Author Topic: Some thoughts on AH bombers.  (Read 708 times)

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« on: September 29, 2001, 06:56:00 PM »
Lets see...last days I've read all those things about the buff gunnery, the myths/non-myths, the true or false assessment of the gunnery effects, etc.

Now lets keep a straight, wanna-be-objective view at them.

The bombers, alone, were easy prey for fighters. One doesnt need to be a rocket scientist to know it, we just have to take a look at the Regensburg/Schweinfurt raids, the return to Schweinfurt, and all the major bombings wich took part in the latter part of 1943 over Germany, to know that a big formation of bombers wont stand a chance against a fighter force. The losses of those raids were simply too much for the 8th AF to stand, and was only the introduction of the fighter escorts wich brought the bleeding back to an acceptable rate.

The bombers used in those operations were flying in close formation, using it to combine the firepower of all the planes in the best way to defend themselfs. That wasnt enough to stop the fighters flying in, shooting and bugging out.

 Dont try to use the argument of the "the LW also came in formations" because is not true. Many times the attacks on the bomber boxes were done by couples of fighters wich came in, fired and bugged out. And only the first attacks were from the HeadOn approach, many of them were done from the sides, or from lots of other directions. And in any case, and in any given moment,most of the time, in a bomber box under attacks, there were more bombers than fighters attacking them.

And the LW losses were acceptable. the Luftwaffe loss rate of Schweinfurt raids (both) was surprisingly low...in AH if 2 fighters, coming in loose formation from the same side, on a 3 or 9 o clock aproach, to attack a formation of, say 4 buffs, are virtually dead. Both of them. (I talk by experience here)

why this discrepance between real life and the virtual skies of AH?.

Because the guns are overpowered on the buffs?. Hitech said that they weren't. So we have to believe him. then why?.

Are the icons?...oh, no. Not the icons. Not JUST the icons. The icons give accurate rangefinding but they aren't all the problem (in fact IMO they aren't a 10% of the problem for the buff gunnery of AH)

then what?. Lets enumerate.

1-Some of the turret firing arcs are, and I will use the word required, ridiculous. The ball turret in the B17 is laughable, for instance, and is not the one and only turret with this problem.

2-The defensive fire that hits on a part of the structure of the own plane DOESNT MAKE DAMAGE. Thus, you can shoot through your tail, your wings...with no effect at all.

3- The linked defensive fire is TOO accurate. I mean, when the waist gunner started firing at an incoming bandit, that didnt mean that ALL turrets were INSTANTLY traking it!. and if they were, they werent firing in the coordinated way they do in AH! (they dont have convergence but all shoot in paralel, thus making a BIG shotgun effect, wich is NOT realistic)

4-Turrets dont fire INSTANTLY to 2 different sides!!!...in AH, you can go from left waist to right waist in a split second and fire with ALL the volley fire of your,say, B17, INSTANTANEOUSLY. in RL, a gunner had to ACTUALLY turn their turret, to find their mark and THEN open fire. So, again, we have completely unbeliable perfomrance here.

5-Turret gunners were KILLABLE TARGETS, especially the ones in the tail, dorsal and ball positions. In AH is almost imposssible o effectively disable the dorsal and tail gun positions of a bomber before getting your fighter blasted to bits. they are SIMPLY TOO HARD to be put out of action. In RL, a 20mm on a turret would render it almost useless (if it didnt kill the gunner before). From my experience in AH, you can spray MG or 20mm cannon  fire over the tail and dorsal zones of a B17, and not killing the turrets. Of course, sometimes a gunner gets killed and/or turret disabled. But it is a relatively rare incident.


There are several more things wich SERIOUSLY affect the buff gunnery, but those 5 are too much prominent to be forgotten. I would mention 3), 4) and ESPECIALLY 5) and 1) as the major problems, being 2) a relatively minor issue compared with them.


Simple result of the review: the Buff gunnery in AH is SERIOUSLY overmodelled, giving an ,in my humble opinion, unproporcionated ammount of advantage to the bombers over the fighters. This, added to the point-and-click laser bombsight able to hit targets from altitudes of 30K+, simply give the bombers a seriously unballancing advantage in this game.

Comments?

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Offline Fariz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1087
      • http://9giap.warriormage.com
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2001, 07:09:00 PM »
AGAIN?

