Could AH handle realistic bomber guns?

[Wotan]

Originally posted by hitech
Wotan: Use the .target command and fly a b17, check each guns diserpsion diamater.

You might be suprised.


HiTech

I have and I wasn't surprised at all. In another thread where I posted scans directly from the book Pyro suggested the same thing last time as you just did.

He posted results of his own test and I was correct in that that (at least for the tail gunner position) the diameter was less then 45 feet according to his own test. I don't recall the exact number but I will dig up that post...

Unless you have changed things since then but I haven't read anything about a 'fix'.

IIRC all the bomber gun positions had the exact same dispersion (on the B-17).

I want 24 feet or so but until I find his post (which I can't seem to find with a quick search) I can't say for sure.

[straffo]

Well if the dispersion is increased the bomber specie will diseapear completly,they are today as frequent as the dinosaur

[Krusty]

What bombers NEED is NO formations, but more accurate guns. Make them a force to be reckoned with, but not a "flatten an entire field in 1 dweeb-arsed, unskilled, suicide bombing, pass".

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Ecliptik
That's because more aircraft were flown against ground targets than against other aircraft.

And something must have been shooting at them that could actually hit them.  

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Now looking at those pictures we all know what TOD will be somewhat like.

Attacking large formations of bombers, vs attacking 3 "maned by ONE GUY..bah" just sucks.

Tod will be something great, should be great for real ww2 sim buffs.

Would be great to have a roster for each bomber, so a formation could be manned, you could also select to "fly" the attacking and escorting fighters.

[Krusty]

I doubt it. The point will be to get player to fly the bombers. However what TOD needs is increased FPS. See that 9 FPS? That was common for over half the players in the HTH room during that mission. At 10FPS you can't fly level let alone take aim, fire, and track shots. I lost a wingtip between frames and hell if I know who hit me!

The problem is once they FIRE their guns (6 b24s, 9 b17s, that's roughly 1500 guns firing hundreds of rounds a minute) the fps dropped to a slideshow.


AH2 has a long way to go if even 75% of its players will be even able to play TOD (just FPS wise).

[bozon]

Both historically and for playability purpose, bomber are supposed to drop bombs, not shoot down planes.

Another thing not modeled in AH is gun vibration. You fire the guns but the gunsight stays steady in mid screen - no shaking. This should not affect dispersion but still make aiming harder (same with manned acks. They have no recoil like tank guns have).

Giving gamey accurate guns will make bombers ack-stars. So this is not a good solution.

Bombers need improved survivability, not by making them A2A effective. As for now, a few shot will make a bomber fall apart. They should be stracturally toughened and thus be brought down by killing the engines, the pilot or due to fire - like in real life. Shooting a B17 till the wing falls off is gamey.

Only trouble I see with this is increased kamikaze tactics potential. But this is another issue.

Bozon

[frank3]

Raptor, Im glad you put up that mission. I was just about to do so myself untill I saw your post

That, indeed, was a very realistic mission with all pretty good pilots.
So this basically answers that question, the accuracy doesn't have to be any better.

[frank3]

Like said, many people don't know how to attack a bomber without getting killed themselfes.

here's what 90% do...
They start their attack at the same alt, and slowly catching up.
They start taping their fire-button when they're at around 1000 yards off, only to see themselfs getting killed and doing some damage on the bomber.



I'd rather die from a fighter with a good attack than this...

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by frank3
Like said, many people don't know how to attack a bomber without getting killed themselfes.

here's what 90% do...
They start their attack at the same alt, and slowly catching up.
They start taping their fire-button when they're at around 1000 yards off, only to see themselfs getting killed and doing some damage on the bomber.



I'd rather die from a fighter with a good attack than this...

Geez...ain't it the truth!

If I die vs a bomber, 98% of the time it's because I got impatient and ended up dead 6 on 'em at 400 yards.

[Wotan]

If I die vs a bomber, 98% of the time it's because I got impatient and ended up dead 6 on 'em at 400 yards.

Maybe people would care about that if it were the point of discussion.

The question is:

Could AH handle realistic bomber guns?

No is asking about how easy it maybe to kill them. I have killed hundreds of bombers. I killed 10 in the first Big Week event without a scratch (150 B-17s or so in 32 man formations with escort).

But none of that is relevant to the topic.

Bomber guns aren't 'realistic' in neither 'effect' nor in application. HT can test the tail gunner of the B-17 easy then we can. I done test before but its a real pain int he arse and don't have time to re-do them right now. My results for the tail gun were slightly tighter then Pyroi's but they can test it better then I can. Pyro posted his results but I can't find that thread.

Add in tighter dispersion, multiple guns from multiple bombers aimed at you at once, no gun shake (ease of aim as bozon said) , no affect of the slipstream on the bullet etc... and you end up with something that is not 'real'.

I think every one acknowledges that if bombers were as incapable of defending themselves as they were in rl no one would fly them.

Thus 'could AH handle that?'. No, is the answer but lets try not to rationalize how 'close to 'real' it really is' because its not.

As Mr. Williams said:

If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.

[Don]

>>When more people start to learn the proper way to attack a buff group, we will start to see unescorted survivability similar to what RealLife (tm) has shown.<<

Agreed. There is usually little to no cooperation amongst fighters trying to bring down a buff formation. It is usually a kind of mad rush for the fighters to get to the fat targets before the other guy does; this results more often than not, the death of the fighter.
I knocked down a formation of three the other day mainly because I was alone, and the buffs were too, and I took my time in my attack upon his triad. I took some hits but, I also took my time about my approach. Couple that with a healthy respect for the buffs guns and I was successful.
I see no reason to change the gun lethality on the buffs right now.

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Don


I see no reason to change the gun lethality on the buffs right now.

I almost always die or get a disabled plane when trying to attacks buffs.

I wish we could get that kind of firepower for base defense.

[Kweassa]

I wish we could get that kind of firepower for base defense.

 Now that is an interesting thought.

 
 Instead of slow-poke autofire guns, how about all base acks are double .50 or 20mm, and they auto fire when nobody is manning the manned acks, but when somebody is in the manned acks they are slaved under the control of that guy?

 Should be interesting.

[Tails]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Now that is an interesting thought.

 
 Instead of slow-poke autofire guns, how about all base acks are double .50 or 20mm, and they auto fire when nobody is manning the manned acks, but when somebody is in the manned acks they are slaved under the control of that guy?

 Should be interesting.

Entire player-controlled ack-batteries?

Then all the lala-flying field porkers would get their panties in a knot... LETS DO IT!:aok