As the B17 is being worked on, something about her guns

[Krusty]

Well in real life only 1-2 positions would fire at the same plane, and the attack would be over quickly (the target having passed by too fast), but in AH we get 6+ guns firing at every con, and that's only for 1 plane!! multiply by 3 and you get 18+ guns firing at any given con -- far FAR more potent than any YB-40 ever was.

We already have it.

[Waffle]

Krusty - the only guns that fire are the ones that have a line of sight to the target you're firing at. And you can bet that there were no communications when a single plane attacked a single bomber.. "hey bandit coming  - 6 oclock....rest of you guys don't fire and hold your ammo...I think I can kill him from my gun in the waist posistion"..... I can pretty much bet that anyone who had a bead on the target was firing....

[frank3]

Waffle got a point there.

And don't forget, in real life, there would be 18+ aircraft in a box-formation.
As you know, the formation is formed to get the maximum cover from the defensive guns.

If only 1 position per aircraft would be firing in real life, that's 18 guns bearing at the same target.
That's the same as our AH formation of B-17's!

Pretty realistic

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by frank3
Waffle got a point there.

Pretty realistic

Ok Waffle may have a point, but I wouldn't start throwing around "Realistic".   Not unless you want to add turbulance, gun recoil, etc.

also each gunner would have lead the enemy aircraft differently and all gunners would not hit the plane at the same time or the same place.  some would miss and some would hit.   Also enemy planes didnt all attack a single bomber one at a time.

[frank3]

Nah you're right, Aces High will never be realistic.

I hardly ever fire with all guns though, saves some ammo

[APDrone]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
I can decipher that you believe me to be in error.  I can't translate Nebraskan any further than that.  Could you be more specific?

Lol.. sorry. Just hit me as funny last night.  I was trying to visualize the 'belly gun' and, always having referred to it as a ball turret ( though I do believe some bombers had guns that would shoot through the bombay.. or maybe it was just some crew using rifles.. )

So I'm trying to think how the nose position ( where I took the screenshot from ) could possibly be interepreted as a belly... which let me to believe you were thinking of the anatomy in a vertical orientation.. which would be justified when reffering to the 'tail gunner'...   Which then led to some interesting visualizations.. and that's when I pretty much lost it.

This morning, I saw your post and I started more visualizations which ventured into the physical construct of the body that could have the tail, belly, and upper turret in such close vertical proximity, yet maintain a relative distance in the horizontal plane.

I quit when the only thing that popped in my head was Rosanne Barr.

Thanks for nothing..

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Krusty
Well in real life only 1-2 positions would fire at the same plane, and the attack would be over quickly (the target having passed by too fast), but in AH we get 6+ guns firing at every con, and that's only for 1 plane!! multiply by 3 and you get 18+ guns firing at any given con -- far FAR more potent than any YB-40 ever was.

We already have it.

Okay, you can have up to 4 gun positions firing at you from a few select vectors.  That makes for a possible of 7 guns firing per plane.  It's a very limited area of coverage for all 7 (number 7 being a waist gun) and most times the most you face is 6 guns from 3 twins.  Knowing the areas of coverage should be able to help keep you out of them.

Why would only 1-2 gun positions fire in WWII?  The third and/or fourth didn't want to join in?  Are the areas of coverage better in AH than in WWII?

So you've got three bombers shooting at you.  I know darn well when bombers were attacked more than one bomber shot at the attackers and it wasn't usually a box of three they faced.  A bit more than three was the usual scenario.

As far as the attack being over with quickly with the target passing quickly?  One hundred percent correct.  If more fighter pilots attacked that way in AH, there wouldn't be many of them shot down.

And you don't get a situation in AH where a bomber is shooting at every con unless the cons come in one at a time.  If cons come in multiples, as they did in WWII, they have a much better chance.

I had a nice five point analyses of how most fighters are attacking my bombers and the most successful types of attacks, but I'll be darned if I'm going to teach fighter pilots how to shoot me down when all they can come up with as a reason for their failure is the bomber guns are too good.  Suffice it to say, I don't spend a lot of time in fighters.  When I do take up fighters, about 50% of the time it's to kill buffs.  I'm not very good in fighters, but I kill the buffs and they have yet to shoot me down.  I've done it with both Spitfire and Mustang.  This in combination with my experience in buffs leads me to conclude that most of the fighter pilots in this game don't know how to do it or just don't want to bother to do it right.  Believe me, when I'm faced with a fighter who knows how to kill buffs, my goose is cooked.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Airscrew
Ok Waffle may have a point, but I wouldn't start throwing around "Realistic".   Not unless you want to add turbulance, gun recoil, etc.

also each gunner would have lead the enemy aircraft differently and all gunners would not hit the plane at the same time or the same place.  some would miss and some would hit.   Also enemy planes didnt all attack a single bomber one at a time.

Well of course realistic is a tricky term in this game.  You're right.  Turbulence, gun recoil, etc.  That's what these guys took gunnery school for.  To learn how to shoot fighters.

As far as realism goes, there's no death, an endless supply of aircraft that don't have to be ferried to the front, etc.  A 50 caliber bullet hitting your engine, just one, had a heck of an impact.  We had a situation in my neck of the woods where a freighter suspected of being loaded with marijuana wouldn't stop.  When approached by the coast guard they turned and headed for international waters.  After numerous hails were ignored the coast guard fired a single burst from one 50 caliber machine gun and disabled the freighters engines.  Through the steel plate side and killed those big old diesels.  Aircraft are of a lot lighter construction and yet I've seen my bombers 50's in AH light the entire nose of a fighter with only damage to his oil lines.

I'm pretty sure everyone here realizes this isn't as real as real life.  Accommodations have to be made to make this thing playable.  So when we say "realistic", it's with that in mind.

I like your point about cons not attacking a single bomber one at a time.  Fighter pilots might do well to emulate that in AH.

[frank3]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
I'll be darned if I'm going to teach fighter pilots how to shoot me down when all they can come up with as a reason for their failure is the bomber guns are too good.

Nicely said

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by frank3
Nicely said

Thank you.