Why is this?

[Conner]

I noticed that the B-17 can get shot down just as fast as a fighter. I thought the B-17 were made tough but when your in one in AH it doesnt take long to get shot down.

[AKDejaVu]

Is this a troll?

Did you know that the B-17G has 2080 kills of fighters vs only 2209 deaths to fighters?

That's a bomber.. doing better against fighters than most fighters.  Historically, a lone b-17 was easy prey.  Here.. its a force.

AKDejaVu

[Swoop]

AKDjV.

I don't think this is a troll, in  any case I agree with him.  It's only its guns that are a force.....it's ability to sustain damage aint nowhere near that of the Lanc.....

And the guns aint bad on the Lanc either, my K/D ratio in Lancs is waaay over 2:1.  I dont fly B17s cos they get shot down too easy.

 

[Seeker]

I think you may have a point, at least compared to the Lanc.

While the buff guns are extreme, I can generally kill a B-17 easier than a Lanc, which doesn't seem right.

[GRUNHERZ]

Lancs are definatly more resistant to cannon fire than B17s, at least to 30mm from my experience. I think its one of those delightful game compromises HTC puts in because lancaster has only 2 "50"cal CIWS/PHALANX mounts instead of the B17s 10 or so. Anyway im sure Im wrong on all these counts and im sure one of the eternally blissful will waste little time in informing me so.

[AKDejaVu]

This really must be a perspective thing.  I find the Lanc infinitely easier to down than a b-17... or a b-26 for that matter.

The lanc does seem tougher, but it takes at least 50 rounds of .50 cal to take down a b-17.  I've not 1 pinged or even 10 pinged one except for a HO shot at the cockpit.. and I've done that more against lancs than B-17s.

I'm a pretty decent aim.  I can put alot of rounds on target... especially a buff.  They don't go down fast.

AKDejaVu

[AKSeaWulfe]

The Lanc has a wood and canvas structure... The B17 is all metal.

The B17 had the history of being able to take the most damage and return to base in the AAF.

The B17's damage model, and the Lanc's and the rest of the bomber's are on the light side for game play concessions.

You guys get guns out to 1.5K, and all the turrets that can aim at the bandit you are firing on. If the B17 was as tough in here as it was in real life, attacking them would be pointless.. you'd never kill one with the benefits they already get.
-SW

[juzz]

"The Lanc has a wood and canvas structure... The B17 is all metal."

Now THAT has to be a troll... Lancaster made of wood and canvas, LOL!

[AKSeaWulfe]

I was thinking about the Wellington... doh!
-SW

[Torgo]

I find I can amputate a wing of a B-17 reasonably often with a P-51 (or any other 6x50 or 8x50 cal. aircraft) in one pass firing at the wing root when my gunnery is fairly good, which isn't nearly often enough.

Given what we know about B-17 wing strength, I suspect that's pretty dubious; B-24s maybe.

However, the other posters are correct; buffs are already getting so many unrealistic concessions to gameplay (mind you, I don't have a problem with these) such as laser-guided bombs, gunners that actually hit attacking planes (relatively, very, very few LW aircraft were actually shot down by B-17s; it was overwhelmingly the escorts) that it's kind of a  chutzpah thing to whine about durability :-)

Realistically, a lone B-17 should probably take several more passes to kill than it does right now, but it should be far easier to kill a lone B-17 in a fighter without taking a ping.  

[Lephturn]

When I don't line up right and I'm spreading my hits around a bit, I will see many many rounds go into a B17 before it goes down.  The Lanc does seem to take a bit more to de-wing for some reason though.  They are both damn tough though.  I fly the Jug, and a 1/2 second burst from my 8 .50's will end the life of any fighter pilot.   Either buff can take that and keep on flying unless I put that burst into the cockpit or just get lucky.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[Seeker]

Let me re-phrase my post.

A B-17 IS harder to approach, as it has that many more gun postions, and thus less blind spots (particularly the belly).

However, on  the rare occasions that I've caught a buff pilot napping, the Lanc airframe seems to soak up more rounds than the B-17, and it's that that strikes me as odd.

On a Side note, I spent some time defending A7 last night in the night time against a never ending stream of Lancs in a D9. Probably one of the most realistic hours I've spent in AH to date (Wild Sau). We SO much need the Mossie now to run intruder missions..... A couple of Mossies circling the base waiting for leaving/returning night fighters would be perfect. On that note, would it make any sense to have load out vary over time? I'm referring to arena darkness = Schrage muzik for Ju88.

[Pongo]

I dont know that the B17 should be more robust then the Lanc. The lanc is a later designed bigger plane. The engines seem more robust on the B17. Certainly to compare any bomber here to any of the fighters as far as robustness goes is extremly questionable. Barring a nice wingtip hit or a magnificent cockpit hit. Bombers take lots of hits to kill. All types of bombers do. Even the TBM and Ju88 take lots of damage.

 

[Sandman_SBM]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
I think its one of those delightful game compromises HTC puts in because lancaster has only 2 "50"cal CIWS/PHALANX mounts instead of the B17s 10 or so.

Hehe... we used to have a definition for CIWS... Chief, It Won't Shoot.




------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs