Me410 Gunner is Far Too Accurate

[6./ZG26_Loke]

37 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Here is some testing for you, not good enough? 

 

Not one hit

 

A fine sample of what we as bomber pilots experience in MP servers. 

 

Don't tell us that is realistic. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

58 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

This is a hilarious double standard.  You’ve made no attempt to refute my argument through research, testing or logic.  You’ve instead repeatedly tried to change the subject, with your straw man that toning the 410 gunner down to realistic levels would somehow end bomber flying in the game across the board.

The point here is, albeit not very clear, that the Me 410 doesn't use any different gunner ai than the other bomber aircraft. It has an advantage by it's wide field of fire and because the gunner doesn't have to go threw repeated unessecary procedures like opening the rear window or feeding in the mag. He's always ready to fire whenever an enemy enters his range.

 

Sure this shouldn't provide it with sniper like capebilities but it shouldn't struggle to hit a sitting duck at 100m aft either, no matter how many figures are being dug up to "prove" otherwise for the same reasons we don't have random engine and / or structual failures or friendly fire. It's just not fun for the expirience.

 

I for one would be happy enought if there was a greater difference between the gunner skill levels so that everyone can decide to have a "realistic" expierience with uncapebale gunners and those who enjoy flying online without the need to hand of "easy kills".

Edited January 7, 2023 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Dietrich]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There is no double standard about it, an I have already said that the 410 gunnery is too accurate, having said that you seem to want completely defenseless bomber aircraft with no defensive capabilities whatsoever? Is that what you want?  

Here is some testing for you, not good enough? 

 

Not one hit

 

Things like from this time stamp until 1:20 are just plain ridiculous. If that sort of thing wasn't so frequent from 410 gunners I don't think anyone could actually complain.

 

 

Bomber gunners being impotent against targets on their dead six with low rate of closure is as big of a problem as this is. We can ask for both to be fixed.

Edited January 7, 2023 by [FF]Dietrich

[357th_Dog]

On 1/6/2023 at 1:18 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll just keep leaving these here.

 

 

They are "useless" 

 

 

Yes...useless.

 

 

Ya know what..nevermind. 

Not worth the time. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by 357th_Dog

[6./ZG26_Custard]

47 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

Ya know what..nevermind. 

Ya know what.....you are right. 

 

It isn't worth my time.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There is no double standard about it, an I have already said that the 410 gunnery is too accurate, having said that you seem to want completely defenseless bomber aircraft with no defensive capabilities whatsoever? Is that what you want?  

Here is some testing for you, not good enough? 

 

Not one hit

 

That fighter is closing with speed and is not flying straight and level. It is also not approaching dead 6 and is changing field of fire, albeit very slightly. Unless that is ace AI, I'm not convinced it is probablematic...it is a small, unescorted formation of early-war undergunned and slow dive bombers against a late-war super prop...what should happen? There is a reason Stukas were seldom used in the ETO after being grounded for Ju-88s and He-111s in the BoB.

Edited January 7, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I'm not convinced it is probablematic

At this point, with respect, I don't really care if you are convinced or not. If you think that is acceptable them good for you. I'm sure there are plenty that don't think its acceptable, myself included. the AI is just one aspect of this game that needs a massive overhaul, along with the DM and other completely unrealistic elements that some think is just fine because hey, it takes all sorts doesn't it?

 

7 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

There is a reason Stukas were seldom used in the ETO after being grounded for Ju-88s and He-111s in the BoB

I'll say it again, what is the point of the Dev's creating aircraft that were removed from front line service ? If you really want your brand of realism then we have to remove the 410 from the game because as you keep telling us they were removed along with a fair few other aircraft in the ETO. So, as you keenly told me in an earlier post about setting up my own scenarios to suit my play style. Why don't you set up a server where the allies have complete air supremacy, the Luftwaffe were at their ragged end and where the 410 was removed. That way you won't have to worry about the sniper guns will you? It's ironic because yes, I agree they are too accurate, but I really don't think that a lone fighter should be able to wander through formations of bombers without taking a hit. There are so many aspects of this game that are unrealistic AI is just one and to be honest, I don't think many will be fixed in this iteration.        

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

23 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

At this point, with respect, I don't really care if you are convinced or not. If you think that is acceptable them good for you. I'm sure there are plenty that don't think its acceptable, myself included. the AI is just one aspect of this game that needs a massive overhaul, along with the DM and other completely unrealistic elements that some think is just fine because hey, it takes all sorts doesn't it?

 

 

Look man, I think the video you posted is mostly acceptable. Run that test ten times: I'm sure there would be some hits eventually, one of which would likely hit the p51s radiator and would knock it out of service for being slightly careless.

 

Most here are in agreement with me (minus the jg26 bomber clan) that unescorted bombers of 8 or less (the amount the game engine can handle) should be easy prey for fighters closing at an angle with speed like in the video, although ironically, the state of dm (simple) and .50s (point convergence, no API) would mean the only way the p51 would bring those Stukas down is if they hit the pilot or started an engine fire. 

