 

So how does this compare to reality?  Are the B-26 and Ju88A gunners under performing?  Or is the Me410 gunner wildly over performing?  To answer that question I started digging into the historical records of the Luftwaffe zerstorergruppen which operated the Me410.  In particular I looked at the mission they flew against the 8th Air Force in September 1943 through August 1944.  This represents the bulk of Me410 vs USAAF fighter encounters, and very good records are available.  I also had to cross reference any claims against US records, which are fortunately very complete and widely accessible.

 

A word on sources - to put all this information together I used the following references:

Day Fighters In Defence of the Reich - A War Diary, 1942-45 by Donald Caldwell

The Mighty Eighth War Diary by Roger Freeman

Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th Air Force by Kent D. Miller

The Pioneer Mustang Group - The 354th Fighter Group in World War II by Steve Blake

The 363rd Fighter Group in World War II by Kent D. Miller

4th Fighter Group ‘Debden Eagles’ by Chris Bucholtz

Messerschmitt Bf110/Me210/Me410 by Heinz Mankau and Peter Petrick

USAAF Missing Air Crew Reports through Fold3.com

USAAF Pilot After Action Reports from www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org

And probably a few others that I’ve forgotten to mention

 

A note on aircraft identification - as is often the case, we see many examples of pilots mis-identifying their opponents.  You will see a number of cases where the Me410 is called an Me210 (none were ever used as zerstorers against the 8th AF in western Europe, and weren’t present in these battles) or a Ju88 (which did see a small amount of use in that role, but largely in ones and twos shadowing bomber formations).  In my final spreadsheet I’ve noted this and made sure to check if any Ju88 units were in action on those days.  

 

One of the first questions is how did US pilots approach the 410 (and other heavy fighters)?  Did they try to avoid the rear gunner?  Reading through their after action reports, and watching gun camera video of their attacks, we see this is not the case.  US fighter pilots appear to have almost always attacked from the rear, with little or no regard for return fire.  An example - targets are listed as Ju88s, but are in fact Me410s.  Another example.  The AAR associated with that previous clip - note he can see the gunner firing at him.  I've got many more AAR's (as well US Missing Air Crew Reports, and quotes from some other sources) linked in the tally sheet I put together, which I'll link below.

 

In the process of digging through all these encounters, I recorded every case where a US escort pilot recorded a claim (kill, probably or damaged) against an Me410 (or mis-identified Me210, Ju88 etc).  That total came out to 202.  So we know there were roughly that many engagements between Me410 gunners and US fighters, if not more - some 410s were operated without gunners, though that doesn’t appear to have been common, and there were likely other encounters that resulted in no claims that we simply don’t know about.  From these attacks and cross-referencing with German loss records, my estimate is that roughly 121 were shot down and another 55 damaged by US fighters in these engagements.  

 

So how did Me410 gunners perform?  I can find 18 claims for aerial victories from Me410s.  By cross-referencing these with US loss records, and reviewing US records for other losses that might have been unclaimed, or where the claims might be missing, I find 12 actual US fighter losses.  Of those losses, 3 US fighters were definitely shot down by the forward armament of the 410s.  Another 2 were definitely lost due to collision.  2 others seem to have very likely been due to forward armament or collision.  That leaves us with 5 remaining losses - of those, 4 we simply don’t know what happened.  The aircraft disappeared in the vicinity of Me410s, and could possibly have fallen victim to tail gunners.  The final remaining loss was definitely reported as shot down by a Me410 tail gunner.  So Me410 tail gunners definitely destroyed 1 US fighter, and may have destroyed as many as 5, out of 200 or more engagements.  Here's my spreadsheet, listing all of this information along with associated links to AARs and gun camera video.

