Fed up with Super Buff Gunners

[Fishu]

P-47 can hit till 1.5k at least  

I did once chase Typhoon and as I were smartened enough from ground attack, I tried to shoot it from 1.3k ahead of me and bit faster.. HIT! and more hits!
P-47 can strafe ground targets also from 1.5k at least. (I did take acks like that.. quick burst from extreme range and break.. ack dead - just as they start firing at me, ill fire at them.. I also had once M16 very close to ack, which appeared 1.4k after I were breaking off and i got ack killed)

[RAM]

Cave then explain me how a B26 was able to hit me at 1.8k 3 months ago. THe post is here somewhere, the guy ADMITED having hit me at 1.8K

My left P38's engine died by ONE ping of his MGs (he later admited than he never SAW the flash of the impact that killed that engine) while I was performing a PERFECT low-climb-up-to-the-belly attack on his B26.The ping was obtained at 800 yards (his lecture of the distance, not mine) To track my 38 in that situation and with that move was a remarcable feat because I didnt stay stop for even a second, and there was a BIG ammount of lead involved (coming from the belly I fired a short burst that damaged badly his wing then as I emerged on his tail gunners' arc of fire I broke to a side and barrel rolled going down. I repeat the move after that, breaking to the other side...one ping engine bye bye)
To HIT a plane in SUCH move is nearly impossible, at least I dont see how can you predict the ammount of lead on a constantly changing aiming solution. So IMO it is EASIER to hit from a buff than from a fighter...Damnit THE GUY DIDNT SAW PINGS ON ME!...not even a SINGLE FLASH!

I tried to follow him with one engine. Of course at 25K that was quite impossible, but the guy kept firing usual bursts to me (he was quite surprised that I was falling behind because,as I said before, he didnt know he had pinged me), he saw pings at (ATTENTION: 1.8K!!!!) pings that BTW damaged a MG of my P38 (so please dont tell me that those pings dont do damage).

I had film on it, I saw it again a couple of days ago when I was seeing and classifying films because I have more than 300. Sad as it is I deleted it (still have to classify some 150 films...ARG!).But you can search that thread and read what was posted there...you'll see that my story is true.

Now come and tell me again that bullets dissapear at 1.7K please...

Because I'll laugh quite a lot.  


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-21-2000).]

[MarkVZ]

I flew buffs almost exclusively, and I've never, EVER, seen one of my bullets hit at a range past 1.7.  I have pinged cons at 1.7 on maybe 2 or 3 occasions, and I wasted alot of ammo trying.  I usually open up at 1.5 or 1.4 on in.  On a slowly closing con, I'll fire a burst at 2.2 or so just to let him know I'm not asleep at the wheel, and he'd better think twice about attacking me    As for d1.8 pings, I'll only believe them when I see them.  If it did happen, it was most likely an isolated incident with a little warping or netlag involved.

[CptTrips]

Cave,

>With out that boost to max effective range
>a fighter could sit at d800 on his FE (d1.2
>on B17's FE) and plink the bomber apart w/o
>fear of dying because netlag was keeping
>him outside the B17's guns effective range.


Yes, I understand that.  And I think that is not an unreasonable compromise…for the most part.

My point is the following:

Lets take two extreme examples (all other cases will fall somewhere in between).  

1.   Case 1 -  A fighter is approaching a buff from dead six.
2.   Case 2 -  A fighter is approaching a buff head-on.

In case 1 the added effective range makes sense because the effects of net lag could confer an unfair advantage on the fighter because he might be reading a shorter range than the FE of the buff thus allowing him to score hits why still out of range for the buff.

In case 2 however, the effects of net lag don’t provide an advantage for either party.  In this case there should be no increased effective range.  To do so would give an unreasonable advantage to the buff gunner, especially considering the incredibly stable firing platform (compared to having to maneuver the whole fighter to aim).

The max effective range for all other angles between dead six and head-on should prolly be interpolated proportionally.

A further point to consider:  

The effects of net lag on who has the advantage is a function of the latency of the network AND the relative velocities of the buff and fighter.  What I mean by this is that a fighter who is closing slowly on a buffs six will enjoy less of an advantage from net lag than a fighter closing at high speed.  A fighter at equal speed on a buffs six creates no lag advantage at all.  So, if I am in a fighter climbing up to a buff six in a desperate attempt to stop him from bombing my field for the 6th time that day, I will prolly reach a point where my speed is equal to or even less than that of the bomber as I hang there on a prop.  Therefore I would not have any net lag advantage to offset his greater max effective range.  In reality, this would confer a huge advantage to the buff as he can pound my wallowing fighter mercilessly at a range that I have no possibility of scoring hits in return.  

Also, high speed buffs like the B26 are able to narrow the differences in velocities between themselves and pursuing fighters by keeping their speed high (maybe even diving a bit before the attack).  At nearly equal speeds, there will be little or no lag advantage for the fighter.  The buff however still enjoys the full benefit of his max effective range advantage.