 

The consensus, which I agree with btw is that bomber gunners should be somewhat better at shooting at lazy, same speed, straight and level fighters sitting on dead 6 within 300 yards, while their gunner lead shot ability is fine as-is, with the exception of the 410 which is far too deadly currently based on historical documentation.

 

Also, you are correct that the devs probably shouldn't waste resources building crappy/seldom used Axis planes like the 410, AR-234, etc. (for the time period), when we STILL dont have flyable mainstays like the B-25/26, or even an AI B-17/B-24/Lancaster, but that's what happens when they keep choosing late-war Germany as the only Axis opponent. And this is why many of us would love to see early to mid-war scenarios instead, such as BoB, BoFrance, Malta, Sicily, Italy, Tunisia, Pacific, BoAtlantic, etc., etc.

Edited January 7, 2023 by drewm3i-VR
Clarity

[6./ZG26_Custard]

47 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

with the exception of the 410 which is far too deadly currently based on historical documentation.

There is a problem though, I think you will find the AI is the same for all gunners so by "sorting" out the 410 then the gunner AI will be a waste of programming resource as they really will hit nothing.

People have been interpenetrated my argument wrongly so many times, thinking that I want balance or easy mode for bombers, that couldn't be further from what I would like to see moving forward. I would love to see a more realistic sim, with B-17's, B-24's Lancs etc being escorted by fighters.

 

The problem is currently, it's very rare to see any organised large bomber formations being protected by escorts. It does happen but very rarely. I vehemently objected to the change of penetration values because the DM remained relatively unchanged and ballistics effects don't seem to enter in to it. I am also vehemently against further change to the gunner AI as currently they can't hit the broadside of a barn and other than the 410 most gunners are less than useless.  At this point I wish we could remove them to save weight. 

I have been a firm supporter of Malta too and it would be so great to see a PTO, the thing is the Dev's have been tight lipped on what is to come next regarding a theater and reading between the lines they are setting themselves up for a lot of new work moving forward . That is why I'm not so sure what will happen with fixing current issues any time in the short term. 

[357th_KW]

6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There is no double standard about it, an I have already said that the 410 gunnery is too accurate, having said that you seem to want completely defenseless bomber aircraft with no defensive capabilities whatsoever? Is that what you want?  

Here is some testing for you, not good enough? 

 

Not one hit

 

 

You know there were actually a couple historical engagements between P-51's and Stukas.  I'll let you guess how those turned out, and how many P-51's were lost.

 

51 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll say it again, what is the point of the Dev's creating aircraft that were removed from front line service ? If you really want your brand of realism then we have to remove the 410 from the game because as you keep telling us they were removed along with a fair few other aircraft in the ETO. So, as you keenly told me in an earlier post about setting up my own scenarios to suit my play style. Why don't you set up a server where the allies have complete air supremacy, the Luftwaffe were at their ragged end and where the 410 was removed. That way you won't have to worry about the sniper guns will you? It's ironic because yes, I agree they are too accurate, but I really don't think that a lone fighter should be able to wander through formations of bombers without taking a hit. There are so many aspects of this game that are unrealistic AI is just one and to be honest, I don't think many will be fixed in this iteration.        

 

Every aircraft in IL-2 GB was removed from front line service at one point or another.  Where were your cries for fairness in BoS or BoM?  Yes, the matchup between a USAAF fighter and an ME410 wasn't fair in real life.  Just like the matchup between an ME410 and a bomber wasn't fair.  The Me262 isn't fair against a piston fighter - and yet we use them on mp servers and in single player, and it doesn't ruin the game.  There are countless ways game balance can be addressed through server or mission design.  Intentionally making unrealistic tweaks to various planes to try to balance things isn't the way to go in a sim.

 

I'm left with another question - if the AI gunners in all the other planes are so awful (and I'm not saying they're particularly effective, but again the Stuka wasn't renowned for its ability to defend itself from fighters), why not have one of your squad mates jump in the gunner's seat?  Surely they could do much better?  Although you'd have to give up the all-seeing eye of Sauron that you get now with the AI gunner. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

why not have one of your squad mates jump in the gunner's seat? 

Already been done and one thing we learned, we can at least hit aircraft when we fire the guns. The issue is if we man the guns all the time that cuts a squad flight in half. We have even be lucky a few times and shot aircraft down. 

[ITAF_Cymao]

Where were you when people complained about the Pe2 gunners?

All in silence or say that everything was normal and that was fine.

Now that the 410 does some damage to Allied aircraft it's a scandal.

You're used to attacking German bombers from 6 without taking damage, now that you have an German aircraft with an efficient gunner, you just have to learn to attack like those who have to attack a Pe2 learned it.

If the gunner of the Pe2 wasnt a scandal, the gunner of the 410 isnt a scandal

 

Ps When someone posts stats of kills of the 110 or 410 that happened on a server, of course they're only referring to those done by gunners. Is it right?

 

S!