 

Based on the historical record, the Me410 gunner is far too effective.  In reality the aircraft had a short service life, with extremely high casualty rates, and proved unable to defend itself adequately from Allied fighter escorts.  In game, the story is the complete opposite, where a fighter attacking an Me410 is very likely to be shot down, or at least damaged to a degree that the aircraft would have been lost in the real world, where they needed to fly back to the UK from deep inside Germany.  In reality, the loss of a fighter attacking an Me410 due to the rear gunner probably only occurred a handful of times in all theaters.

 

Hopefully, as the Dev team pushes forward with their plans to improve modeling and realism in the new year, this issue with the Me410 gunner will be addressed.

So:
The historical Me-410 pilot/gunner had much-much less experience than us....
Because of that, in the game the gunner should be much worse?
Then everybody with 109 should fly like a german pilot in 1944 with almost no experience because of lack of training?
And should we not calcualte with that, the germans were outnumbered by the allies AF?

[JtD]

Interesting research, KW. Thank you and Juri.

[357th_KW]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

So:
The historical Me-41 pilot/gunner had much-much less experience than us....
Because of that, in the game the gunner should be much worse?
Then everybody with 109 should fly like a german pilot in 1944 with almost no experience because of lack of training?
And should we not calcualte with that, the germans were outnumbered by the allies AF?

As I noted, the 410 gunner, set to normal skill is far more deadly then a Ju88 or B-26 gunner set to ace skill.  Given the poor results of the 410 historically, this doesn’t seem reasonable.  I have a hard time believing that some additional training would take the average 410 gunner’s success rate from ~1% up to nearly 100%.  By the accounts I’ve read, most US gunners got very little training, particularly early on in the war.  And a single bomber, separated from its formation was considered easy pickings.  But the massed firepower of the whole formation was what made it formidable.  That’s what we see in game with the B-25/B-26 - one or even a couple isn’t too dangerous.  But once you put 15+ into a formation (I’ve done this in test missions before), you don’t want to try flying into the back of that group.

[Roland_HUNter]

20 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

As I noted, the 410 gunner, set to normal skill is far more deadly then a Ju88 or B-26 gunner set to ace skill.  Given the poor results of the 410 historically, this doesn’t seem reasonable.  I have a hard time believing that some additional training would take the average 410 gunner’s success rate from ~1% up to nearly 100%.  By the accounts I’ve read, most US gunners got very little training, particularly early on in the war.  And a single bomber, separated from its formation was considered easy pickings.  But the massed firepower of the whole formation was what made it formidable.  That’s what we see in game with the B-25/B-26 - one or even a couple isn’t too dangerous.  But once you put 15+ into a formation (I’ve done this in test missions before), you don’t want to try flying into the back of that group.

I tested it myself.

The problem here is not accuracy, because basically the shooter misses a lot at distance, but close reflexes and then accuracy, that's the problem.
The Pe-2 used to have a similar fault. it happened more than once that you passed a Pe-2 with the engine on fire, falling down or in fast flat spin, if you went close: aimbot and you were hit.

 

The Me-410 has the same problem. It is as inaccurate from a distance as the others.

I managed to recreate: passing a Me-410 spinning to the right, burning right engine, flat spin and instant engine damage, oil leak, water leak from the gunner.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

No!!

 

No!! 

 

And no!!

 

You Hartmans already have your dream fighters with death star .50s and 20mm instant kill by explosions. Get out your filthy hands from our 410s. 

 

No more Warthunderization of IL2 game!!

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Funny. 

 

How can one fighter pilot, have over 50 kills with in a few hours online flying? 

Not realistic in any way. So I suggest we nerf all fighter guns to be useless, so we can maybe, just maybe have a bit more realistic game. 

[parkerc341]

Why nerf the gunner if its the only gunner that can actually hit things in the game? Gunners are such a joke that if the gunner in the 410 is really so deadly, I'd suggest changing all AI gunners to the 410s AI. I fly mostly fighters, and its a pity all I have to do to shoot down an attacker or bomber is sit on its tail and fire. It should probably be much higher stakes and challenging- unless historically all the gunners were lobotomized before the first flight...

