Author Topic: The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:  (Read 395 times)

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
This thread is here to discuss the issue of slaved gun positions and external views in bombers, please stick to those topics.  If you want to talk about high alt bomber performance, bombsight accuracy, or car bombing, please find or start another thread.  

Since the Beta days in AH, when the guns on the B-17 first became active, a handful of folks have complained about multiple bomber guns (positions) being able to fire from one station or turret.
The gist of the complaint is that it is not realistic for 2 or 3 guns to fire on command of 1 gunner (B-29 style).
While this is true, I have yet to see a good, realistic argument as to how it is not fair to give bomber gunners this one concession.  

The result of this concession for the gunner and the basis for the complaint, (compared to reality) is that one gunner can typically put out 2 times as much lead as he should be able to.  A secondary result is that he will have 2 parallel streams of fire at side or deflection angles, thus creating 2 close "hit zones".

Why has this concession been made?
Because bombers in AH only have only 1 gunner to man all stations.
In reality, every gunner who could, would fire at an approaching enemy.
Why should we expect less in this sim?
Allowing only the manned gun to fire is a less realistic approach than having slaved guns fire at the control of 1 gunner.
The concession is made for the individual gunner, not the firepower of the entire bomber.

Some have made references that imply that the slave set of guns would not (or should not) be as accurate as the human gunner.  Yes, when one gunner is "on" (target) the other may be "off", but then again when the first gunner is off, the second may be on.  Most of the time that a gunner is shooting, he is missing.  Firepower is not as much of an issue as accuracy is for gunners.  A single 50 cal. gun (for each direction) would be sufficient for a bomber if it never missed its target.
Personally, I would gladly give up my slaved gun for another human gunner (of equal skill).  Yes, each of our fire power would be cut in half, but, the odds of one of us finding a hit solution would be doubled.  A good trade in my book.
Imagine 3 duck hunters.
One hunts alone and has a double barrel shotgun that fires both rounds at once.
The other 2 have single shot guns (of the same gauge) and hunt together.
If you were a duck, who would you rather fly past?

Others have insisted that gunners should be able to join any or all positions, but not allow slaved guns.
Anyone who thinks that this is a more realistic approach does not know much about flight sim people.  Teamwork is rare in flight sims, it is not realistic to expect it to be the norm. The vast majority of bombers would still fly without gunners (In Tour Nineteen, 21,532 bombers were shot down.  443 had gunners, that's only 2%).   Bombers would be flying with empty gun positions. This is not realistic, nor is it realistic to expect someone to ride along as a gunner for someone else when they could be flying their own plane.  

External Views:
Why should bombers get external views?
Because bombers had multiple gunners who's job it was to scan for enemy fighters at all directions.  98% of all bombers in this sim have only 1 person doing the job of many.  Giving that 1 person an external view, closer resembles the attack warnings that the bomber would have gotten from it's gunner compared to having the 1 person jump from gun to gun.
In AH, it is very possible to sneak up on a bomber.  
A common trick among AH fighter pilots is to hold off an attack until the pilot/gunner/bombardier is in the bombsight.  This is unrealistic, and puts the bomber at a disadvantage compared to reality (not that I don't do it myself   :) ).

The bottom line is that even though bomber pilot/gunner/bombardiers can do something unrealistic (external view), the situational awareness of the entire bomber (crew) is most often at a lower state than it would have been in reality.  
I would bet that the majority of AH pilots would trade the external view mode for a Otto-Check-Six mode (computer voice: Check 4:00 high,... Check 5:00 high,... Check 6:00 high,... Enemy in range! Check 6:00 level!  For God sake, shoot you moron!...  etc. ).

Conclusion:   Slaved gun positions and external views in bombers are concessions given to bomber pilots so that the jobs that are typically done by many can more realistically be done by 1 person.  

eskimo

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: eskimo2 ]

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3600
In addition to the above, RL bombers rarely flew alone, which is the norm in AH.  In RL there would be many more eyes scanning for then enemy, than just the crew of one bomber.
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Keep the turrets slaved for pointing purposes, but only fire the position you're occupying.  That way you're still pointed in the general direction when you switch to the next gun to continue to fire on the bandit.  

Of course, it'd be best to have multiple gunners per bomber.
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Why Nifty? Why?
Explain how that would be better, more realistic or more fair.
Please read and try to COMPREHEND my post Nifty.  

eskimo

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
eski you dont mention the fact that slaved guns can fire through the fuselage.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
I agree that any gun that can shoot through any part of the plane should be fixed so that it can't.  But, like I said in my first sentence, that's not the topic of the thread.

eskimo

Rojo

  • Guest
Can't argue with you, Eskimo.  Aside from the bug that allows guns to fire thru the A/C, I'm pretty satisfied with the way things are set up now.  While I enjoyed the rare occasion where our entire squad would man the guns of a Fort in WarBirds, I'll take the slaved-gun solution any day.  

Actually, the best of both worlds would be to allow more than one additional gunner, but still allow slaved guns when only one gunner is present.  Two gunners total would be reasonable, since it's rare to be attacked by more than two enemy fighters at a time.

As regards the exterior view debate, I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone objects to in in multi-crewed A/C.  A real B-17 crew would provide much better S/A than the current external view system, but it's a good compromise within the game. Very thoughtful post, Eskimo.

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
I have heard that the slaved guns actually fire PARALLEL to each other, so... only when attacking from dead 6 or 12 oclock should there really be a worry of being hit by multiple guns


SKurj

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
well... i believe that if you can't man all the positions then those positions shouldn't be used.  If you shoot down the plane then you should kill 1-6 or so airmen.  if only twelve or so guys want to fly or gun the fluffs then you are really accomplishing something by shooting down a single fluff or by engaging it.   fluffers want to have an affect all out of proportion to your effort but you want concessions so that you are not affected by fighters.

you shouldn't be able to shoot through the fuselage

Your duck hunter analodgy is faulty.  One hit from a shotgun is all it takes to take the duck out of the fight but....   Anyone who has flown a 51B or a P47 or even a 6 fifty equipped fighter can tell you how much difference the number of fifties hitting makes...  Anyone who has lost all guns on one side of a 51b and now has only 2 fifties can tell you how useless they are compared to even 4 guns.   unless you have each gunm manned and no ability to shoot through the fuselage then you are too concession ridden for me.
lazs

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
well... i believe that if you can't man all the positions then those positions shouldn't be used.  If you shoot down the plane then you should kill 1-6 or so airmen.  if only twelve or so guys want to fly or gun the fluffs then you are really accomplishing something by shooting down a single fluff or by engaging it.   fluffers want to have an affect all out of proportion to your effort but you want concessions so that you are not affected by fighters.

you shouldn't be able to shoot through the fuselage

Your duck hunter analodgy is faulty.  One hit from a shotgun is all it takes to take the duck out of the fight but....   Anyone who has flown a 51B or a P47 or even a 6 fifty equipped fighter can tell you how much difference the number of fifties hitting makes...  Anyone who has lost all guns on one side of a 51b and now has only 2 fifties can tell you how useless they are compared to even 4 guns.   unless you have each gunm manned and no ability to shoot through the fuselage then you are too concession ridden for me.
lazs


Lazs1:
Bombers are hear to stay.
HTC put a lot of work into making them, and they are making more.
Lots of people like bombers.  Bombers played a big role (to put it mildly) in the airwar in WWII.
Most folks feel a flight sim is not complete without them.

Like I said, last tour only 2% of bombers shot down had a gunner.
We can't expect much more than that.  

Tons of concessions have been made in all aspects of this game in order to make it more realistic, and more fun.
In reality, 9 out of 10 of us should be ground crew keeping the aircraft flying and the airfields in order.
-Why hasn't HTC modeled this?  Because they have enough common sense to know that people don't want to play a game that is boring.
In reality, most of us should never even see an enemy plane on the vast majority of our sorties. -Why hasn't HTC modeled this?  Because they have enough common sense to know that people don't want to play a game that is boring.
We could leave the Cvs and escorts in the harbor until there are a few thousand players to man all positions and do all of the jobs.
-Why hasn't HTC modeled this?  Because they have enough common sense to know that people don't want to play a game that is boring.