Edited January 8, 2023 by ITAF_Cymao

[Alonzo]

On 1/7/2023 at 7:45 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The game is almost completely fighter centric at this point. It's fully invested either by accident or design in the E-Sports mentality.

 

Which 'game' are you talking about, here? IL2 multiplayer? At least on Combat Box, fighters don't do squat to win matches or move the front line on their own. You need to do ground attack for that. Bombers are highly relevant and will continue to be so.

 

This 'game' is a sandbox that skilled mission builders and server operators can use to create a play area for virtual pilots. There's a lot more to it than just whether the rear gunners are a threat.

 

This thread is about the 410 gunner, which data and testing has shown is statistically better than other gunners. It's not about anything else. The whataboutism you're using to derail the thread is really tiring.

 

The 410 gunner needs looking at. The result might be that all the other gunners get buffed, and the 410 left unchanged, or that the other gunners are working as intended and the 410 gunner needs a nerf. Or something in between. But right now, the 410 has a highly effective gunner which is out of line with the rest of the gunners. I hope the developers can spare the time to take a look, at least.

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Alonzo
Triple post

[CountZero]

22 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

 

You know there were actually a couple historical engagements between P-51's and Stukas.  I'll let you guess how those turned out, and how many P-51's were lost.

 

 

Every aircraft in IL-2 GB was removed from front line service at one point or another.  Where were your cries for fairness in BoS or BoM?  Yes, the matchup between a USAAF fighter and an ME410 wasn't fair in real life.  Just like the matchup between an ME410 and a bomber wasn't fair.  The Me262 isn't fair against a piston fighter - and yet we use them on mp servers and in single player, and it doesn't ruin the game.  There are countless ways game balance can be addressed through server or mission design.  Intentionally making unrealistic tweaks to various planes to try to balance things isn't the way to go in a sim.

 

I'm left with another question - if the AI gunners in all the other planes are so awful (and I'm not saying they're particularly effective, but again the Stuka wasn't renowned for its ability to defend itself from fighters), why not have one of your squad mates jump in the gunner's seat?  Surely they could do much better?  Although you'd have to give up the all-seeing eye of Sauron that you get now with the AI gunner. 

Ok so balance it out so when player flys bombers he always have 10+ other bombers with him and 20 escort...

 

You cant, game dosent alow you, and other ppl wont do it and you cant force them to do it...

 

So you have 1-2 bombers vs 50+ fighters... and then game have option for skill of AI to fix this, BUT AI is broken Ace is no better then normal... so you can not balance things out for players who wont to play with bombers...

 

You can easy balance stuff for fighter players... and even make it so easy that devs nurf gunners so badly that they are practicly useless last year or so... 

 

1 hour ago, ITAF_Cymao said:

Where were you when people complained about the Pe2 gunners?

All in silence or say that everything was normal and that was fine.

Now that the 410 does some damage to Allied aircraft it's a scandal.

You're used to attacking German bombers from 6 without taking damage, now that you have an German aircraft with an efficient gunner, you just have to learn to attack like those who have to attack a Pe2 learned it.

If the gunner of the Pe2 wasnt a scandal, the gunner of the 410 isnt a scandal

 

Ps When someone posts stats of kills of the 110 or 410 that happened on a server, of course they're only referring to those done by gunners. Is it right?

 

S!

Yes i was one saying back then nothing is wrong with Pe-2 gunner, they are dangerous because they were only ones having big guns shoting at you.

Same sht is now with 410, it haz 2x13mm with great angle of cover,

 

So nothing had to be changed on Pe-2 and nothing needs to be changed on 410...

 

But its fighter player game so it gonaget changed if devs still do any "fixes" for this old game insted full focus on new game like i expect to be...

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

31 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Ok so balance it out so when player flys bombers he always have 10+ other bombers with him and 20 escort...

 

You cant, game dosent alow you, and other ppl wont do it and you cant force them to do it...

 

So you have 1-2 bombers vs 50+ fighters... and then game have option for skill of AI to fix this, BUT AI is broken Ace is no better then normal... so you can not balance things out for players who wont to play with bombers...

 

You can easy balance stuff for fighter players... and even make it so easy that devs nurf gunners so badly that they are practicly useless last year or so... 

 

Yes i was one saying back then nothing is wrong with Pe-2 gunner, they are dangerous because they were only ones having big guns shoting at you.

Same sht is now with 410, it haz 2x13mm with great angle of cover,

 

So nothing had to be changed on Pe-2 and nothing needs to be changed on 410...

 

But its fighter player game so it gonaget changed if devs still do any "fixes" for this old game insted full focus on new game like i expect to be...

All I hear is hot air. Where is your EVIDENCE ??

 

You can refute @Alonzo with statistics from in-game, servers, or even historical data based on cross-referenced combat reports, or you can continue to make baseless claims that will be disregarded by the relevant parties, aka devs.

[ITAF_Cymao]

2 hours ago, Alonzo said:

which data and testing has shown is statistically better than other gunners.

 

15 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

with statistics from in-game, servers, or even historical data based on cross-referenced combat reports

 

What stats? what data?