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Deary me, say goodbye to the bombers.  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

On 1/3/2023 at 1:16 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

Thanks for this @357th_KW. This leads me to believe that complaints about the other gunners in the game being ineffective are overblown and that tailgaters are no defense against a well-flown fighter in real life.

I'll just leave these here.....

 

 Edit. You have to see this twice to believe it 

 

Nothing to fear.....

 

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

How can one fighter pilot, have over 50 kills with in a few hours online flying? 

It's only realistic when they do it.

Edited January 5, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll just leave these here.....

 

 Edit. You have to see this twice to believe it 

 

Nothing to fear.....

 

 

It's only realistic when they do it.

Realisam is only to be caled upon when we talk about bombers in MP, they should fly in big formations and only like that , no funny business , and say thank you when they get shot down.

Edited January 5, 2023 by CountZero

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

14 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

No!!

 

No!! 

 

And no!!

 

You Hartmans already have your dream fighters with death star .50s and 20mm instant kill by explosions. Get out your filthy hands from our 410s. 

 

No more Warthunderization of IL2 game!!

Someone clearly didn't read the historical report and/or wishes for game balance at the expense of realism. The 410 in WW2 was USELESS and its gunners had 1 confirmed kill (and a few possible) for the ENTIRE war. Bombers flying alone without fighter escort are completely vulnerable. In the strategic bombing campaign of 1942-43 (before long range fighters) bomber losses were upwards of 50% and were in fact so bad, that the USAAF and the RAF almost suspended all bombing operations. This is reality. Gunners that can repeatedly hit fighters closing in at an angle with speed are pure fantasy. 

 

The comment about the so-called "Warthunderization" of IL-2 is hilarious, because Warthunder is the ONLY game I've ever heard of where people use bombers as gunships instead of bombers because the AI gunners are freaking snipers like on the 410 ??.

 

You guys have become so used to playing video game flight sims which always have OP gunners, that you've lost touch of historical reality which is that unescorted bombers are minced meat ready to be fed into the meat grinder.

 

However, you are right regarding excessive explosions and pilot snipes due to the lack of torque effects, recoil, gun dispersion, and wake turbulence. I fully support adding/fixing all of this.

Edited January 6, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[Charon]

On 12/31/2022 at 8:03 PM, 357th_KW said:

An example track.

FYI, I'm not able to open this. I believe you need to include the folder with the same name (containing the mission files and also something about the camera).

 

----

 

I've not flown as a gunner much, but I have given it a try on a few occasions, including the 110 and 410, both pancake and VR, and behind AI as well as human pilots. Some thoughts:

 

How do AI gunners perform relative to human gunners probably ought to be the benchmark, but not many people ever do that as far as I can tell.

 

IME it's extremely difficult to return fire effectively while maneuvering, even in just a constant-rate turn. Any roll or jerk seems to make hits almost impossible except through luck. Flying in the back seat of a 110 or a 410, which will be maneuvering, your main job is not to shoot, but to support the pilot's situational awareness (and IRL to operate the radios -- not modeled). You can make a tail-chase dangerous if it comes to that, but outside of that limited scenario you're unlikely to take any reasonable shots.

 

By the way, AWP has an interesting mini-biography of Martin Heinze, a successful rear gunner in a 110. Despite having flown over 100 missions and seen action in France and Russia, he didn't claim his first kill until April 1943 (a Spitfire, likely flown by P/O Francis Malan, which failed to return after being last seen chasing a 110 to 300m.) He also later claimed a B-24 -- I'm more skeptical of that. But I think this supports the view that the 110 (and likely the 410) radio operators really weren't shooting frequently: if they were, we'd expect them to over-claim, just like gunners on heavy bombers.

 

A different account, from an anonymous ZG 1 radio operator/gunner:
 

Quote

Sitting in the back, I never shot another airplane down. I may have clipped the tip off someone’s wing, but that’s about it.

