AA and AAA

[Lusekofte]

First , this is not a complaint, nor a suggestion. 
It is an observation, a subjective one , meaning not objective. 
We was 3 mates flying in fighting Irish server 

one mission with JU 88 C6 and one with JU 88 A4 

both ended with moderate to high damage. 
first mission we all returned and I crash landed due to what I think was one flap not extending and the other did. It was pretty violent but still I survived. My first survival for years. If that was flap failure on one side, Kudos to the developers that is cool. 
Anyway second mission one got engine failure on return over sea and died two 

returned with moderate damage. Both missions was only flak damage and we got to struggle home. 
Two days before we flew ME 410 and got attacked by fighters. Two of us died or disintegrated to dust at first pass and one lost his wing. 
Now I tried on single player a few times same result happens in various degree. AA and AAA seems to me being kinder to planes than fighters are. 
My reason for not flying GB is this frustration. Planes I like do not stand a chance, never a chance for a crash landing and inadequate means of defence. But that is my subjective impression of things. Not the point. 
Is AA and AAA kinder than fighter ammo ?

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Is AA and AAA kinder than fighter ammo ?

 

No. Often flak guns are firing 37mm, 40mm, and 88mm ammunition. But the chances of hitting are far lower especially if the flak AI is set to a novice or regular level.

 

Think about it this way. If you're flying at some degree of altitude, say 3,000 meters or roughly 10,000 feet, the flak has to be fired up at and then either directly hit you or explode near enough to cause damage. The chances of this are small though not zero. Have enough flak guns firing your way and someone is going to eventually get hit. It may be an explosive burst and thus you may only catch a bit of of the shrapnel rather than the direct hit. An 88mm flak gun direct hit would end your flight immediately.

 

Fighters firing at you are going to be firing at far closer distances (measured in 10s or 100s of meters) so the bullets they are firing, even when smaller, are going to be benefitting from hitting you more often, with higher muzzle velocities and in concentrated patterns.

 

Bombers rarely stand a chance against fighters, particularly in small numbers and without escort. This is historically accurate. Your best chances of pulling off a successful bomber run is to fly higher than the intercepting fighters, faster than the intercepting fighters, or avoid detection by them in the first place. You'll note that as the war went on most German bombers were not used in large numbers and those that were used were often used during night bomber raids. The Me410 you mentioned? Night raids almost exclusively.

 

Now, the Me410 is not all that different from flying other reasonably fast light bombers and so you can fly it like a Mosquito or A-20B in an online server. Stay fast, stay low, use terrain to avoid detection, and make pop-up attacks on targets. Rather than climbing in formation and engaging in an obvious way. Even with this, you'll still likely face interception unless you have friendly fighters available for escort or in a BARCAP (barrier CAP) type of role.

[Lusekofte]

Yeah make sense. It was obviously refreshing being able to crash land and survive for once. 
This will never be my #1 online favourite game. But I am looking at careers and enjoy scripted campaign suited to what I like

[357th_KW]

Keep in mind that the server admins choices in mission building can have a huge impact on this.  Changing the type, skill level, quantity and orders for the flak guns has a huge impact on its effectiveness.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Bombers rarely stand a chance against fighters, particularly in small numbers and without escort. This is historically accurate.

 

Yep, just look at that article I posted yesterday - B-17s left unescorted against a relatively inexperienced Luftwaffe formation still lost 14 planes in a short period of time, in the fall of 1944. 

[357th_KW]

A big part of that is the huge increases in firepower that occurred in fighter aircraft over the course of the war.  A sweet spot for bomber guys is probably 1941 - your ability to fend off a fighter is going to be much greater if you’re facing things like a Hurricane with 8 x .303, or a Bf109F2 with a 15mm and two 7.92s, or an I-16 with 4 x 7.62mm, or a MiG-3 with a 12.7mm and two 7.62s.

 

I really think there could be a place for a bomber pilot focused multiplayer server - use flak, weather, target identification, etc to provide the challenge - give the fighters (if you even include player fighters) these kind of minimal armaments, and limited early warning and shift the focus onto bomber flying.

[Jaegermeister]

On the first few B-26 raids sent across the Channel to Holland the USAAF brass thought they could survive without fighter escort because they cruised so fast and had heavy defensive armament. The first raid went fine because of bad weather, which encouraged the higher ups who thought they were right. The second raid didn't go so well when every single B-26 got shot down by AAA and FW190s who took turns on them. ( I think it was 18 bombers from memory.... not sure) They were escorted after that.

 

The Me410 had to be withdrawn from service because they almost all got shot down by escort fighters. I believe the words "sitting ducks" were quoted by US pilots. I also recall the few remaining pilots converted to FW 190s for defense of the Reich assignments.  

