Methods for attacking B-17s by Lt. Franz Stigler

[Wotan]

theres no vibration or "gun shake"  in ah bomber guns.

Thats why they are way more accurate.

Attacking from above and ho attacks arent more effective in simply killing the bomber but in keeping the attacker a live. Goring had ordered a stop to head on attacks because it took an experts shot to get kills like that. The high closure rates only gave the attacker a limited time to score hits.

If the the sturmgruppen page was up I could fill this page up with pilot accounts of them attacking dead 6.

one pilot described it as "running around in the shower trying not to get wet".

He also said that the closer in he got the better off he was because it limited the number of guns trained on him. He described how on 1 occasion he fly up ded 6 killed the b24 tailgunner with mgs then ripped the left ib eng and wing root with 3cm and watched the wing buckle and it drop out of the sky.

He then killed another the same way.

One on my squaddies dad was a gunner on a b24 he said that it was hard as hell to hit anything from the gunner position.

one of the ljks (Raub or Reschke) posted a report about buff gun dispersion from tests done from aircraft on the ground. It said at 600trds the pattern was messured in feet (i believe over 20) from the tail and even wider from the waist gunners.


HT and others have posted data showing the 50 cal model to be accurrate. I believe them then there is some other reason why if modeled correctly they dont match up to the real life effect they had.

the bomber damage model is terrible. A few pings and they come apart. Its easier to kill bombers now then before. Theres to many gun positions to switch through and the whole switching position thing is clumsy.

I never thought I would say this but it maybe time for some sort of otto gunner. Bombers are utterly defenseless while calibrating. No one wants to gun except new guys.

Add gun shake
a bit more dispersion
make the bombers tougher
give the bombers an auto option
Also puts some targets in the arena so bombers will have a use.

[MRPLUTO]

Wotan,

I agree with most of your suggestions except about making the buffs tougher and adding AI gunners.

Here's why:  

I've read that the Luftwaffe estimated the average 4-engine buff took 20, 20mm rounds to shoot down.  That's an average.  A few only took 5 or 10.  Others took 30 or 40.  Some took a couple dozen hits or so and limped home.  This compares to my experience attacking buffs with 20mm in AH.

Those of you who think a buff couldn't take 40 (or more), 20mm hits should remember the B-17s and B-24s which took direct hits from an 88mm round and still came home.

The Luftwaffe also estimated that it took 3 "well-placed" 30mm rounds to bring down a 4-engine bomber.  

If I've noticed one place that might be a bit too fragile for buffs, it's their wingtips.  Several times a couple of 30mm hits have taken off the wingtip and made the pilot lose control.  Since wingtips are hollow, wouldn't there just be some big holes rather than a catastrophic failure of the outer wing?  Maybe I got lucky and hit the leading edge spar or something.

Also>>>Hazed...it's not true that the only was to explode buffs is with a pilot kill.  A couple of days ago, flying a Me-262 I made an attack on a formation of 3 Lancs from 8 o'clock level.  I splattered the number 2 & 3 buffs with many 30mm hits along the fuselage, but didn't hit near the cockpits.  As I looked back, both exploded!  The unlucky remaining Lanc took a quite a bit longer to bring down, with just a couple of pings to the outer wing causing the entire wing to come off and the Lanc to catch fire.  More evidence the wings are too fragile?  

AI Buff Gunners:

In WarBirds the accuracy "Otto", as the auto-gunner was called, was a constant source of argument and whining.  I think more gun shake and dispersion will make buff gunnery a fairer contest between humans.

MRPLUTO  VMF-323  ~Death Rattlers~  MAG-33