Lazer Buff guns

[LePaul]

Ha...this old argument again?

Its sorta the norm.  Why use tactics to destroy a buff...when one can go to the forums and cry about how unfair it is they have the ability to...gasp...shoot back.

I know a LOT of fighter guys out there who use some very very good tactics to drop my bombers.  Its the guys who sit on my dead-6 at 600 feet...I promptly kill...who PM and insist my guns are porked.  Uh huh.

[Bruno]

Because if the clips are anything like the ones I've seen, if the gunner wasn't dead, there wouldn't be a clip.

I dunno what clips you have seen but the average LW pilot had only 2 % hit rate against a bomber firing from 300 yards. How close do you think he needs to be to aim at and 'kill' a gunner'?

There's plenty of LW accounts of shooting bombers at point blank range with very few rounds. I quoted this above:

...like the armored knights in the Middle Ages, we were well protected. A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on. Positioned now about 100m behind the bombers the Staffel leader barked out the order to open fire:

Pauke! Pauke!...

From such a range the Staffel could hardly miss, and the 3cm explosive rounds struck home. Just 2 rounds could take the tail off a B-17. A B-24's fuselage structure was not as sturdy. The enemy bombers literally fell apart in front of the Sturmgruppe.

They had to get in close just to hit the bomber, even closer to hit specific points on the bomber. According to the above pilot he says it took two 3cm hits to take a tail off a B-17, how many does it take in AH? AH bombers are neither to fragile nor were the gunners accurate enough to fend off fighters.

As MrRiplEy[H] said bombers were cannon fodder left alone with out escort.

Bombers in AH are far more lethal and accurate then they were in RL. This a game play decision not 'realism'.

If the bomber folks were forced to fly bombers as they were in rl no one would fly them. They are boring enough as is but would be even more so if the were forced to form up in a large section, climb, take an in direct course to to the IP. Not to mention who's is going to escort them on a long boring flight?

[storch]

Originally posted by lazs2
soupcan....  I am in error?  Please, list the CV's that were knocked out by 4 engine bombers... hell... I will settle for capital ships sunk that weren't sitting still in port.

As for going to the DA because there are no mouse weilding enemies of fun there.....

Well... Of course there aren't.... they get no attention ruining peoples fun in the DA.

Lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

prince of wales and repulse

[Bruno]

Those of you claiming the Tirpitz was sunk by 'level' bombers need to read up on the effort it took to sink it. It certainly was sunk by 'level' bombers but by modified Lancasters and they didn't level bomber from altitude.

So the sinking of a stationary ship took many many sorties and special trained Lancaster crews with modified bombers is hardly evidence of the lethality of 'level bombers vs shipping'.

As for the Prince of Wales and Repulse, check the effort it took to sink them.They weren't sunk by level bombers either...

[soupcan]

i was merely trying to point out that 4 engine bombers did go after captial
ships (turpitz)and they were used plenty to find and sink german u-boats as well.

as far as "ruining you fun" i could care less about your furball as long as its not over my base. i have never nor do i intend to ever bomb hangers in fightertown
(which i think every map should have)

fighter town should be just that......... no buff hangers or ords
and surround it with 80k mountains. that way if guys want to furball
they can and if they decide to go join the base takers later they can do that
too. i hope we can at least agree on that point. heck i am not anti-furball
sometimes i like to do it myself. i just get frustrated with the constant buff bashing.

[SuperDud]

Originally posted by soupcan
as far as "ruining you fun" i could care less about your furball as long as its not over my base. i have never nor do i intend to ever bomb hangers in fightertown
(which i think every map should have)

Soup, us furballers have no problem with those bomber pilots who have a purpose behind taking down fighter hangers. The problem is, anymore your avg buffer is out for no other reason than to stop a fight that is threating nobody. Just last night there was a fight between rooks at A4 and nits(can't remember their base number). I swear to you the only planes that got to the airfeild were 6kish B24s and B17s who would then dive in to carpet bomb the hangers. I think I saw a total of 10-12 formation come in wave after wave with no fighter cover, no goons, only hitting the FH? To be clear, it wasn't a mission, just a bunch of random buffs coming in every 30 secs or so. Against that, the 7 or so fighters that were up could not shoot them all down in time especially when the got up some speed in their dive. It was truely one of the sadest specticals I have seen in all my time here. It is those kind of people that I think most of us complain about and gives bombers in general a bad name.

