Author Topic: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.  (Read 1092 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2000, 01:12:00 PM »
I flew a single B-17G sortie last night.  My experience on this mission has suggested several things to me, some of which may be sound insulting to you guys.

First, I can't do any more tests because my friend has declined to do anymore.  He likened you guys to Necromancer players in Everquest (they were the most powerful class, got nerfed so that they were still the most powerful, but not so ridiculously and then whined endlessly about how they were now useless) based on his experience with that and your posts here, which can only be considered complete exaggerations or outright lies by him.

Because he declined, I decided to fly a bomber mission and try to gather data that way.  Here is what happened:

1) I took off from a rear field and climbed to about 15,000ft.
2) I proceeded south into Knight territory and dropped 2,000lbs of bombs on one of their cities.
3) Deciding that was not the best use of my bomber, I turned and flew to the Knight HQ.
4) In two passes over the Knight HQ I dropped my remaining 4,000lbs of bombs, destroying 3 Radar factories, however I also lost my #2 engine to flak on the second run.
5) Now empty, I turned north east and headed for the nearest Rook airfield, this course would take me close to a Knight airfield and would hopefully cause an encounter with at least one fighter.  I need not have done so.
6) After making it about two thirds of the way home, I spotted two fighters in pursuit.  I guess that they had climbed up to try to defend the HQ.
7) The first came into view and was IDed as a Spitfire.
8) I watched him from my tail turret as he moved into my 10 o'clock level position.
9) Just before he attacked, the second fighter was IDed as another Spitfire.
10) Bandit One moved to just beyond my tail turret's tracking capability before rolling in for the attack.  In doing so, he sloppily slid to my 11 o'clock, well within my firing arc.  I shot him down when he was about 500 yards out.  He never hit me.
11) Bandit Two moved in to my 2 o'clock, just inside my firing arc before he rolled to attack.  Like the first one he had a slight altitude advantage over me, but unlike the first one he did not slide significantly closer to my 12 o'clock.  Because of his better position I didn't shoot him down until he was about 200 yards away.  Because he had a better run, he hit me and did significant damage.  He destroyed the following systems: Right Aerilon, Left Aerilon, Tail Turret, Ball Turret and Top Turret.
12) Using my rudder to stabilize my aircraft, as I had no aerilons, I proceeded to the friendly base and landed.  After taking screen shots, I exited with a successful landing and return to my credit as well as the two Spitfires.

There are several conclusions I reached from this.  They are as follows:

1) I am a poor bomber gunner.
2) The fighters made very poor attacks, basically feeding themselves to my guns.
3) The "Laser guns" (as you guys so like to call them) on the Spitfire will not give free kills to stupid pilots.
4) The fighter that did hit me sprayed all over my bomber (he managed to destroy both aerilons), hitting mainly fuselage (he destroyed my Tail, Ball and Top Turrets).
5) Bombers are VERY tough if the enemy is kind enough to distribute the fire or focus on the fuselage.

If this is an example of typical attack patterns, then Yes, I can see why bombers are complained about so loudly.  

If I had been in one of the Spitfires, the B-17 would have been shot down.  Period.  The fighters failed to cooperated.  They failed to make high-speed passes on me from an angle that would make it hard for me to hit back.  The fighter that did hit me failed to focus on a wing, something I have done to nearly every bomber I have killed.  If the fighter had focused, I would still have shot him down, but he would have shot me down as well (given his attack pattern).

This is only one experience and so could be grossly misconstrued.  Maybe my luck continues to hold, but it seems to me that many of us could use a lot of work on the way in which we attack bombers.  My friend was very surprised at the amount of damage that I had incurred.  He chalked it down to the fighter pilot's incompetence.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2000, 01:20:00 PM »
 http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/B1712.ahf

Buffs can't defend from this kind of attack, and many others... buffs are fine. Its just their guns there are overpowered, or its the collective firing thing.

------------------
 

Stab/Jagdgeschwader 77
"Herzas"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-04-2000).]

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2000, 02:38:00 PM »
I say again.
Its your teqnique.
The wingtips of bombers are far more vulnerable then rest of the AC, and when you focus on the wingtip you are not giving the gunners as good a shot at you.
I dont know if that is realistic. Also. The two hispanos on a spit are very effective guns.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2000, 02:46:00 PM »
Pongo,
Yes, I know its my technique.  I just think the wings (its not just the tips that are too weak) need to be tougher.  The fuselages seem fine.

I've done this with non-hispano aircraft as well, but you are right, they are very good at it and need to be downgraded against bombers.

As I stated above, in tests, the P-38 took 7 20mm rounds to knock a Lancasters WHOLE wing off, or it could do it by hitting the wing with 20 rounds of the 50 cal.