 

I think somewhere around 15,000 Ju88s were built and I think almost all of them got shot down or destroyed on the ground... I'm sure there were lots of accidents too though. 15,000? that's a lot.

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

On the first few B-26 raids sent across the Channel to Holland the USAAF brass thought they could survive without fighter escort because they cruised so fast and had heavy defensive armament. The first raid went fine because of bad weather, which encouraged the higher ups who thought they were right. The second raid didn't go so well when every single B-26 got shot down by AAA and FW190s who took turns on them. ( I think it was 18 bombers from memory.... not sure) They were escorted after that.

On the particular raid you speak of (a power plant in IJmuiden), actually only 2 of the 10 bombers were shot down by fighters, the rest by Flak. I think a better example of the point you seem to be making - that bombers on their own are sitting ducks against fighters - is another raid on IJmuiden two weeks earlier by the RAF. Even though this raid did have a fighter escort, much of the escort lagged behind the bombers and/or were successfully engaged by the Luftwaffe, while other aircraft engaged the bombers. With the Spitfires distracted from or unable to reach their ward, 10 of the 11 Venturas were shot down, the remaining one returning to England heavily damaged and on fire.

 

19 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I crash landed due to what I think was one flap not extending and the other did. [...] If that was flap failure on one side, Kudos to the developers that is cool.

I have seen something similar, so I think it indeed may have been one flap malfunctioning

Edited September 13, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Lusekofte]

17 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Bombers rarely stand a chance against fighters, particularly in small numbers and without escort. This is historically accurate. Your best chances of pulling off a

I disagree look up on YouTube and you will see 110 empty their guns on b17 and it still fly. In 1943 Hitler demanded 1 fighter one bomber kill. This was before escort could follow the bombers. And it was just a fraction asked.
Fighters returning had up to 80 % of its force damaged in various degrees. It is nothing realistic about a bomber no matter what brand explode on first pass 

there is nothing realistic about fighters parking on bombers six and get away unharmed. But your opinion let developers get away with it. 
It is something called playability, realism is in my opinion thrown overboard years ago, and only used in convenience. It is utopia with todays player base to organise a fighter cover, and if you ask you might get one fighting odds not possible. One can make the gunners more accurate in level flight. One could make the fighters have to work a little bit for its pray. And one could have a more complex dm making variation in damage. Fact is fighter pilots like Hollywood affects. And it is given to them. 
I am perfectly fine with that policy, since clod give a perfect alternative. Still I like to find a use for this game and in some careers and scripted campaigns there is a form of playable scenarios 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Lusekofte

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I disagree look up on YouTube and you will see 110 empty their guns on b17 and it still fly.

 

One short clip on YouTube does not make for a coherent policy on how durable planes should be. ? I highly doubt that many of these planes being shot up in these videos made it back to England, and if they did somehow, they were probably written off.

 

Again, look at the story I posted on Monday - unescorted B-17s up against 190s and 109s lost almost half their strength (14 out of 36 planes) in a short space of time. 

[R33GZ]

I've also read accounts 'a higher call' I think, where 109 pilots specifically talk about how hard it is for a 109 to bring down a B17.

 

Also there is sonderkommando; if they were so easy to take down, then why was a task force created with the specific task of ramming bombers? Surely it would have been better to shoot them down if it were easier?

 

I know they're certainly not 109s or a B17, but there are several accounts of RNZAF Hudsons being attacked by 3-4 zeros and surviving, with kills credited to them.

[LukeFF]

17 minutes ago, R33GZ said:

Also there is sonderkommando; if they were so easy to take down, then why was a task force created with the specific task of ramming bombers? Surely it would have been better to shoot them down if it were easier?

 

Because at that point the Luftwaffe was sending up the bottom of the bottom of the barrel in terms of pilot skill. It was an entirely stupid, desperate measure concocted by Hajo Hermann.

[Lusekofte]

10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Because at that point the Luftwaffe was sending up the bottom of the bottom of the barrel in terms of pilot skill. It was an entirely stupid, desperate measure concocted by Hajo Hermann.

Yet you condone the fact that this shall go unpunished in this game? 
look I am not arguing , I just do not think this is right. You cannot say it is just one yt video. You cannot dismiss the rubbish gunners and the easy shoot down of anything in front of a fighter. It is off. 
but I give up this argument. The few active people in this game is content. 
 

[LukeFF]

24 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

Yet you condone the fact that this shall go unpunished in this game? 
look I am not arguing , I just do not think this is right. You cannot say it is just one yt video. You cannot dismiss the rubbish gunners and the easy shoot down of anything in front of a fighter. It is off. 
but I give up this argument. The few active people in this game is content. 

 

The whole body of evidence shows that sending out bombers unescorted on daylight raids was a fool's errand, no matter how many machine guns a bomber may have. 

 

Hermann's ramming attack relied on pilots who were just told to fly their plane at the nearest bomber because given the situation they had received close to 0 gunnery training.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Sorry, I did not mean to add the sad face emote to your post Lusekofte. I put my phone in my pocket, and I guess I buttdialed it? Lol

[AEthelraedUnraed]

21 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

You cannot dismiss the rubbish gunners and the easy shoot down of anything in front of a fighter. It is off.

Is it? There are multiple accounts pointing to the vulnerability of unescorted or even escorted bombers vs. trained and/or determined fighter pilots. The already mentioned Battle of the Ore Mountains (14 losses/0 kills*), Ramrod 16 (11 losses, 1 kill*), the Battle of the Heligoland Bight (12 losses, 2 kills*), Operation Oyster (15 losses, 1 kill*), Schweinfurt-Regensburg (60 losses/a few kills**), the second Schweinfurt raid (60-ish losses/15-ish kills***).

 

Note that the two Schweinfurt raids - the only raids I mentioned where more than a negligible amount of fighters were shot down by bomber gunners - were both flown by the B-17, which is both more heavily armed and armoured than anything we have in game so should naturally result in a higher kills/losses ratio.

 

I'm not one for anectodal evidence, but this does at least suggest a pattern where sending bombers on a mission with insufficient escorts leads to easy pickings for the Luftwaffe. Again, we must be careful attaching definite conclusions to such a small sample size, but the above kills/losses counts are more or less in line with what you see in IL2.

 

Personally, I think the problem is not in the technical details of IL2 but rather in the mission types. Multiplayer is geared towards fast fighter combat (one of the reasons I stopped playing multiplayer myself) and very rarely includes massive, coordinated bombing attacks. Singleplayer has the nasty habit of spawning enemy fighters almost every daytime flight, while in reality enemy fighters were only rarely encountered.

 

* As far as I can find without digging too deep; only kills by bomber crews are counted

** The Allied fighters alone claimed more kills (32) than the Germans had losses (27). Gunners aboard the bombers claimed a whopping 288 fighters, which is completely unbelievable. It's most likely a couple, but accounting for the fighter claims, it cannot have been too many).

*** Again, the exact numbers are unclear. The losses are adjusted (guesstimated) for flak kills, while the kills are based on the German losses and Allied fighter claims.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

The whole body of evidence shows that sending out bombers unescorted on daylight raids was a fool's errand, no matter how many machine guns a bomber may have. 

 

Hermann's ramming attack relied on pilots who were just told to fly their plane at the nearest bomber because given the situation they had received close to 0 gunnery training.

Yes and I hope they do no bombers in next endeavour 

because the player base simply do not allow for escort. Your sense of realism is oddly placed considering the lack of it elsewhere. 
I see no reason to continue this discussion. I really cannot see why you not taking my point.  I will not ever fly a bomber online again in a populated server. This game simply is not for me. As I said I find it hard to get a use for it. But I try

[AEthelraedUnraed]

12 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I really cannot see why you not taking my point.

I don't think anyone is saying that you're wrong about IL2 in its current form being less suited for bomber missions. Nor does anyone say you're wrong about bomber missions in IL2 being harder than in real life. In my opinion, both these statements are correct.

 

I think the main reasons, however, are to be found in the mission types that emphasize fast action. For multiplayer, that's something the server owner decides on so you can hardly blame the Devs for that For singleplayer, I think it would be better as well as more realistic if enemies were spawned in fewer bombing missions than is currently the case; I suspect a player who flies bombers is generally less interested in dogfights so too many enemy fighters are detrimental to the game experience there (IMHO). Maybe @LukeFF can do something about that?

[Jaegermeister]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:55 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

On the particular raid you speak of (a power plant in IJmuiden), actually only 2 of the 10 bombers were shot down by fighters, the rest by Flak. I think a better example of the point you seem to be making - that bombers on their own are sitting ducks against fighters - is another raid on IJmuiden two weeks earlier by the RAF. Even though this raid did have a fighter escort, much of the escort lagged behind the bombers and/or were successfully engaged by the Luftwaffe, while other aircraft engaged the bombers. With the Spitfires distracted from or unable to reach their ward, 10 of the 11 Venturas were shot down, the remaining one returning to England heavily damaged and on fire.

 

Yes, that’s the mission I was referring to from memory (getting old, haha). Thanks for clarifying the details.
 

