B29 Gunner TTPs

[dirtdart]

Gents, last night I got my butt handed to me by 4510.  Another big <S> at you if you do come to the boards.  Anyway, I could not get a decent lead on him, or even seem to track him as I moved through the positions.  What I found most challenging was the orientation of the gunsights between position changes.  I figured, small plane, crew talks, as the plane moves to different gunners visibility, they are aware and ready to pick them up.  If all of the guns can track, why dont all the gunsights?  How do some of you deal with that? 

[Volron]

I don't remember having that issue the last time I was in a B-29....   Sights seemed to track just fine.  Let me check it out right quick....

EDIT: I saw what you meant with the waist guns.  They do reset to face rear except when switching between them aiming high or low (even then they were facing rearward-ish).  Didn't really notice that till you mentioned it and I went and played in the turrets.  The few times I've been intercepted in one, they were either coming in high/low 6 or from directly below (which is EXTREMELY easy for me to track and hit them from).  How often do you fly the 29 and a what altitudes?  I generally fly at mission altitude, hence why I didn't encounter this problem until now.  Regardless, I would find it a bit annoying as well...

EDIT again.  Not sure how WOUND replaced WOULD....

[dirtdart]

4510 had the patience of a saint. I could only get to 24k with the load I was carrying. At the time of intercept I was at 80 fuel with 16 k bomb load. He got above and abeam and then made extremely smooth passes losing very little e and held his position. His path made me jump though three positions to track him and the orientation of the sight kept throwing me off. And I am not 990000 on the guns either.  Lol. At 36k it is very hard for someone to out climb you. Most have to attack to the rear and low.

[Krusty]

Sounds like you just need a little practice. The B-29 guns can be tricky to get used to, but they offer and astounding range of motion. Keep in mind the guns are not located where the gunners are. You don't need to jump to the closest view to get the best guns range. Stay in the view that gives you best coverage for his entrance AND exit, and the guns will track.

[dirtdart]

I guess it will eventually all come down to practice.  The reticles are the same on all guns, and since the guns are not in the same place as the sight, all of my points of aim, leading, etc... seemed to be quite off.  Thanks for the feedback gents.

[Volron]

The load out I almost always take is the 40 500lbers with 100% fuel and 2x ammo, and I very rarely climb past 30k (it was my understanding that 30k or more was mission altitude).  Hence why I don't get intercepted often and haven't encountered this problem.  But I did take it up offline to play in the turrets and saw the problem.  With those waist sights resetting to "default" position each time, it would be a major pain to track properly and could easily cost you.

The only advice I can give you at this time is:  Try to stay in the top as much as possible and only use the sides when they exit.  When it comes to leading, it'll take practice.  Have to take into account that the convergence is 500 out, so when they get close enough, try to ensure you are hitting with the forward top turret when possible.  Only once did I have someone get close enough for me to readjust my aim in such a manner.  Eventually you'll have the experience and will do okay.

[dirtdart]

I am starting to think about a gunsight for the b29.... I will also say the other huge challenge with the 29 guns is how awful the visibilitiy is, especially in the tail.

[Volron]

Oh yeah.  Can't see spit from the tail.  It's rare for me to be in the tail because of the visibility.  Only if there are practically coming in dead 6, am I in the tail.  Otherwise I'm in a side turret to track em.  Since 9/10 they are coming in low 6, it's not a big problem when switching between side turrets.

[Krusty]

The thing I hate is the gunsight blocks most of your view. I don't think this is realistic from what I've seen, and somebody who's actually been in one and stood at the gunsight says it's not anywhere near that bad. It blocks your view, but it has good range of view, if you get what I mean? So I can see it is hard to follow/acquire a target because of how HTC modeled the views. However you can overcome this with F3 and F1 toggling. Scope a con with F3 and when he's getting near to make a run, move to F1 to track/lead your shot.

That kind of thing.

[Volron]

Well the HTC staff can't model the computing gunsight the 29's had.  I believe we are using the "backup" sight.

Something that may be of use about it...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-29-engineering-flight-book-8691.html

[Krusty]

They can. They choose not to. The thing about the computing gun sights is they weren't perfect, and they just took in a most likely adjusted lead to the target.

In AH terms you might as well add aimbot. That they have chosen NOT to is a credit to them.

Now, if only they could add overheat to all 4-engine bombers so they don't run around 2x or 3x faster than they did historically.....

[Volron]

I'm not complaining that the computing sight was left out.  I wouldn't want my aim to get crappier than it already is because of it.

As for the overheat, it should be added to ALL aircraft then, not just bombers.   Now, if they would update the E6B to tell you power settings based on your altitude, that would be sweet.

[Krusty]

Power setting is your throttle and RPM. You get that from the cockpit!


Well yes, and no on the overheat. Most of the fighters in the game are modeled with non-WEP being continuous power, on the order of it is a rating that can be maintained indefinitely, or in some cases (on some planes) a 30+ minute rating. Since no sortie in this game will probably last that long any way due to fuel burn, HTC does it this way. WEP is of course limited and had overheat limits (cutoffs).

Bombers, on the other hand, don't work this way... They never flew even max continuous. They cruised when climbing. WEP was truly only for catastrophic emergencies. They used max cruise at alt because of the ranges they flew, and they didn't take off with any less than full gas. Whatever the max fuel allowed by their bomb load, they took off with that. Even when bombers took short runs across the channel into France, they always took full fuel. They were bombers, they needed it. They were not performance monsters, they were not uncatchable, and overall they were more worried with getting the job done in a repeatable way than in getting it done so fast it destroyed the airframe and all the engines onboard.


That's the problem with level bombers. Even in the heat of combat over a target they were cruising. In the heat of combat fighters were using max power because of the totally different philosophies behind the bomber/fighter design.


So, yes it would probably be nice to have overheat on all of them but for the most part this doesn't affect fighters as we have them now, and WOULD greatly affect bombers. End result: If you just add it to bombers the problem is solved. If you add it to all, well the problem is still solved.

[Oldman731]

Power setting is your throttle and RPM. You get that from the cockpit!

The best cruise/best loiter/best fuel efficiency manifold pressure and RPM settings change with altitude.  Each aircraft type has a table that gives the settings for different altitudes; the pilot interpolates for altitudes in between.  I think this is what Volron was talking about.

- oldman

[Krusty]

I think strictly speaking that's not the case for the B-29. The only thing that will change is the amount of maximum power until you pass the FTH then you simply won't be able to make that predetermined cruise setting.

This plane and some others are turbosupercharged, and up to FTH there's nothing stopping you from making that max cruise power setting. The engine makes sea level power always. Hence cruise settings vis-a-vis fuel consumption remains the same always.