What I am curious about is why people bother shooting anything besides the wings?  Why doesn't everybody focus on a wing like I do?

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2000, 03:15:00 PM »
Its the damage model, its diveded in sections, ie; wingtip, wing, aft fuselage etc... in real life it wasn't like this, usually planes weren't destroyed because a wing was shot off or both horiz stabs were.  They succumbed to holes in the wings which enduced drag.  Fire, oil leaking, and coolant, etc. I can remember one famous motion picture of a B17 falling from the sky with all its wings and stabs attached...

Also, B17s were prone to explode in mid air, but a wing could be seperated from the fuselage from a fire, but it was rare that it would be seperated solely by gunfire.

------------------
 

Stab/Jagdgeschwader 77
"Herzas"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-04-2000).]

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2000, 03:24:00 PM »
Not to mention gunnery was extremely harder in real life than it is here.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2000, 03:30:00 PM »
Nath-BDP,
Yeah, the target was tryin' ta kill ya!!  

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2000, 03:34:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
Pongo,
Yes, I know its my technique.  I just think the wings (its not just the tips that are too weak) need to be tougher.  The fuselages seem fine.

I've done this with non-hispano aircraft as well, but you are right, they are very good at it and need to be downgraded against bombers.

As I stated above, in tests, the P-38 took 7 20mm rounds to knock a Lancasters WHOLE wing off, or it could do it by hitting the wing with 20 rounds of the 50 cal.

What I am curious about is why people bother shooting anything besides the wings?  Why doesn't everybody focus on a wing like I do?

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Hispano is wrong. I don’t know. I can do the same thing with a single 20mm G10 and I have done it with only the cowl 7.9s on a fw190a5.  Why don’t more people do it.? It is harder then you seem to think.  I have told some people about it but many people find it challenging to intercept the center of mass of a buff little own a wing tip.
A lot of the issue seems to be that when the wing tip of a bomber disappears it becomes completely unflyable. This is certainly not the case with any of the fighters.  Maybe the mistake is there. If there is one.

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2000, 03:35:00 PM »
 Karnak, I aim for the center of the plane because my eyes are not 20/20 and my aim is at best average.  If I found the trick to being able to consistantly put a steady pipper on the wing root of an enemy aircrat at 250-300 yards while flying 300 plus mph for just a short but crippling burst.....  

 I'd be King  

    -Westy

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2000, 04:42:00 PM »
I have had many instances where the target was trying to kill me... they cant defend from that.

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2000, 05:21:00 PM »
Now Karnak.. you hurt my feelings with the snub on the Spit attack.... You failed to notice that I was outta fuel and gliding when I cut behind you    Kinda hard to set up a real attack when you are gliding at 20K and trying to maintain 300mph+.  I did see some hits though on my screen, so you aren't quite right there...  I was a pretty easy target though.. ha ha

Soda

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2000, 05:38:00 PM »
Soda,
Sorry.

That does kinda change the situation.  I thought you two had grabbed Spits and climbed up to get me.

If you were out of fuel, you didn't have a lot of options if you were going to attack me.

I didn't hear the hits, but I was blazing away with my guns so it could easily have been hidden in the din.

May you have fuel the next time we meet.    

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2000, 09:33:00 AM »
 
  I had actually been in the air a while but was really low on fuel trying to get back to base.. then I ended up chasing you and trying to play with the rpms and throttle to get the max range to catch u... ran out just as I got into range...  The other guy following was a long way back while still trying to climb up to you.  Needless to say I sat there a yelled at my computer... "come on baby, just a little more fuel... come on."

A good chase though, when you can get a bomber level like that and run it's sometime tough to catch.

Soda

Offline Major Tom

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2000, 02:38:00 AM »
German guns aren't good at long ranges, but if you fire at point blank 300 yards or so, they are by far the most effective cannons in the game.  If you are a good shot, 400 or even 500 yards is still effective.

I did a little testing in the HtH arena with a friend.  It takes less than 10 rounds of 30mm to completely destroy a bomber.  That amount of fire will destroy any bomber regardless of where you hit it.

Some people are poor shots in LW planes, they are used to Hispano turbo lasers.  Either that or they try and hit the bomber from beyond 500 yards.

There is only one real solution to the all mighty Hispano turbo lazer problem, accurate countries with accurate planesets, USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan, Russia and Italy.  This isn't very a very plausible scenario right now due to the current planeset.  No more hispano laser cannon of death for the allied bombers, plenty for those who dare fly a Ju.88 or Betty bomber.

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2000, 03:03:00 AM »
 
Quote
USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan, Russia and Italy.


Err you mean USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, Communist Russia and Facist Italy?

------------------
 

IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 "Udet"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-14-2000).]