 

 

I think it's critical to distinguish between different types of gunners. The shots afforded to the rear gunner in a maneuvering Me 410 are very different than those offered to the ventral-gunner on a He 111 flying in formation, are very different to those offered a nose gunner on the same He 111. It feels like some people in this thread are talking past each other because they're talking about gunners generically; the weapons are the same but the job is not. I think @357th_KW has presented some good data to show the 410 gunner over-performing, but at the same time I'm in agreement with those who are frustrated that AI gunners in level bombers struggle to make even the easy low deflection shots when fighter pilots carelessly offer those.

 

Also, I'd like to mention again that all the defensive guns overheat and jam excessively, far faster than the equivalent fixed guns. Despite abundant historical evidence of forward armament jamming, that is almost unheard of in game, and I've never experienced a jam in a Bf 109. Read Lipfert sometime, he complaints about malfunctions constantly, sometimes all three weapons at the same time. Why do only defensive guns suffer from this?

 

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

that you've lost touch of historical reality which is that unescorted bombers are minced meat ready to be fed into the meat grinder.

 

The problem is when our chain of reasoning goes from "unescorted bombers were unable to defend themselves from tactics developed to counter them" to "gunners shouldn't be able to hit even when the attacker makes no attempt to maneuver and saunters up to slap the gunner with a dead fish"... which is the status quo for most of them right now.

 

Did you watch the videos @6./ZG26_Custard posted? Do you think you could make those shots from the back seat? Or would you fire your guns 30 degrees off against a non-maneuvering target closing from high six just to hear it make noise?

Edited January 6, 2023 by Charon

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

However, you are right regarding excessive explosions and pilot snipes due to the lack of torque effects, recoil, gun dispersion, and wake turbulence. I fully support adding/fixing all of this.

We also right that fighters can stroll up behind bombers, sit directly behind them and have no fear whatsoever. It's almost impossible using this engine to get realistic massive bomber formations with the field defensive fire that would give. It's not about being shot down or the pilot killed. A combination of things have now completely nerfed the bomber game, from completely useless AI in 99% of the bomber aircraft, laser beam one shot kills, a lack of ballistics effects when hitting larger aircraft and increasing ammunition penetration values without altering the damage modelling in any significant way. And yes it's a "game" and a very long way from realism. 

51 minutes ago, Charon said:

The problem is when our chain of reasoning goes from "unescorted bombers were unable to defend themselves from tactics developed to counter them" to "gunners shouldn't be able to hit even when the attacker makes no attempt to maneuver and saunters up to slap the gunner with a dead fish

As bomber pilots we completely understand how vulnerable small groups of bombers are but your point is spot on, when fighter aircraft  can just line up behind you and take all the time in the world, realism has gone completely out the window.

[357th_KW]

As the 410 gunner exists in IL-2 right now is absurd.  I engaged two of them tonight.  In both cases, the pilot basically ignored me and just went about attacking ground targets, making no effort at all to defend themselves.  In both cases, the moment they stopped maneuvering enough for the gunner to engage, my aircraft was instantly hit, damaging my engine and causing an oil leak in the first case (which would have been a kill in real life) in the first engagement, and doing all of that plus wounding my pilot and knocking out my controls sending me crashing into the ocean in the second.  As I stated based on testing, a typical stern attack will result in nearly 100% loss rate for the attacking fighters.

 

Here's what this actually looked like in real life:

 

 

 

The Allied pilots saddled up on the back of these 410s, and shot them until they went down.  And as I pointed out, this occurred somewhere around 200 times in the ETO, and the exchange rate was around 120 to 1 in favor of the fighters.

 

Pilot AARs describing these kind of engagements:

"I closed to about 250 yards ... his gunner firing as I pulled off to the left" - This is the AAR associated with the first clip of gun camera film.

" ... gave it a 3 second burst from 200 yards closing to 160 yards from dead astern."

" ... and drove up the rear of another, getting hits all over the ship ... and I had been hit in the engine from the rear gun positions"

"held my fire and then opened up at 250 yards, closing to point blank range."