The point I was making is that events forced the proponents of “The bomber will always get through” to realize that was only true if they had fighters with them and a guy shooting out a window with a .30 cal machine gun was not always going to hit what he aimed at.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Maybe @LukeFF can do something about that?

 

I don't think I really can. Server admins are ultimately going to build and host missions players want to play, and right now it seems the majority want lots of fighter action. What might be beneficial is for these missions to place a higher emphasis on fighter-bomber action, especially in 1944-45 scenarios. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The mission designers aren't at fault. Many server missions do emphasize fighter bomber-action. Most fighters will prioritize personal stats over mission success for various valid reasons, and fighters are penalized in the stats for going into enemy territory because they get a death if they bailout there. So when fighters are punished for flying offensive sweeps, its not surprising that so many opt to remain defensive. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I don't think I really can. Server admins are ultimately going to build and host missions players want play, and right now it seems the majority want lots of fighter action. What might be beneficial is for these missions to place a higher emphasis on fighter-bomber action, especially in 1944-45 scenarios. 

I think you misunderstood me - I was referring to specifically the singleplayer part; I know you cannot (and shouldn't) do anything about what server admins do

 

It's been a while since I last flew a pure bomber career, so please correct me if the bombing mission template was adjusted in the meantime. Back then, however, very nearly every daytime mission resulted in being intercepted by a formation of enemy fighters. This made these missions extremely hard to survive and kind of killed my enjoyment of that career.

 

While I agree that bombers are no match for a determined fighter pilot, only a relatively small minority of all missions should realistically feature an interception by enemy fighters. Two sources I recall to have read - the Kriegstagebuch of KG55 in the summer of 1942, and a British Boston squadron in 1943, feature enemy fighters in perhaps 10% of all missions - and mostly this didn't even result in a successful interception.

 

Therefore, I think enemy interceptions in bomber careers should occur much less frequently. Unlike making multiplayer rules, adjusting careers is something you *can* do, isn't it?

[357th_KW]

I think there is definitely a mission design factor here.  The vast majority of multiplayer servers are running some sort of symmetrical battle, with the goal that both sides have to carry out the same tasks, and have roughly the same quantity and quality of aircraft.  This is combined with knowing exactly what they need to attack and defend, and having airfields very close to the objectives they need to defend.

 

Perfectly symmetrical battles just aren't very realistic - some sort of attack vs defense scenario would produce much better results IMO.

Edited September 14, 2023 by 357th_KW

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I think you misunderstood me - I was referring to specifically the singleplayer part; I know you cannot (and shouldn't) do anything about what server admins do

 

It's been a while since I last flew a pure bomber career, so please correct me if the bombing mission template was adjusted in the meantime. Back then, however, very nearly every daytime mission resulted in being intercepted by a formation of enemy fighters. This made these missions extremely hard to survive and kind of killed my enjoyment of that career.

 

While I agree that bombers are no match for a determined fighter pilot, only a relatively small minority of all missions should realistically feature an interception by enemy fighters. Two sources I recall to have read - the Kriegstagebuch of KG55 in the summer of 1942, and a British Boston squadron in 1943, feature enemy fighters in perhaps 10% of all missions - and mostly this didn't even result in a successful interception.

 

Therefore, I think enemy interceptions in bomber careers should occur much less frequently. Unlike making multiplayer rules, adjusting careers is something you *can* do, isn't it?

 

Ah, yes, now I see what you mean. ? Yes, I have brought this up in our dev channel and they agree that a slider of some sort for enemy aircraft density is needed. Probably something that will be seriously considered for the next title. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

16 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

I think there is definitely a mission design factor here.  The vast majority of multiplayer servers are running some sort of symmetrical battle, with the goal that both sides have to carry out the same tasks, and have roughly the same quantity and quality of aircraft.  This is combined with knowing exactly what they need to attack and defend, and having airfields very close to the objectives they need to defend.

 

Perfectly symmetrical battles just aren't very realistic - some sort of attack vs defense scenario would produce much better results IMO.

There's always room for improvement in mission design though. I've done attack/defend missions before, and enjoyed them more than symmetrical missions. 

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's been a while since I last flew a pure bomber career, so please correct me if the bombing mission template was adjusted in the meantime. Back then, however, very nearly every daytime mission resulted in being intercepted by a formation of enemy fighters. This made these missions extremely hard to survive and kind of killed my enjoyment of that career.

For me the interest to fly a bomber or Stuka career stops with the mission altitude of 1500m. This simply doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with a 'Flight Combat Simulation'. But, yes, being intercepted regularely, with a fighter escort, which doesn't try to protect you, but goes for kills and leaves the bombers alone, so not attacked enemy fighters can feel free to play cat and mouse with you, isn't the real fun either.