Is there any comparative data about all gunners of all aircrafts?

Where is this data?

When we have the real statistics of the kills by the gunners of all the planes, calculating the possibility that there are human gunners, having made all these calculations then we can talk about statistics and data.

If there isnt distinction, if there isnt comparison, there cannot be data that can be considered true!

 

 

S!

[Alonzo]

59 minutes ago, CountZero said:

So you have 1-2 bombers vs 50+ fighters...

 

Here are the numbers again.

 

It's true that single engine aircraft dominate the sortie count and flight time on Combat Box, but it's a long way from 50:1. I think this is reasonable, and to be expected -- Combat Box hosts late war missions, 1944-45, and by that point in the war Germany had withdrawn its heavier, slower bombers in favor of tactical strikes using things like the Fw-190. The single engine planes from both sides are scoring a good amount of ground kills, also.

 

 

The numbers show a healthy amount of attacker and bomber choice from both sides. P-38, Bf-110, Me-410, A-20. They're clearly a valid choice. Just look at the number of ground kills achieved by that group -- if you want to win maps or push the front line, those planes are still good for the job.

"Bombers are dead, this is a fighter game" -- nope, incorrect, wrong.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

@ITAF_Cymao

 

See Alonzo's post and the original post in this topic.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

At least on Combat Box

With respect, I'm not interested in combat box, it's one of my least favourite servers.

 

20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

The 410 gunner needs looking at. The result might be that all the other gunners get buffed, and the 410 left unchanged, or that the other gunners are working as intended and the 410 gunner needs a nerf.

The AI has already been nerfed into oblivion. All the bombers use the same AI, if the "sniping" ability of the 410 is changed surely that will mean it has to be programmed to miss more which will affect overall the rest of the AI gunners in other words they will probably never hit anything again?

 

20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

you're using to derail the thread is really tiring.

How is questioning the gunner AI which is linked to 410 tiring, or trying to derail a thread? 

I'll tell you what's really tiring it's when the same group of people tell me what is and isn't realistic in a game when so many aspects are not real in the slightest.

 

Edit: certainly interesting points to consider.

18 hours ago, ITAF_Cymao said:

When we have the real statistics of the kills by the gunners of all the planes, calculating the possibility that there are human gunners, having made all these calculations then we can talk about statistics and data.

If there isnt distinction, if there isnt comparison, there cannot be data that can be considered true!

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[ITAF_Cymao]

10 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

See Alonzo's post and the original post in this topic.

 

What do I have to see? Is there a report with specific data?

No, I only see empirical data that havent scientific basis and prove nothing.

The 410 is a fast aircraft and as a defensive weapon it has 2x13mm with wide range as already mentioned, often also used as a heavy fighter.

Would you like it to have the same behavior as the Bf110 E2?

I could say the same things about Pe2 by doing the same tests. Try attacking the Pe2 with a Bf109 E7 or Bf109 F2 with the 15mm, do the tests and then tell us how they went.

Alonzo reports server statistics but it seems to me that they are aggregate data, I repeat aggregate data. Am I wrong?

He comes to the conclusion that 410 is more dangerous than 110G2, why should it be the other way around?

With the offensive and defensive armament of the 410, are we surprised at its danger?

I'll tell you a secret, the 410 is even more dangerous than the U-2VS, but don't tell anyone...

Getting serious again, when we have the data relating only to the exclusive kills made by the gunner and that these data refer to all flyable aircraft that have a gunner, we will be able to discuss.

So far I haven't read any data that says these things.

 

S!

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by ITAF_Cymao

[CountZero]

11 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Here are the numbers again.

 

It's true that single engine aircraft dominate the sortie count and flight time on Combat Box, but it's a long way from 50:1. I think this is reasonable, and to be expected -- Combat Box hosts late war missions, 1944-45, and by that point in the war Germany had withdrawn its heavier, slower bombers in favor of tactical strikes using things like the Fw-190. The single engine planes from both sides are scoring a good amount of ground kills, also.

 

 

The numbers show a healthy amount of attacker and bomber choice from both sides. P-38, Bf-110, Me-410, A-20. They're clearly a valid choice. Just look at the number of ground kills achieved by that group -- if you want to win maps or push the front line, those planes are still good for the job.

"Bombers are dead, this is a fighter game" -- nope, incorrect, wrong.

So one bomber airplane in that list, A-20 and i doubt ppl are using it to do high or even mid alt bomb raids in big formations... its just fighter players doing low alt fighter attack stuff. No real bomber players in this game like we had in IL-2 46 MP servers... here its just low alt attacks.

 

So why you dont simulate big number advantage Allieds had over axis in 44-45, why not have 64 slots for allieds and 20 for axis at minimum... its historical... why balance things out and alow axis side unhistorical advantage... because server would be dead in a day... like any other... so its balancing things out... but we cant be having unhistorical balancing of bomber airplanes in MP.

