OK all those who complain about buffs durability....

[hazed-]

This is a quote from records of interogations of Galland,Bar,Dahl and peterson and its taken from the USAAF interogation at the ceasation of hostilities at the wars end at Latimer House,England,15 oct 1945:

' The first experiences against heavy bombers by GAF fighters were the attacks on RAF Stirlings.Stirlings had weak defensive armament.The GAF shot some down despite large escorts, causing the British to withdraw them from daylight operations.
   The next heavy bomber encountered by the German fighters was the American B-17.First attacked from the rear , this resulted in heavy losses for the German fighters.It was realised very quickly that the armour and armament of the fighters must be increased.
   The Head-on attack on bombers was developed by Hauptmann Egon Mayer in November 1942.The first victory using these tactics over a B-17 came on 23 November 1942 over St.Nazaire as the result of a head-on attack by a FW190.The GAF operated on the principle of breaking up the formations by a head-on attack and then concentrating on single bombers by attacks from the rear.
   When the B-17's began making evasive manouvers as a defensive measure against head-on attacks, the GAF realised that they must develop a safe and effective attack from the rear.
   The GAF encountered no difficulties in shooting down Russian bombers.'

later it says:

' The mass defensive fire-power of close formations of American heavy bombers and the invulnerability of the bombers to hits showed, after ther first aerial combats between German fighters and American bombers, that existing fighter armament was ineffective.
   The me 109 was at this time(1942-early 1943) armed with one MG 151 (2cm) and 2x MG17 (7.92mm) and the FW 190 with two or four MG 151 and 2x MG17.The ballistics of these weapons did not permit effective fire at ranges greater than 500-600 yards.The defensive fire of the bombers was, however, effective even at these ranges.'

so you see again reference to the bombers great durability and effectiveness of their guns.Maybe they should be left as they are, if not increased in durability?

[eskimo2]

Good stuff!

eskimo

[Soviet]

Yeah i always chuckle when someone whines about buffs  

I personally find them too easy to kill, dive from above and aim for the wing strut and they usually spiral to the ground.  

You can go dead six and live but you must close fast and be in a heavily armored and armed plane FW-190A8 works great in this situation.  SO does La5 and La7 due to how small they are.  If your dead sixing in a P-51 or Spit then of course you are going to be shot down i mean spit is weak has 2 20MMs but is really weak.

In fact the b-17 is a little underarmoured even but it's fine the way it is now.  I've seen pictures of the damage these planes have come back with and WOW!! i mean they really can take a beating.  20mms all over the fuslage and it still flys.  No wonder the Luftwaffe wanted 30MMs on all it's late war planes...

[Tac]

What for? All planes in AH have the same flaw: extremities fall off with minimal fire. A b17's wingtip falls off with 8 rnds of 50 cal. Just aim at the outer portion of the wing and voila!

Imo, buffs should eat 3X the damage they eat now and have HALF the hitting power from those turboconverginglasers. *kicks the horse again* ya heah? *kick* *kick*

[StSanta]

Good idea tac.

While they are vulrenable at wing root and wingtip, they can damned near eat 620 rounds of 20mm if it hits the fuselage. And, against an experienced buffer, hitting the wingtips is quite hard, unless you come in with alt. Buffs tend to fly at 22-23k, which for me means attacking from a lower alt.

[Westy MOL]

Bless you Hazed. I say leave em be. After a while they're easy enough to shoot down. I'd hate to see them made into clay pigeons.

 Westy

[Professor Fate]

On the other hand...

 Once a Sturmstaffel was in position about 1,00 yards behind 'its; squadron of bombers, the staffel leader would order his aircraft into line abreast and, still in close formation, they would advance on the bombers.  At this stage our tactics were governed by the performance of our wing mounted 3cm cannon.  Although the hexogen high-explosive ammunition fired by this weapon was devastatingly effective, the gun's relative low muzzle velocity meant that its accuracy fell off rapidly with range-since we only carried 55 rounds per gun, sufficient for about five seconds of firing, we could not afford to waste ammunition in wild shooting from long range.  It was essential that we held our fire until we were right up close against the bombers.  We were to advance like Fredrick the Great's infrantrymen, holding our fire until we could see the whites of the enemy's eyes.
  During the advance each man picked a bomber and closed in on it.  As our formation moved forwards the American bombers would, of course, let fly at us with everything they had.  I remember the sky being almost alive with tracer.  With strict orders to withhold our fire until the leader gave the order, we could only grit our teeth and press on ahead.  In fact, with the extra armour, suprisingly few of our aircraft were knocked down by return fire; like the armoured knights of the Middle Ages, we were well protected.  A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on.  We positioned ourselves about 100 yards behind the bombers before opening fire.  From such a range we could hardly miss, and as the 3cm explosive rounds hit home we could see the enemy bombers literally falling apart in front of us.  On average, three hits with 3cm ammunition would be sufficient to knock down a four engined bomber, and the shortest burst was usually sufficient to achieve that.

Leutenant Walther Hagenah
Sturmgruppe JG 3

[hazed-]

<S> proffate    

thanks others, tac in particular I agree about more durability less gun effect.

my point was just that even humiliated and being interogated by the enemy Galland is ver open and frank with his replies.For an enemy to admit that 'his' enemies bombers were tough is quite something.It was obviously a particular sore point    
I have also read that on average it took 20-22 rds of 20mm to bring a bomber down!.Thats average remember, and I have read that the wingtips of B17s carry a particularly vulnerable fuel tank.In fact I only started using the technique after reading it.In AH it seems to be modeled so im not complaining.

I love bombers, I love flying them and i love blowing stuff up.I feel the guns are a tad too effective but with the overall lack of durability i see I think they are set right.But if it was changed the durability must make up for the loss of gun effectiveness for the sanity of players.

Id rather run out of ammo trying to down a struggleing bomber than die in 2 seconds flat.
Id rather have difficulty damageing attacking fighters when flying a bomber and have a greater durability.thus making it more and more common to have to fly home a riddled bomber with tons of damage etc.
It all adds up to longer encounters, therefore more fun.

When it comes to 30mm's from what ive read they WERE deadly.If a 30mm 190a8 shoots you down with 3 or 4 hits with 30mm I do not think there is any basis for arguement.My opinion stands on bomber durability.I still feel they should take a lot of damage if hit in non vital areas like certain parts of fuselage or well armoured points but a 30mm is a slightly different case in a way.Its an unusual armament, with detrimental effects when used, like aiming and weight, loss of manouverability and lack of ammo and its well documented for its devastating effect(when you can hit something!).At least it means a harder task to be effective with them.

ooh im in trouble now  

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[texace]

Also, has anyone seen those pictures of B-17's who have been shot all to hell and still amde it back? I've seen pictures of missing noses, stablizers, and one where the tail was almost severed and he made it back, the tail breaking when he parked it. These things could take enourmous amouts of damage and still fly. I think the damage model is close, but not quite. They need to be a tad more durible, and should be able to fly with certian pieces gone..<G>