You want bombers to have manned only gunners?
Why don't you find 9 guys who are willing to spend hours of their time"virtually" fixing and maintaining your AC on the ground?
Not gonna happen, is it?

Lasz1:
Who would you rather face;
2 P-51s with only 2 guns each,
or 1 P-51 with 4 guns?

I used to fly the spits a lot.  It's easy to run out of cannon in them.  But when you do, you still have 2 - 50s.  2-50s do a great job of bringing down planes, if you get a good solution

Your argument as to each 50 really adding to the hitting power is true.  It also Illustrates why bombers should be able to fire more than 1 gun at a time.

Yes, one shot from a shotgun is often all it takes to take down a duck, that's the point.  But using a bigger gun (or the double) make it less likely that the duck will fly away wounded.

Most folks, with experience, feel that bombers are pretty easy to take down.  
Fighters can already ‘Game the Game" by juking around and forcing the gunner to jump from gun to gun, and re-acquiring the target.  

Another way to look at this is that the concession has really been made in favor of the fighters.
They know that 98% of the time they are only going up against 1 opponent, instead of 6.

eskimo

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2001, 10:25:00 PM »
Good post Eskimo.

As to laz's contention that gunner should only fire one gun at a time. The obvious alternative is to bring back otto to man the guns. Is that REALLY what you want laz???

Yes concessions are made for gameplay, some for fighters, some for buffs. Personally I fly and enjoy both.  If you died attacking a bomber it was YOUR mistake. Learn from it, get over it, get back in your fighter & do better next time.

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2001, 10:56:00 PM »
S!

Don't have a problem with slaved gun positions firing when the single human gunner does.

However, these guns should be aiming at the same point in the sky, not firing parellel, the way they are doing now.

Firing parellel creates a 'shotgun' pattern, which is one reason the bomber guns are able to hit out to very long ranges.  The pattern is very large, and with the carrying power of the .50's, allows the hits we typically see at D 1.0 and greater.

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2001, 03:34:00 AM »
Eskimo,

I think these are minor points, in my perception of problems with buffs. Anyway, I totally aggree with your external view point. I don't think it should be disabled. But asuming that this view simulates the whole crew scanning the sky, manouvering ability when using external views should be reduced, as it simulates the crew giving the pilot indications as to where the bogey is coming from, and pilot's reactions are not instantaneous/perfectly balanced, as he does not the exact position/attitude/speed of such bogey.

With regards to the slaved guns, I don't think it's fair to have them in a perfect paralell trajectory, as they cover a huge homogeneous spot with lead. Instead, I would add lots of random dispersion from the "slaved" positions, simulating the variations in aim each position would have in RL. It's absolutely irreal to have all guns pointing paralell.

OTOH, with regards to guns, I think lethality (please read my post on your other thread) and solid surfaces interference are the main problems.

Cheers,

Pepe

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2001, 04:19:00 AM »
I vote for automatic otto mixed with a single manned gun possition at a time.
Actual ack code may be more than enough to implement the otto functions, with few modifications like blind areas where otto possitions should stop shooting and spending ammo. Shooting sounds should be heard from the cockpit possition.

Offline Aaron_G_T

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 3: Slaved Gun Positions and External Views:
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2001, 04:58:00 AM »
Slaved guns:

This needs to be kept while there is only
one gunner maximum per bomber and no otto.
Even with the slaved guns if fighters
collaborated to hit from more than one
direction (and this has happened to me) then
there would be little defence. In reality
a lot of fighters are still relying on slow
approaches on the 6 o clock position which
isn't very sensible.

With regard to external views, they are
necessary until AH has the WB style talking
otto. This is very important for that
bomb run as this is the most vulnerable
time for a lone crew bomber.

Of course the 'best' simulation would be
to have the bombers fully crewed with an
intercomm, but AH doesn't support it
and I think finding the people to do the
crewing would be difficult unless everyone
with a PS2 was playing the game or something.