"The rear guns fired at me through the first attack and part way through the second and then stopped firing."

 

Attacks like this in game are borderline suicide right now, where in reality they were highly effective, and the gunners posed little if any deterrent.  The gunners are clearly over-performing, especially when compared in game to other aircraft with similar gunner armament.

 

@CharonHere are the folders associated with those track files:

 

P-51B vs Me410

P-51B vs Ju88A

 

[=RS=EnvyC]

47 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

As bomber pilots we completely understand how vulnerable small groups of bombers are but your point is spot on, when fighter aircraft  can just line up behind you and take all the time in the world, realism has gone completely out the window.

If you took the time to read the AARs you'll realise thats actually quite realistic against single targets.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

16 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

If you took the time to read the AARs you'll realise thats actually quite realistic against single targets.

 

25 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Attacks like this in game are borderline suicide right now, where in reality they were highly effective, and the gunners posed little if any deterrent.  The gunners are clearly over-performing, especially when compared in game to other aircraft with similar gunner armament.

You are equating real life to a game. If you don't want AI gunners to be able to hit a straight and level target sitting directly on their six then the bomber game is completely dead and buried. 

I can't get over these cries for realism when so many things are unrealistic in this game including fighter aircraft.

Edit- so what it appears that you want is that the 410 gunners to be just as bad as every other bomber aircraft so that they pose absolutely no threat to fighters....got it ?? 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

29 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

You are equating real life to a game. If you don't want AI gunners to be able to hit a straight and level target sitting directly on their six then the bomber game is completely dead and buried. 

I can't get over these cries for realism when so many things are unrealistic in this game including fighter aircraft.

Edit- so what it appears that you want is that the 410 gunners to be just as bad as every other bomber aircraft so that they pose absolutely no threat to fighters....got it ?? 

 

 

We want it to be realistic like in real life when Allied fighters went 120:1 vs the 410 in the ETO, yes. ? Was the 410 not eventually grounded after all due to heavy losses?

 

In all seriousness, you are correct that gunners should pose SOME threat when a bomber is level and a fighter is tailing behind 200 yards straight and level at the same speed, however if a bomber is maneuvering to avoid fire (as should be the case in the attack with the exception of large box formations), gunners should be extremely ineffective against fighters closing at an angle with far superior speed as Charon pointed out. 

 

I do also wish guns could jam and overheat because then we can heavy effective--albeit overzealous--gunners that are somewhat effective but not have actual limitations to deal with in terms of rate of fire and extreme difficulty in shooting while maneuvering. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

11 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

We want it to be realistic like in real life

There are so many things in this game that I want to be realistic but they are not, it a game at the end of the day. Take Normandy, on D-Day the allies flew over 20,000 sorties, the Luftwaffe flew around 600. That is what happens when one side has more or less complete air supremacy. If we wanted a realistic scenario (online) then the Luftwaffe side should be outnumbered 20 to 1 more often than not

 

If we look at real life, the 8th Air Force Bomber groups "claimed" more air kills than the fighter wings and if we look at gun cam footage it will always show cherry picked examples. That is why even though they are useful, pilot reports and gun cam footage are not always the complete picture.

The gunner AI the moment is laughable, the penetration values of rounds has been increased but the damage modelling hasn't changed significantly, which could be one cause in (my view) of the "one shot laser beams" of death. Interesting to note 75% of wounds to bomber crew were from shrapnel, to hell with that in the game. Ballistics effects are minimal and rounds don't fragment, deviate, tumble or ricochet as they would in real life. Aiming and shooting in the cockpit is not modeled realistically either as it's far too easy as things like wake turbulence, bullet drop/ spread, wind effects the fear factor of real pilots etc etc is not taking into account. So much realism just not in this game. 