[soupcan]

superdud-

well said sir

i too am not a fan of dive bombing lancs, 17s or 24s.
although i will use 24s at low altitude to drop on gvs in defence of my field,
i always use my bomb site (level flight).

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Bruno



 According to the above pilot he says it took two 3cm hits to take a tail off a B-17, how many does it take in AH? AH bombers are neither to fragile nor were the gunners accurate enough to fend off fighters.

I have hit a bomber up to six times with 37mm on an Osti and had it fly off with just an engine smoking. Lancaster as I recall.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by soupcan
superdud-

well said sir

i too am not a fan of dive bombing lancs, 17s or 24s.
although i will use 24s at low altitude to drop on gvs in defence of my field,
i always use my bomb site (level flight).

I second that.

I too have seen many a good fight totally ruined by the guys who send wave after wave of unescorted heavies to take down the hangars with no intention of a base capture. Bombers can soak up so much damage (i.e. run the defending fighters out of ammo) and have the laser guns ... so things go from fun to completely pointless in a matter of minutes once this crap starts.

And when people take of a flight of B17's or B24's or Ki67's from a heavily CAP'd field, it's pretty obvious why.

[Bruno]

Einsatz gegen 4-mot-Bomber

[AutoPilot]

The problem is, anymore your avg buffer is out for no other reason than to stop a fight that is threating nobody

Maybe if you stopped crying about they would not do that anymore

[Oleg]

Originally posted by Bruno
I dunno what clips you have seen but the average LW pilot had only 2 % hit rate against a bomber firing from 300 yards. How close do you think he needs to be to aim at and 'kill' a gunner'?

I think bomber's gunners has same problems with aiming.
In game fighters have far better hit rate, why gunners must be as bad as real?

Originally posted by Bruno
Bombers in AH are far more lethal and accurate then they were in RL.

Sure. Fighters in AH far more lethal and accurate then they were in RL also.

Originally posted by Bruno
This a game play decision not 'realism'.

[SuperDud]

Originally posted by AutoPilot
Maybe if you stopped crying about they would not do that anymore

You might be right, but I don't think so.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I have hit a bomber up to six times with 37mm on an Osti and had it fly off with just an engine smoking. Lancaster as I recall.

If you like I have a video where I counted a salvo of 7 30mm hits in the tail of a B17 which flew away. If I recall correctly it didn't even lose half elevator.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Oleg
I think bomber's gunners has same problems with aiming.
In game fighters have far better hit rate, why gunners must be as bad as real?

You got a point or do I needed a magic decoder ring to figure out what it is?

I already described the unrealistic ease that bomber gunners have in aiming:

Now add to the fact that the bombers are the most stable gun platform in the game (no vibration or gun shake) and it's easy to keep the attacker sited in. It's impossible to get in a blind spot or attack unseen (external view and icons) unless the pilot is asleep or AFK. Also, the bullets aren't affected by the slip stream (they neither rise nor fall etc...). It also appears that AHs damage values are dependent upon impact velocity (when closing on a bomber from the rear you fly into his rounds and thus they 'hit harder') and these are the reason for the 'lethality' of the AH bomber gunners.

Sure. Fighters in AH far more lethal and accurate then they were in RL also.

[/b]

Nonsense:

The Luftwaffe estimated that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a B-17. Analysis of gun camera film revealed that the average German pilot scored hits with only 2 percent of the rounds fired, thus on average, 1000 rounds were fired to score the 20 hits required.

On average it takes more then 20 MG151/2cm hits to kill a bomber in AH. Players in AH may have a higher Hit % and fire less rounds to land 20 hits but that doesn't mean much.

The LW estimates to kill a bomber with 3cm it took on average 1-3 hits. Read my quote above:

...like the armored knights in the Middle Ages, we were well protected. A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on. Positioned now about 100m behind the bombers the Staffel leader barked out the order to open fire:

Pauke! Pauke!...

From such a range the Staffel could hardly miss, and the 3cm explosive rounds struck home. Just 2 rounds could take the tail off a B-17. A B-24's fuselage structure was not as sturdy. The enemy bombers literally fell apart in front of the Sturmgruppe.

In regards to fighters in AH, if it requires more rounds to bring down an aircraft then a higher hit % doesn't necessarily mean more lethality.