Maybe a compromise would be to allow the buffs their greater max effective range on the tail gun only, but make all their other guns the same as everyone elses.


$0.02,
Wab

[SpyHawk]

Still like my solution better  

See above

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by AKWabbit:
2.   Case 2 -  A fighter is approaching a buff head-on.

I dinnae remember this coming up in the "great .50 debate".  But netlag is still present even in a HO situation.  This why when in a HO situation in fighters you open up at long range, the bandit is actually closer than reported on your FE because of netlag.  I do remember this being talked about a few times when people talking about the best way to HO.

 

A further point to consider:  

The effects of net lag on who has the advantage is a function of the latency of the network AND the relative velocities of the buff and fighter.  What I mean by this is that a fighter who is closing slowly on a buffs six will enjoy less of an advantage from net lag than a fighter closing at high speed.  A fighter at equal speed on a buffs six creates no lag advantage at all.  So, if I am in a fighter climbing up to a buff six in a desperate attempt to stop him from bombing my field for the 6th time that day, I will prolly reach a point where my speed is equal to or even less than that of the bomber as I hang there on a prop.  Therefore I would not have any net lag advantage to offset his greater max effective range.  In reality, this would confer a huge advantage to the buff as he can pound my wallowing fighter mercilessly at a range that I have no possibility of scoring hits in return.  

This just isn't so.  Fly formation with one of your squadmates and ask them what range they see you at.  I've done this many times.  I'll be parked in perfect formation 25yds off lead's wing, but he sees me at 85-95yds.  Our speeds match, but we still have netlag.  And it seems the greater the distance the more netlag plays a role in the distance reported.
Once back in the beta tour Redstar and I played with this a bit.  We were both pinging around 150 to the server w/ no loss.  We took off and formed up, him flying my wing.  He said he was in fingertip formation at a distance of 20yds on his FE and I saw him out at almost 100yds.  Redstar ease up til he looked like he was in fingertip formation on my FE at about 20yds, and he said on his FE he was infront of me.


For the buffs flying in a straight line I dinnae mind them having the extended effective range from any angle.  When attacking a buff the idea is to come in at an angle the gunner can't track and take out the buff.  We can manuever the fighters to avoid hits, but it's kinda hard to move the buffs around.

::shrug::

 

[CptTrips]

Cave,

>But netlag is still present even in a HO
>situation. This why when in a HO situation
>in fighters you open up at long range, the
>bandit is actually closer than reported on
>your FE because of netlag.

Yes, I understand that.   But this holds true for both buff and fighter.  Neither side derives a consistant advantage due to the lag.  Its a wash.  There will always be lag on the internet. Of course.   What I was talking about was lag advantage.  In HO, there is no lag advantage to justify the buffs max effective range advantage.

>This just isn't so. Fly formation with one
>of your squadmates and ask them what range
>they see you at. I've done this many times.
>I'll be parked in perfect formation 25yds
>off lead's wing, but he sees me at 85-
>95yds.


There will always be lag of some type on the internet.

You might be right about equal speeds.  However, I do know the lag advantage will be greater when I am closing at high speed on their six and less when I am closing slowly on their six or not at all.  It may never actually be zero.  But when I'm slow my lag advantage is less but their max effective range advantage stays the same. And certainly when I approach HO its isn't fair that they can start hitting me 500yds before I can start hitting them.

This may all be a matter of play balence and thats fine.

I just think that giving all their guns a signifigant range advantage might be an over simplified solution.


Regards,
Wab



[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 07-21-2000).]

[skernsk]

The great gun debate......my understanding is that the guns were not more powerful and had greater reach.  I assumed that when the buff opens up at 1,8k and I am closing at probably 100-200mph with the bullet stream that we basically merge at approx. 900-1k from the b17. That being said I'll back away and let those who know what they are talking about take over

[Tac]

Geez, I wish my .50's did that much damage then. When I gun in buff with top turret only, (so only 2 .50's are firing, not the otto losers) I ping a plane once or twice and BOOM.

Trying that with a fighter... takes a nice little spread of 4 .50's. Even on HO situations, and SPECIALLY in HO situations, my 4 .50's do NOT whack a fighter down like the 2 .50's on the buffs.

That being said, I am left mighty confused!  

[flakbait]

Now that I've got time in an M16 I can throw in what I've seen/done. Yesterday I nailed a N1K closing at 1.5k, only took 400 rounds of .50 cal fire. I fired 400 rounds, hit mostly on his right wing and blew it off. Here's the clincher; I actually WATCHED 30 some-odd hit flashes on him. 30 some-odd direct hits with quad M2HB .50 calibers and his wing was blown off.

Now to this morning: I hit another N1K, this time at 1.1k and WATCHED only 15 hit flashes or so. Guess what happened...go on, guess.
Nope, blew off BOTH wings plus his vert stab. Total rounds fired? 140.