 

WWII was not created to entertain it was an horrific event. IL2 however was created to entertain and it's all fine and dandy if you want realism but we ain't going to get it. If people really enjoy lining up behind bombers without any threat to them and laughing as the gunners, pick their noses, scratch their arses or do anything else other than use their guns to some effect then good luck with that, because you will be shooting down many more AI bombers moving forward.  

[Oyster_KAI]

4 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

However, you are right regarding excessive explosions and pilot snipes due to the lack of torque effects, recoil, gun dispersion, and wake turbulence. I fully support adding/fixing all of this.

Also, the rudder, elevator, and ailerons, which are too effective at all speeds, need to be modeled more correctly.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@drewm3i-VR

Who do you expect to fly bombers, if they all are  turned into taget drone? 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

@dogefighter  Just about everything that is wrong with some in the IL2 community at this point. When you have grown up a bit how about joining the adults for a proper conversation. You only seem capable of insulting people currently.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@dogefighter

Very mature, and hardly by forum rules. 

It only show how little you care for the game play. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

11 minutes ago, dogefighter said:

???

I hope that isn't a private conversation with another tester @dogefighter because it's quite clear from you posts that you are trying to provoke a reaction for cheap laughs.  Nothing quite like clipping quotes and "hiding" who said that. Now, are you prepared to have a proper conversation or do you still want to act in a immature manner? At this point your "posts" are adding nothing to your credibility or your argument.   

And highlighting "tard" shows just how immature you are being.

22 minutes ago, dogefighter said:

You're just wasting your time spamming the same stuff over and over again on the tester forum and here.

So you have access to the testers forum do you? 

[Barnacles]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There are so many things in this game that I want to be realistic but they are not, it a game at the end of the day. Take Normandy, on D-Day the allies flew over 20,000 sorties, the Luftwaffe flew around 600. That is what happens when one side has more or less complete air supremacy. If we wanted a realistic scenario (online) then the Luftwaffe side should be outnumbered 20 to 1 more often than not

 

If we look at real life, the 8th Air Force Bomber groups "claimed" more air kills than the fighter wings and if we look at gun cam footage it will always show cherry picked examples. That is why even though they are useful, pilot reports and gun cam footage are not always the complete picture.

The gunner AI the moment is laughable, the penetration values of rounds has been increased but the damage modelling hasn't changed significantly, which could be one cause in (my view) of the "one shot laser beams" of death. Interesting to note 75% of wounds to bomber crew were from shrapnel, to hell with that in the game. Ballistics effects are minimal and rounds don't fragment, deviate, tumble or ricochet as they would in real life. Aiming and shooting in the cockpit is not modeled realistically either as it's far too easy as things like wake turbulence, bullet drop/ spread, wind effects the fear factor of real pilots etc etc is not taking into account. So much realism just not in this game. 

 

WWII was not created to entertain it was an horrific event. IL2 however was created to entertain and it's all fine and dandy if you want realism but we ain't going to get it. If people really enjoy lining up behind bombers without any threat to them and laughing as the gunners, pick their noses, scratch their arses or do anything else other than use their guns to some effect then good luck with that, because you will be shooting down many more AI bombers moving forward.  

I think the main problem which is causing this rather circular argument is that everything you say is kind of true (I totally agree with your point in that gunners should be dangerous) apart from the whole predication of yours that AI gunners are useless. This has not been proven/disproven objectively, other than one video of an AI gunner drawing a circle in the air around the incoming fighter. It doesn't state what version its from either, which may invalidate it. 

 

My last experience of gunners in game was my plane getting obliterated by a 410.

 

Fair enough I was approach from his six but equally he was sitting in front of my 4x 20mm cannons. 

 

In this scenario, all things being equal the fighter should fare better than the 410. 

 

All my experience in the game so far says the 410 will 'win' more often than not. 

 

I fly 410s as well so my experience includes the flip side of this experience and I'd say gunners are absolutely deadly in certain scenarios in game. Far from useless. Equally they seem to never hit in other scenarios. 

 

I think we're experiencing that parable of the blind men and the elephant to some extent. 