 

But to give bomber players chance to stay alive by having ace gunners that can behave like force multiplier that you cant sim, thats all of suden big problem and we cant be balancing stuff like that that hurt fighter players used to easy kill when they get on someones 6.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by CountZero

[6./ZG26_Custard]

54 minutes ago, CountZero said:

No real bomber players in this game like we had in IL-2 46 MP servers... here its just low alt attacks.

 

Ground attack is still ongoing as I've seen a fair few 190's with ordnance strapped to wings and belly but as you say, we are rarely seeing large, organised formations of bombers, even in early war maps. The AI, like so many things needs an overhaul but if the 410 is nerfed to not hit anywhere near as much as it does now than having AI to control gunners will be a complete waste of programming. Hey, maybe without the strains of AI gunners will finally be able to get those big formations of B-17s and Lancasters so I suppose it could be a silver lining? The only downside is the gunners will never hit anything again 

[Hitcher]

Anyone got that video of bomber gunners having 100% headshot accuracy when fighters would intersect the stabilizers on the bombers tails? That was pretty wack.

 

Would explain why the 410 gunner is Erwin König even at 400+ meters.

[357th_KW]

20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

Here are the numbers again.

 

It's true that single engine aircraft dominate the sortie count and flight time on Combat Box, but it's a long way from 50:1. I think this is reasonable, and to be expected -- Combat Box hosts late war missions, 1944-45, and by that point in the war Germany had withdrawn its heavier, slower bombers in favor of tactical strikes using things like the Fw-190. The single engine planes from both sides are scoring a good amount of ground kills, also.

 

 

The numbers show a healthy amount of attacker and bomber choice from both sides. P-38, Bf-110, Me-410, A-20. They're clearly a valid choice. Just look at the number of ground kills achieved by that group -- if you want to win maps or push the front line, those planes are still good for the job.

"Bombers are dead, this is a fighter game" -- nope, incorrect, wrong.

I seem to have stumbled onto an interesting point while digging through the stats.  Here’s the aircraft ranking screen for the current tour for the Me410: https://combatbox.net/en/aircraft/2904/NO_FILTER/?tour=55

As of this moment, total aircraft shot down are at 50 on the aircraft statistics tab.  If we then look on the aircraft killboard tab, we only see 13 aircraft listed as shot down.  Interestingly, there are no P-51B victories shown, which is strange because I was definitely shot down in a P-51B by a 410 gunner, and the pilot was awarded the kill.  It would appear that gunner victories are adding to the total, without appearing on the killboard for the 410.  We see the same thing in FVP stats for the 410 - 106 kills total, but only 61 show up in the kill board.

Looking back at November (the last full tour on CB, since December got split in two stats-wise), we see 309 kills and then subtract the 125 from the kill board to see the 410 gunner scored 184 kills.  By adding up the losses on the killboard, it appears to have been shot down by enemy aircraft 457 times, so the gunner itself managed a .4:1 K/D.  Following the same process on FvP for November we’re seeing 118 gunner kills vs 266 lost to enemy aircraft, for a .44:1 K/D.  I ran the numbers for CB in October ( .38:1) and FVP in December (.41:1).  
 

So over a really large sample size, we can say that the Me410 gunner maintains a roughly 4:10 K/D vs attacking enemy aircraft in IL2 multiplayer.  If we then compare this to the historical record, it’s obvious that something is way out of kilter.  If that ratio were realistic, we would expect somewhere around 50 USAAF fighters to have been shot down by ME410 gunners, instead of 1 or so.  Keep in mind that in my data in the original post, Me410 crews as a whole (pilots and gunners) only claimed 18 fighters - even the gunners themselves didn’t seem to think they were shooting much down.  Again, evidence points to the 410 gunner being far too effective.

For comparison sake, I ran numbers for the 110G2 (using November from CB and FVP) and got ratios of .034:1 and 0:1.  Those ratios are fairly close to what I was seeing for the 410s historical results.  Keep in mind too that many kills in real life were due to things like leaks to the coolant, oil or fuel system - you weren’t making it back from Berlin with a hole in your radiator or oil tank.  In fact, the one historical 410 gunner kill we’re aware of was against a P-38, where the engine was hit and started streaming some white smoke, which later developed into a fire as the pilot was attempting to return to base, at which point he bailed out.  In MP, flight distances are much shorter to keep things playable, so those types of damage often allow the aircraft to return to base.  The kill totals for the 410 gunner in game would likely be significantly higher if we could count any such hit as a kill, as would have been in real life.
 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

33 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

I seem to have stumbled onto an interesting point while digging through the stats.  Here’s the aircraft ranking screen for the current tour for the Me410: https://combatbox.net/en/aircraft/2904/NO_FILTER/?tour=55

As of this moment, total aircraft shot down are at 50 on the aircraft statistics tab.  If we then look on the aircraft killboard tab, we only see 13 aircraft listed as shot down.  Interestingly, there are no P-51B victories shown, which is strange because I was definitely shot down in a P-51B by a 410 gunner, and the pilot was awarded the kill.  It would appear that gunner victories are adding to the total, without appearing on the killboard for the 410.  We see the same thing in FVP stats for the 410 - 106 kills total, but only 61 show up in the kill board.