[Juri_JS]

In a scripted bomber campaign most mentioned problems could probably be avoided. To bad that most single player mission builders, including myself,  aren't interested in level bombers.

[LukeFF]

18 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

For me the interest to fly a bomber or Stuka career stops with the mission altitude of 1500m. This simply doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with a 'Flight Combat Simulation'.

 

This is because of an issue with the AI - above 1500 meters, they will glide down before commencing their dive. Not an easy issue to fix. ?

[Juri_JS]

3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

This is because of an issue with the AI - above 1500 meters, they will glide down before commencing their dive. Not an easy issue to fix. ?

Really? In my scripted campaigns I never had any issues with AI Stukas. They are dive bombing correctly from higher altitudes when using "attack area" command to bomb ground targets.

[LukeFF]

36 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

Really? In my scripted campaigns I never had any issues with AI Stukas. They are dive bombing correctly from higher altitudes when using "attack area" command to bomb ground targets.

 

Yes, that's what I was told. I can ask again, though. 

[Juri_JS]

17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, that's what I was told. I can ask again, though. 

Maybe it happens when "Attack" command instead of "Attack Area" is used, that's something I haven't tried.

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

This is because of an issue with the AI - above 1500 meters, they will glide down before commencing their dive. Not an easy issue to fix. ?

This is a quite strange explanation, because I remember, when they changed the altitude for Stukas to 1500m, they forgot one squadron in the Stalingrad career. Maybe you remember, I posted about it in the 'Changes and tweaks to career mode' thread. I was flying some missions until they changed it for that squadron as well. I never saw anything like what you described. The only issue was, that they often didn't directly attack, but started turning left, when reaching the target to fly a part of a circle, before they dived down.

[LukeFF]

So, I asked about the restriction being higher than 1500 meters, and the explanation is that dive bombers like the Ju 87 indeed can commence their dive from up to 2500 meters. 

[Juri_JS]

8 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, I asked about the restriction being higher than 1500 meters, and the explanation is that dive bombers like the Ju 87 indeed can commence their dive from up to 2500 meters. 

For reasons of historical accuracy the Stuka campaign should have a mix of dive bomber and fighter-bomber style missions. In close air support missions Stukas were often attacking from 1000 m altitude when AAA wasn't too strong. For example in the last three phases of the Stalingrad career the Stuka Sonderstaffel at Pitomnik should mostly fly such low level attacks.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

For reasons of historical accuracy the Stuka campaign should have a mix of dive bomber and fighter-bomber style missions. In close air support missions Stukas were often attacking from 1000 m altitude when AAA wasn't too strong. For example in the last three phases of the Stalingrad career the Stuka Sonderstaffel at Pitomnik should mostly fly such low level attacks.

 

That should be doable, given we have both low-level attack style and dive-bombing mission templates to choose from. I'll make a note of it.

[Yogiflight]

On 9/14/2023 at 11:49 PM, LukeFF said:

So, I asked about the restriction being higher than 1500 meters, and the explanation is that dive bombers like the Ju 87 indeed can commence their dive from up to 2500 meters. 

Definitely better than what we currently have. Before it was changed to 1500m the altitude was 3000m and 2500m, when attackung artillery positions, if I remember it correctly. What about bombers?

[RossMarBow]

If you want to fly easy and fun bomber missions with your friends
Build a mission for it

Or simply adjust an existing mission
If the AAA or fighter cover is too strong turn it down or off

 

Myself and others are perfectly ok going against all odds flying bombers on challenging servers
Getting shot down in IL-2 doesn't collapse my ego
A cinematic death is one form of success and part of enjoying the whole game

 

 

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Definitely better than what we currently have. Before it was changed to 1500m the altitude was 3000m and 2500m, when attackung artillery positions, if I remember it correctly. What about bombers?

 

Not sure about bombers, but right now I know they level bomb above 1500 meters regularly.

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

but right now I know they level bomb above 1500 meters regularly.

From what I see as targets destroyed on the After Action map in career missions, my guess is, that the issue which was there a long time ago, might still be active. Bombers of AI flights always only destroy one target, so it might still be, that only the flightleader drops his bombs. Maybe this is the reason why player flights fly at 1500m altitude.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

From what I see as targets destroyed on the After Action map in career missions, my guess is, that the issue which was there a long time ago, might still be active. Bombers of AI flights always only destroy one target, so it might still be, that only the flightleader drops his bombs. Maybe this is the reason why player flights fly at 1500m altitude.

 

I'll make a reminder to check this again after the new release goes public.