Pepe:
In response to your statement that 30k Buff crews would freeze at 30,000 ft is not true. B17 and B24 crews wore electrically heated flight suits and wool lined bibs,coats and hats. The best operational altitude for the B17 is between 25 and 30,000 ft. Although they didn't usually fly at 30,000 ft, that's the way it was designed in the 1930's.
Secondly, the Norden bombsight was capable of putting bombs accurately on a target from that altitude. The sight computes release point based on ground speed, altitude and wind drift. In effect, it is a simple computer for dropping bombs. What it doesn't take into account is the velocity of the bomb as it falls, any updrafts, downdrafts,etc. Nor does it take into account the duds that were all to often dropped and didn't explode. All these factors lead to the bomb dispersion previously mentioned and that with bomber crews, getting most of their bombs within 1000 ft of the aiming point was considered a good mission. Granted that killing a hangar from 30k with one bomb (or a single stick of 3 or more) is a bit unrealistic; for effect of gameplay it probably represents an entire formation of bombers dropping bombs. One and two hundred bomber raids are not possible in AH so concessions need to be made to compensate.
Thirdly, 8 of the 13 fifties on a B17G are twin gun installations, manned by four individuals who can fire at most targets that come within the range of their weapons. the high rate of fire coupled with the number of weapons able to be brought to bear on a target therefore can be devastating to any single attacker. The optical sights on turrets of B17G's were of the lead computing type (late war 17's also had lead computing sights on the hand held fifties). Extended range was possible although I don't think many gunners would fire at more than 1000 yards if at that range. If the AH guns hit at d 1.3 or greater is because of the gunners ability to compensate for bullet drop. I know I can do it. I can't always hit at distances of 1.3 or greater but it is possible. As far as I know, the optical sights on the B17 were not the type that were installed on the B29; that is, computers compenstated for the bullet drop and extended range was the norm. God help you if the B29 comes to AH.
Luftwaffe gun camera footage of Fw190's attacking up the 5 or 6 o'clock position show the bombers ball turret with the guns pointed strait down. This indicates that the gunner has vacated his turret and that the tail gunner is most likely ded or wounded and cannot fire his weapons, or has bailed out. If the fortresses guns were manned and/or operable, then that gun camera footage would've burned up in the crash with the rest of the 190.
What I find unrealistic and needing to be corrected with the B17 guns is the range of azimuth that the guns can shoot through. The cone of fire on the tail guns is totally out of wack. Instead of a 60 degree cone of fire, the 17 here has close to 180 degree cone. I think that the elevation on the tail weapons is a bit off too, approximately the same amount. Same goes for the ball turret with the exception of azimuth. Ball turret guns could not elevate to a position above level. This needs to be addressed as well. These are (in my experience) the two most potent weapons on the AH model of the B17G, if attacking from anywhere in the rear hemisphere. In the front hemisphere, the chin turret and the two single hand held fifties and the top turret (and the ball turret)are the most potent weapons in Head on attacks. As it should be. I think that at least one of the fifties in the nose should be made inoperable in head on attacks. This is because the bombardier would fire the chin turrets twin fifties and the navigator would fire one of the two cheek guns, but not both at the same time. The hand held fifties also could not point straight forward. They were obliquely mounted to fire from approximately 9 o'clock to around 11 o'clock.
Corrections have to be made to the 17's guns and flight model as well. I don't think I've ever read an account of someone intentionally rolling a B17 (or unintentionally) without doing some kind of structural damage to the airframe. Many 17's went out of control, spun and rolled on the way down and were recovered at low altitude to fly home but were usually in the shops for major repairs for long periods of time or just scrapped.
On a related note, in today's world, if a pilot rolls a Learjet, it becomes immediately obvious when he lands the plane. (Pilots won't tell you everything they do) You can tell that the airplane has been rolled because the tail is bent to one side or the other.
EDO44
XO Flying Circus
member 91st BGMA "Ragged Irregulars"