Offline jpeg

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
      • http://www.steveo.us
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2001, 07:15:00 PM »
You're expecting too much realism, this is a game and because of it there has to be some changes to keep balance.

The points given above are good, but what about the fact that you can only have one gunner, was that the case in real life..one gunner manning 6 turrets?

How about the fact that it takes 3,000 lbs. of bombs to take out a hangar?

Overall strength of the bombers is still too weak in my opinion, a few cannon shots should not take out a b17

It's not that big a deal for me.. but i still wish for multiple gunners or/and automatic guns (maybe in 1.08?)

Offline jpeg

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
      • http://www.steveo.us
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2001, 07:16:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fariz:
AGAIN?

You're right..this topic is getting old.. but being as I love flying bombers I had to comment.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2001, 07:26:00 PM »
Add to that the unbelievable high alt turn rates/no loss of E of buffs beyond 27k.

very well said.

HTC has to get this balanced asap, there is nothing more unfair than giving ONE plane type (buffs) a huge gameplay balance just because people dont want to fly it in the small formations they should at least be flown to survive/do their job. If I have to get wingmen to attack a fricken buff , then why dont buffs have to get a wingman of their own and fly together to protect against fighters???

Get 3 b17's in formation to 32k and see if ANYTHING can touch them and come out alive. At that point only 30mm kamikaze fighters can do anything against them, and they barely get 1 or 2 passes at them.

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2001, 07:37:00 PM »
You're expecting too much realism, this is a game and because of it there has to be some changes to keep balance.

But ,to wich extent?...the advantages of the bombers at this point are too much, IMO...

The points given above are good, but what about the fact that you can only have one gunner, was that the case in real life..one gunner manning 6 turrets?

Aye, that can explain the "shotgun" effect of the turrets....but the turrets firing thru the fuselage ,wings and tail? the ball turret in the B17?. The instantaneous change of fire direction in the linked turrets you fire when you change from one side of the buff to the other?...that is something the REAL bombers had to deal with, having 6 gunners, and you haven't.

So, let the "shotgun" effect in, and get rid of the "instantaneous turret autofire", making turrets have to ACTUALLY TURN before firing even if you dont man them.
Or get rid of the "shotgun" effect, and leave the autoturrets in.

And in any case, please fix the firing arcs of the buffs, and make the turrets killable.

How about the fact that it takes 3,000 lbs. of bombs to take out a hangar?

Make it just strong for 750lbs, but make the norden sight to be innacurate enough to force you to carpet bomb if you want to hit it. Minor structures (acks, barracks, etc) can be easily destroyed thanks to the near hits.

Overall strength of the bombers is still too weak in my opinion, a few cannon shots should not take out a b17

Aye too, but thanks to the tuned up gunnery, you NEED the buffs to be weaker to balance it somehow (but still IS unbalancing)


In fact we see that HTC, IMO, has done just the complicated thing. They give the buffs an unrealistical advantage in gunnery and they tune down the damage they take to compensate. They give the bombers an unrealistically accurate sight, but then they set 3000lbs per hangar. And we could keep this unballance-reballance situation until we find the screwed buffs we have in AH.


Wont it be easier to put a decent, minimally realistic defensive gunnery in the buffs, and give them the toughness they had?

wont it be easier to put the hangar toughness at a decent level, and give the bombers a sight wich gives aproximate impact points but not the laser sight we have? something wich requires something more than "point and click" from 30k and above -wich is the real problem with the stratobuffs-?


Why not making it simpler?. And in this case simplicity=realism to a quite decent degree...and that is what I try to say with this thread.

Offline Wardog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2001, 07:54:00 PM »
Seems your all forgetting 1 very important thing here. Numbers!!!!

Ive read a lot of encounter reports from p51 pilots, and every single one ive read stated that there where 9 to 15 109s attacking a bomber formation. Never once read anything about a single fighter trying to take down a b17...

A single fighter picking on a damaged b17 may have a chance to take it down.

You wana play with buffs, hit it with a few wingies...


Dog out............

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »
Aye wardog, but the numbers argument is valid in the 2 ways...bombers relied in close formation flying for self-defence. They weren't going alone, neither they went in loose formations. There was a good reason for it. And even going in close formations, the losses they received immediatly discredited the idea of the unescorted "Flying fortress" bomber.