As a contrast, I blasted a Panzer with .50 cals in an M16. Took 500 rounds, most of 'em direct hits, but I killed him. Blew of a track first then BOOM! Now here's another funny part; this morning I hit a Panzer 5 times with HE ammo....no damage. How do I know? I asked him on channel 1. He heard all 5 pings, but no damage was reported.

Either AH is going buggo or the Net was bad this morning. I know the Net wasn't bad, cause everyone was flying nice with no warps.
And the guy who I shot 5 times has a cable modem, he said "No problems on my end, yours?". I had no problems either.

Seems the guns, damage, and hardness need a bad re-work. Maybe change around the dispersion a bit too; not much, just a bit.

Flakbait

[-towd_]

lol didnt pyro say the buff and fighter 50s are the same lol lol lol lol  ahhem   roadkill.  and once again roadkill . do you play the game pyro?

[Downtown]

I know that I have tried to hang 1400 to 1600 yards off a buff to get him to waste all his ammo, or distract him so someone else can make an attack, and have been shot down numerous times.

Here is what I do.

I see a buff.
I dive on the buff.
I keep my E and try to get a postion where if the buff starts shooting at someone else I can dive in and hit him while he is distracted or draw their fire.

Usuall right at the 9 o'clock position and have been trounced many times doing this.

And I say let the buffs keep the range, up the hardness, just take away the ability to turn with fighters.  Part of the reason historic attacks don't work is that a B-17 can dodge a bounce just as well as a Spit can.

People in B-26s will drop their bombs and start to turn fight with fighters.

Something needs to change.

------------------

"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
    lkbrown1@tir.com    
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!

[typhoonc]

In Bob Hoover's book, he detailed an episode where he rescued a B-26 that had ditched on a beach somewhere in Italy because the pilot ran out of fuel or something.  In order to get it off the ground, he had to strip everything he could out of it, place metal temporary runway material on the beach, and carry as little fuel as possible.  I guess the reason for this was the the takeoff distance available was something like 1000 feet.  Anyway, after all was said and done, he reached his base, and a P-40 was in the pattern.  Bob Hoover was dogfighting this B-26 against the P-40 and actually coming out ahead!!  Keep in mind this was a stripped down Marauder with very low fuel, and a very high time pilot.  Still the aircraft must not have been that much of a slouch!  Also, as for being able to dodge a bounce in a B-17 every bit as well as a Spitfire, that's absolutely not true.  The spit can pull around 8 G's and the Buff breaks apart at around 4 or 5.  Having said that, sure a Buff can make a tracking solution for a fighter a LITTLE more difficult, but not that much so.  In wartime situations they really didn't dodge beause they were in tight formations, and dodging would screw up the formation AND increase incidents of collision.  But hey, you can't tell me that some guy flying a B-17 in 1943 that got seperated from his formation didn't try to mess up someone's shot by dodging a little.  

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by typhoonc:
But hey, you can't tell me that some guy flying a B-17 in 1943 that got seperated from his formation didn't try to mess up someone's shot by dodging a little.  

One thing is to dodge "a little" in a B17 or a B26, other thing is to turn fight with a  P47 or a  Fw190...

Dont know what but for sure something is REALLY screwed in a B26's FM if it is able to turnfight with a P47D30. And I've seen it happen ,and not only once.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-23-2000).]

[Toad]

This is intended simply as anecdotal information on the B-26, not to validate or invalidate the AH B-26 FM. The information does have an impressive pedigree, though.

From "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again", by James H. Doolittle, ISBN0-553-29725-2.

"On one occasision, I took Maj. Paul W. Tibbets up for a ride. Paul was one of the pilots who had flown Teneral Eisenhower down to Gibraltar and was partial to the B-17 because he felt the role of the B-26 as a medium bomber would be limited. He wanted to fly the big ones, but I wanted him to see what the Marauder could do.  Paul tells what we did in his memoirs:

'I should have suspected that Doolittle knew more about the B-26 than he admitted when he said, "It's just another airplane. Let's start it up and play with it."

That is exactly what we did. We got in the air and circled to 6000 feet, remaining close enough to the field to reach the runway if we had trouble. But everything went smoothly.

Doolittle then shut down one of the engines and feathered the propeller. He got the airplane trimmed and we did some flying on one engine, turning in both directions, climbing, making steep banks. The Marauder was a tame bird with Doolittle at the controls.

Suddenly he put the plane into a dive, built up excess speed and put it into a perfect loop -all with one engine dead. As we came to the bottom of the loop, he took the dead propeller out of feather and it started windmilling. Whe it was turning fast enough, he flipped on the magnetos and restarted the engine as we made a low pass over the airfield. We came around in a normal manner, dropped the gear and the flaps, and set the B-26 down smoothly on the runway.

The pilots and operations people who had been watching us were impressed. The flight was an important start toward convincing them that the B-26 was just another airplane.' "

Just a vignette from history.