Looking back at November (the last full tour on CB, since December got split in two stats-wise), we see 309 kills and then subtract the 125 from the kill board to see the 410 gunner scored 184 kills.  By adding up the losses on the killboard, it appears to have been shot down by enemy aircraft 457 times, so the gunner itself managed a .4:1 K/D.  Following the same process on FvP for November we’re seeing 118 gunner kills vs 266 lost to enemy aircraft, for a .44:1 K/D.  I ran the numbers for CB in October ( .38:1) and FVP in December (.41:1).  
 

So over a really large sample size, we can say that the Me410 gunner maintains a roughly 4:10 K/D vs attacking enemy aircraft in IL2 multiplayer.  If we then compare this to the historical record, it’s obvious that something is way out of kilter.  If that ratio were realistic, we would expect somewhere around 50 USAAF fighters to have been shot down by ME410 gunners, instead of 1 or so.  Keep in mind that in my data in the original post, Me410 crews as a whole (pilots and gunners) only claimed 18 fighters - even the gunners themselves didn’t seem to think they were shooting much down.  Again, evidence points to the 410 gunner being far too effective.

For comparison sake, I ran numbers for the 110G2 (using November from CB and FVP) and got ratios of .034:1 and 0:1.  Those ratios are fairly close to what I was seeing for the 410s historical results.  Keep in mind too that many kills in real life were due to things like leaks to the coolant, oil or fuel system - you weren’t making it back from Berlin with a hole in your radiator or oil tank.  In fact, the one historical 410 gunner kill we’re aware of was against a P-38, where the engine was hit and started streaming some white smoke, which later developed into a fire as the pilot was attempting to return to base, at which point he bailed out.  In MP, flight distances are much shorter to keep things playable, so those types of damage often allow the aircraft to return to base.  The kill totals for the 410 gunner in game would likely be significantly higher if we could count any such hit as a kill, as would have been in real life.
 

@ITAF_Cymao

 

Here is a summary of the issue.

[=RS=EnvyC]

 

[Barnacles]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:45 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

As I said previously it would be wonderful to see mass formations of bombers, with escort regularly but that is just not going to happen. 

It happens all the time on some of the CB maps like Mitchell's men.

10 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Ground attack is still ongoing as I've seen a fair few 190's with ordnance strapped to wings and belly but as you say, we are rarely seeing large, organised formations of bombers, even in early war maps. The AI, like so many things needs an overhaul but if the 410 is nerfed to not hit anywhere near as much as it does now than having AI to control gunners will be a complete waste of programming. Hey, maybe without the strains of AI gunners will finally be able to get those big formations of B-17s and Lancasters so I suppose it could be a silver lining? The only downside is the gunners will never hit anything again 

IRL Lancasters *stopped flying at daytime*. The Daytime bombers were 9th AAF heavies which still had some disastrous raids before the fighters had sufficient range to escort them all the way to the target and back.

The reason you don't see them especially in late war is that players are reticent to do it as you're just a drone in a big formation of bombers. IMO this reflects well on the sim as this was broadly the situation IRL.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Barnacles

[Barnacles]

Anyway, I'm straying off topic. 

It appears the "problem" with the 410 is that with regards to netcode, the config of the guns and specifically the HE nature of the ammo combines with the DM to make the gunners unrealistically good in the event of a netcode "hiccup". The game seems to reset the inbuilt inaccuracy to zero momentarily, letting a consecutive stream of hits happened until the netcode catches up.

IMO at other times, and as demonstrated by the SP videos shared by Custard, the gunners inbuilt inaccuracy seems to make them miss all the time.

Clearly either situation is unacceptable in an ideal world.

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, Barnacles said:

IMO at other times, and as demonstrated by the SP videos shared by Custard, the gunners inbuilt inaccuracy seems to make them miss all the time.

Clearly either situation is unacceptable in an ideal world.

I agree, the problem is if you make the 410 gunners "miss" more and they all share the same AI then all the gunners are going to miss more and considering that in most of the other aircraft they miss most of the time anyway.  

 

1 hour ago, Barnacles said:

IRL Lancasters *stopped flying at daytime*. The Daytime bombers were 9th AAF heavies which still had some disastrous raids before the fighters had sufficient range to escort them all the way to the target and back.

I understand, but it would be so nice if we ever did get heavies.

 

1 hour ago, Barnacles said:

The reason you don't see them especially in late war is that players are reticent to do it as you're just a drone in a big formation of bombers. IMO this reflects well on the sim as this was broadly the situation IRL.

 

 

It is very rare to see large Bomber formations even on early war maps, you do see them but it is very few and far between. The thing is some folk want "realism" and if flying on Normandy maps we shouldn't see 410's hardly at all if ever. One "solution" for mission builders who want realism in the sim but hate the sniper effect could remove the 410 as that would be historical accurate. As I said above, if the 410 gunners are made to miss more then the other AI gunners are just redundant. Hopefully the Dev's will be able to overhaul the DM and the various other issues like AI at some point. Having said that, will they have time, with probably most of their efforts looking towards the new development cycle, time will tell I suppose?       

[357th_KW]

16 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I agree, the problem is if you make the 410 gunners "miss" more and they all share the same AI then all the gunners are going to miss more and considering that in most of the other aircraft they miss most of the time anyway.  

I’m sure that the devs can come up with a solution if they dig into the issue.  I would bet there is some sort of unexpected bug lurking in there somewhere.  The 50 cals are an example of this - when the issue was finally explored, it turned out there were a number of little bugs causing problems - the wrong ammo stats for mass and velocity, incorrect dispersion, aircraft skin was 3x thicker then it should have been, some aircraft had extra skin in places acting like armor, projectiles weren’t losing any energy when penetrating armor etc.

[Alonzo]

24 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

I’m sure that the devs can come up with a solution if they dig into the issue.  I would bet there is some sort of unexpected bug lurking in there somewhere.  The 50 cals are an example of this - when the issue was finally explored, it turned out there were a number of little bugs causing problems - the wrong ammo stats for mass and velocity, incorrect dispersion, aircraft skin was 3x thicker then it should have been, some aircraft had extra skin in places acting like armor, projectiles weren’t losing any energy when penetrating armor etc.

 

This is my problem with players reacting so strongly in a thread like this. It discourages the developers from even looking into a problem. There's clearly something very different about the 410 gunner. Maybe it's deliberate. But we should be encouraging the developers to find and fix bugs in their game, rather than having a bunch of bomber aficionados carpet bombing the thread with junk about historical accuracy, "useless" 110 gunners, "fighter-only game" and crap like that.

 

I'd love some actual communication from the dev team or a representative, like "we hear you, we'll look at it" or "we looked at it, the 410 gunner is working as intended", rather than just leaving the players to bicker in the thread.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

I’m sure that the devs can come up with a solution if they dig into the issue.

Time will tell I suppose? After all we can't be having a bunch of bomber aficionados carpet bombing the thread with junk about historical accuracy, "useless" 110 gunners, "fighter-only game" and crap like that, or fighter pilot's complaining about the 410 on the Normandy map when it wasn't hardly there can we? 

[Alonzo]

16 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Time will tell I suppose? After all we can't be having a bunch of bomber aficionados carpet bombing the thread with junk about historical accuracy, "useless" 110 gunners, "fighter-only game" and crap like that, or fighter pilot's complaining about the 410 on the Normandy map when it wasn't hardly there can we? 

 

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread. You're really a forum star, well done.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

10 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread. You're really a forum star, well done.

Thanks for that, they are your words after all ??

So, guess that makes you a forum star too?

[JG7_X-Man]

@357th_KW I will agree with you 100% that the gunner accuracy in this game needs tweaking.

Funny thing is us Luftwaffe guys have been complaining about the accuracy of AI Pe gunners since the beginning.

 

Fact is gunners were not effective to bring down fighters. If they were, there would be no need for escort.

 

That said - I am not sure using the stock footage to prove a point about how non lethal it was to saddle up behind an aircraft with a rear gunner as we don't have all the details/information to make such an assertion.

 

• The gunner could already be dead/injured/incapacitated 
• The gunner could be out of ammo
• There may not be a gunner in the seat at all

Edited January 11, 2023 by JG7_X-Man

[6./ZG26_Custard]

16 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

That said - I am not sure using the stock footage to prove a point about how non lethal it was to saddle up behind an aircraft with a rear gunner as we don't have all the details/information to make such an assertion.

Pilot reports and Gun camera footage are useful but as you said, not always the complete picture. I have seen plentiful footage of lone bombers being relentlessly attacked, being hit with 30 and 20 mm rounds with no return fire. Who knows what is going on inside that aircraft. We also don't know the actual accurate numbers of how many allied or Luftwaffe pilots were shot down by gunners but never return to tell the tale. According to the 8th army air force the bomber groups had higher aerial victories scores than the fighter groups, something that I would take with a large pinch of salt. I am in agreement that the 410 gunners are too accurate and need looking at, like a fair few other issues in the game. What I'm finding  difficult to believe is there are some people in this thread that seem to believe that gunners "in game" shouldn't be able to hit virtually anything even if the target is flying straight and level right behind the bomber. 

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Who knows what is going on inside that aircraft.

 

Dude! In our quest for ultra reality - do we really want to know? LOL I betting NO! 

 

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 According to the 8th army air force the bomber groups had higher aerial victories scores than the fighter groups, something that I would take with a large pinch of salt.

 

I wonder if people even question the validity data at times (...I know for sure you do!):

 

“Black Thursday” October 14, 1943: The Second Schweinfurt Bombing Raid

• By the time the Americans returned home, they had lost 60 B-17s, another 17 were no longer airworthy, and an additional 121 received minor damage. That was only the material loss. The number of aircrew killed, wounded, or missing in action was more than 600, totaling almost 20 percent of the men sortied.