But still, the argument is not just reality vs AH. It is "normal approach" vs "complicated aproach". Is much easier to do the things in a normal and believable way, than to play the "balance-counter ballance" game, because you are giving one of the parts an unfair advantage to start with.

in other words ,to give a buff a completely unrealistic defensive arrangement, and then balance it with a porked Damage model to compensate is outright complicated   :). You get angry fighters because they get killed in weird ways, you get angry bombers because they say the buffs are not tough enough. Both parts are right in their claim. And all because you are giving an unfair advantage to the bombers to start with...sorry but I think is a quite bad way to do the things  ;)

Wont it make more sense to give the bombers a decent defensive arrangement but not the CIWS system they have now   ;) and make them stand better the damage as they should?.


Same goes, as I said, for the bombsight and hangar toughness. It is twisting the reality too much just to avoid putting a sight wich means some real work for the bomber, and not the insta-hit laser-sight we have now.

Result: you get lots of angry people because they see 33K bombers putting bombs on point targets, and you get lots of angry bombers because they say that the hangars are incredibly tuff...and,like before, both sides are right!  :)

again, IMO, a poor way to do the things.Wont it be better to put a decent sight wich needs a straight approach,and carpet bombing to ensure a hit, and then put the hangar toughness to a decent level?.

Is just my opinion, but I think that all this is way simpler than what it is now...

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Offline jpeg

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
      • http://www.steveo.us
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2001, 09:01:00 PM »
R4M:

Points taken

Cool sig by the way, but you forgot a ; in your else statement...and you dont need {} around the statements if there is only one  :)

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2001, 09:11:00 PM »
Oops!!! I thought I had already fixed it 3 weeks ago...Skuzzy already told me about it  ;)

added the ; to the sig, but I'll leave the {}...I like the "looks" of the sig with them  :D

(BTW; blame StSanta on the faults of my sig...I copied it from one of his messages!. What's me I dont have idea of programming, lol  ;))

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2001, 01:35:00 AM »
Bombers are rediculously easy to kill in AH.

I am 21 to 3 against all bomber types, B17's I am 8-1, Lancs I am 4-1, B-26's I am 3-1, the TBM, JU-88, and the IL2 acount for the rest. If I had spent alot more time in AH this tour I would have killed many mroe of the things. They are just easy to kill if you are patient. If anything they need another crutch to help them..Just an opinion before you guys give me your wrath ;)
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2001, 02:49:00 AM »
RAM,R4M,Asts,Ametz = Creamo

They're one in the same.  I've got proof.


SOB
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

highflyer

  • Guest
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2001, 02:55:00 AM »
I think they are really easy to shoot down as well and with that I hardly die to any of them.
BUT.....


They should be fixed so that they match what the ACtual planes performed/handled/damage/Gun effectiveness/Bombsite/shooting through aircraft structure/ etc....


AND NO IT SHOULD NOT TAKE 3000lbs!! of Bombs to Destroy a HANGER!   :D

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9837
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2001, 03:50:00 AM »
Hmmmm, I'm not a buff'er. But I will stick up for some of them.

On friday night I took down 4 Lancasters in quick succession with a tiffie. They were flying at 10-15k. 1 ammo load.

I don't like 32k buffs, but the rest of it is fine. If I remember correctly buff guns aren't uber, they just have slightly better range (I think).

Buffs are an easy kill. I'll take out 99/100 on the first pass. There are a couple of crack-shots out there that will nail me before I get em, but not many.

The art of killing a buff is patience young skywalker...

Offline mrsid2

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1081
Some thoughts on AH bombers.
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2001, 03:59:00 AM »
IMO buffs are not porked in a real bad way, except high-alt performance and gunner hardness.

Numerous times I've attacked a buff, sprayed the living daylights of its tail section scoring confirmed multiple hits on the tail gunner..

I approach from low 6 - buff not shooting and I'm certain the gunner must be dead..

Then tracers whizzing by only to realize the gunner position is still alive after putting 30mm, 20mm and 7.9mm ammo directly into it from 400 yds away.

And yes, I have a film where I attack a lancaster in a-8 and have to hit it 3-4 seconds of sustained fire (190-a8) to kill it. The film was started after my first attack on the same buff, again with a8, where I scored even more hits on it without visible damage - after which the buff naturally shot me down.