[Yogiflight]

My experience with the 410 gunner is from the 410 side. Flying a few bomber intercept missions in BOBP career, I was shot down everytime I was attacked by am Allied fighter, just the way it should be. No effect at the Allied fighter. The question now is, where do the different experiences come from? Maybe try flying a 410 yourself and look, if your gunner is so deadly.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

26 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

In this scenario, all things being equal the fighter should fare better than the 410. 

 

I completely agree, but unfortunately the current state of the game means that other than the 410 virtually all other gunners are dead weight. We can never have full realism in a game but the idea that bombers should be completely defenceless as some seem to want is ridiculous. The original AI gunners were farcical in the extreme. The nerfing of the gunners is just as farcical. I'm not someone who what's bombers to be indestructible and hold their own against fighters but I would certainly like some defensive capabilities, particularly if aircraft are flying straight and level on your six. Being shot down and pilot kills is not an issue, but changes within the game and things that haven't been changed are compounding unrealistic issues even more. 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@Barnacles

Yeah well, it wasn't my ai 410 gunner then. As every single times I was attacked in the 410 last month, my reargunner hit jack ?. So I really see no reason to nerf them even more. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[Wardog5711]

Ok, lets try to stick to the topic at hand.

I've already handed out one ban for personal attacks and insults. I would prefer to not hand out any more today.

AND...please watch the profanity. I know things get heated and stuff slips out, but the rules are the rules.

 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

This game is dying online because fighter pilots can't stand being shot down once a while and losing his stats to a tail gunner. You already got all the possible buffs to your fighters, now learn how to intercept a fast bomber with decent defensive power.

 

This anti bomber culture must end now.

[LeLv30_Redwing-]

Me and my squadmates switch sides every month on the FVP-server and we feel the 410 is absolutely #1 to inflict damage of all the bombers on both sides.

Thanks for your test @357th_KW!

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

4 minutes ago, LeLv30_Redwing said:

Me and my squadmates switch sides every month on the FVP-server and we feel the 410 is absolutely #1 to inflict damage of all the bombers on both sides.

Thanks for your test @357th_KW!

Exactly!! It is a late war design which addressed defensive field of fire and low caliber guns problems, just like the american B29, using state of art technology in remote turrets. 

 

It is more effective than classic designs because it was designed to be. 

 

#EndAntiBomberCultureNow

 

 

[Alonzo]

The stats on Combat Box (filtered for the time period since the 410s release date) show about 8% less flight hours on the 410 vs the 110, but about 40% more air kills. If we assume the air kills are mostly the gunners rather than people taking those aircraft and flying them as heavy fighters (which is probably not entirely true) then these numbers lend credence to the theory that the gunner on the 410 is more lethal than the gunner on the 110.

 

This is across ~18,000 sorties and ~4,000 hours of flight time, so it's a pretty big sample size.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@Alonzo

Yes the 410 gunner is more lethal than the 110 gunner. Simply because the 110 gunner is useless, as in complete useless. A 110 pilot would be better of not have the dead weight of an ai gunner on board. I have made a suggestion to the devs to add an option, to not having him on board. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Exactly!! It is a late war design which addressed defensive field of fire and low caliber guns problems, just like the american B29, using state of art technology in remote turrets. 

 

It is more effective than classic designs because it was designed to be. 

 

#EndAntiBomberCultureNow

 

 

Right on target, it was a defensive position by design, a gunner is not just a gunner, there are all kind of physiological effects in play.  Are they exposed to the slip stream, with it's crushing cold, noise, and sometimes exhaust fumes?  And how many men are sharing the same comm's system and how easy is it to communicate effectively and quickly, not likely in a larger aircraft.  There's tons of factors.  It's like saying a driver can reach the other coast in 32 hours, yeah, but what is he actually driving and under what conditions?  Big difference between a motorcycle and eighteen wheeler, and winter or summer.  One of them is going to be curled up in the fetal position in a ditch asleep after about eight hours.