•  While gunners in the bombers claimed 186 Luftwaffe fighters downed, 27 “probable”, and another 89 damaged, such tallies were wildly inflated. For that date, German records revealed a loss of only 31 fighters destroyed, 12 written off and 34 damaged.

Note: Some of those Luftwaffe losses were from the escort engagements that had to break off due to fuel. According to Donald Caldwell, JG 26 lost an Fw 190A-5 to a P-47 escort fighter. 

 

This would have been the USAAF relative average loss rate without escort. With esort, this ended up being the Luftwaffe's loss rate.

Edited January 11, 2023 by JG7_X-Man

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@357th_KW I will agree with you 100% that the gunner accuracy in this game needs tweaking.

Funny thing is us Luftwaffe guys have been complaining about the accuracy of AI Pe gunners since the beginning.

 

Fact is gunners were not effective to bring down fighters. If they were, there would be no need for escort.

 

That said - I am not sure using the stock footage to prove a point about how non lethal it was to saddle up behind an aircraft with a rear gunner as we don't have all the details/information to make such an assertion.

 

• The gunner could already be dead/injured/incapacitated 
• The gunner could be out of ammo
• There may not be a gunner in the seat at all

I seem to recall an older Sheriff video where he and his boys were attacking a Pe-2 or something and Nines says something like “Ok, three of us vs. one, let’s see how many we lose” and they proceed to all get shot down or mission-killed as Nines is counting them off “1 down … 2 down…” lol.  It’s definitely been a long term issue.

 

I agree with regards to the video - it’s often hard to know what you’re seeing.  I’ve only posted and linked stuff with the headers attached, so we at least know the date/unit etc.  In the case of that first one featuring Kit Carson of the 357th FG, we have his AAR of the engagement as well, in which he mentions the gunner firing at him: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-carson-30may44.jpg

[CUJO_1970]

Much different from the Pe-2, the 410 has a couple of dead spots where you can just park angle off at 5 or 7 o'clock and just massacre them. In QMB I shot 15 in a row down with the P-51B and never lost a single aircraft. These 410 were set to ace as well.

 

 

I could saddle up here and never got hit from this angle.

 

 

Most sorties ended up like this:

 

 

You can just sit there and blast the cockpit, killing the gunner/pilot - or as soon as you hit the top of the engine nacelle it bursts into flame:

 

 

The only time the gunner could hit me was when the 410 flew straight and level, this sortie the 410 gunner hit the P-51B with 13 observable strikes to the engine area:

 

 

This issue is nothing like the Pe-2...the Pe-2 gunner could hit you with the first round while being inverted and on fire, could hit you instantly with a blind crossing shot while switching guns, etc. The 410 was really only able to hit anything when flying straight and wings level with me parked close behind it.

 

Maybe it's different online? In QMB, even set to Ace - the historic vulnerability of the 410 to fighters is easily reproducible in the sim.

[357th_KW]

16 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Much different from the Pe-2, the 410 has a couple of dead spots where you can just park angle off at 5 or 7 o'clock and just massacre them. In QMB I shot 15 in a row down with the P-51B and never lost a single aircraft. These 410 were set to ace as well.

 

 

I could saddle up here and never got hit from this angle.

 

 

Most sorties ended up like this:

 

 

You can just sit there and blast the cockpit, killing the gunner/pilot - or as soon as you hit the top of the engine nacelle it bursts into flame:

 

 

The only time the gunner could hit me was when the 410 flew straight and level, this sortie the 410 gunner hit the P-51B with 13 observable strikes to the engine area:

 

 

This issue is nothing like the Pe-2...the Pe-2 gunner could hit you with the first round while being inverted and on fire, could hit you instantly with a blind crossing shot while switching guns, etc. The 410 was really only able to hit anything when flying straight and wings level with me parked close behind it.

 

Maybe it's different online? In QMB, even set to Ace - the historic vulnerability of the 410 to fighters is easily reproducible in the sim.

This appears to be the same issue I ran into with the Ju88C6 vs the Ju88A4.  The “fighter AI” of the C6 resulted in the AI just trying to dogfight - you couldn’t get within 1500 meters of it, without the AI breaking aggressively into you, and then maneuvering hard enough that the gunner couldn’t return fire.  You could send them to a high priority waypoint, but unfortunately this caused the gunners to just not shoot.  If you set up the same scenario and waypoints with a Ju88A4, it has a “bomber AI” and will continue to generally fly towards its objective and let the gunners defend against you.

 

Using a lower skilled AI (which is likely reducing the gunner’s performance) dialed back the aggressive maneuvers enough to where the 410 gunner got a few snap shots off, which were very dangerous - like you saw in the one engagement where the gunner actually fired on you,  it’s going to do some damage that would likely have prevented that Mustang from flying home from Berlin in the real world.

 

I have some more ideas for ways to test this that will prevent the AI pilot from pinning his poor gunner back in his seat.  To be continued ….