Why is there no recoil?

[JB42]

I just noticed the other day that there seems to be a lack, well there's not even any recoil in bomber guns. Here i am trying to hit a moving target while my nose is bouncing up and down because recoil in my fighter is fuggin up my aim and someone is in their bomber gun firing back at me with the steadiness of a brain surgeon and the accuracy of lasers.
I mean no doubt there is recoil on a multi-ton aircraft with large firearms blasting away, but seeings the bomber guns for the most part were mounted on brackets, shouldnt there almost be more recoil for them?
Just curious if there's a logical explanation for this or perhaps an oversight in the AH modelling?

[Starbird]

The shaking when you fire guns in a fighter is just cosmetic.

Your aim isn't thrown off by it, as the plane itself isn't shaking. If you keep your eye on the gunsight, you'll see it doesn't move from where you pointed it at.

[fffreeze220]

Bomber should be harder to kill but at the same time bomber guns should be less leathel.
That would be perfect.
Also i would like to see that u can hit really accurate like the tail gunner if u aim at him. In the moment its more  a randomizer.
I really dont aim i spray all over the freakn buff and hope ill get him down.
Also change the conversion from buff guns. At the moment it is at 1.4 or something. That make it impossible for u to get close enough and really aim for something.
I hope with the new damage model this will be solved.
I hope its comming. So far bombers especially the .50cal are deathstars.
It also seems to me that the .303 from the lanc hits way better then the same gun mounted in the spitfire or hurrie.

[Dowding (Work)]

Starbird - that's not correct. Recoil is modelled in the FM. It's been stated several time over the years by HT et al.

[Innominate]

Anyone who says there is no recoil has obviously never tried strafing GV"s with the Hurricane IID.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Starbird
The shaking when you fire guns in a fighter is just cosmetic.

Your aim isn't thrown off by it, as the plane itself isn't shaking. If you keep your eye on the gunsight, you'll see it doesn't move from where you pointed it at.

Try upping a 190A8 and use the .target # command. Fire the 151's and see how the recoil drags the nose down.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Starbird - that's not correct. Recoil is modelled in the FM. It's been stated several time over the years by HT et al.

If that 'nose bounce' is the recoil, you can pretty much wipe it out by scaling your stick.  I don't recall ever experiencing a 'recoil' effect other than a nose bounce which I've gotten rid of with my stick scale.


Ack-Ack

[fffreeze220]

What does the target command do ??

[Wotan]

freeze go offline and take off heading due n and level.

Type .target XXX (xx is range)

For example

set .target 300

A huge bullzi target will appear at 300 yards.

You must be heading n though.

[SpinDoc1]

I think you guys are missing what he's saying. Ever seen the movie Memphis Belle? In there you can see how the bomber gunners have a hard time hanging on to their .50's when firing at the Germans, the gun recoils bounce the nose of the individual gun all over the place. I'm NOT talking about the plane itself, feeling the affect (which albeit small, IS still there), I'm talking about how the bracket-mounted .50 cal cannot stay still. As it is in AH you can zoom full in on a fighter, and when you pull the trigger, you get laser pointing without any movement of your aim. In a fighter this is not the case due to aerodynamic fluctuations, gun recoil, etc. I think a major fix for making bombers less lethal to fighters is adding a sort of gun-bounce for the .50's, where you can't just zoom in and blast away. The gun moves and it's challenging to keep it on target. Any thoughts? I think lethality is the point which so many people have complained about with bombers, and THIS may be the key reason to a bomber's success.

[AtmkRstr]

AH gunnery looks nothing at all like any gun cam footage I've seen.   In the guncam footage the bullets seems to be an inaccurate wild spray.  In AH, we're able to easily hold our fire on target.

The whole bomber damage model beign porked issue (not including the bugs) might simply be our ability to put rounds on target just like the marksmen of WWII.

I agree that AH's gunery model can be improved, but I'm not so sure that that will solve the problem.  I think the main problem is that we're all experts.  Even if AH's gunery was made as dificult as real gunnery, we have far more AH combat experience than real pilots in WWII had in their own planes. We can always expect to be able to down planes as if we were the best pilots of WWII

For the time, I find the gunnery in IL2 to be more realistic but that might only be because I'm not as experienced with IL2's FM.

It's very obvious that AH B17 waist gunners lack any realistic sort of recoil, and that begs improvement.  I bet the bomber turret guns could use more recoil also, although I'd rather an expert on the subject do the research and make the decision.  Anyone have gun turret gun footage?

[Pongo]

But only a small % of the guns on bombers in AH are flex mount 50s. Most are either hard mount 50s in turrents tail guns and bendix nose turrents..or they are smaller then 50 cal. A flex mount 303 or 7.92 typically.
Bomber guns in AH are way too weak. Bombers are meat right now.

[Ossie]

AH gunnery looks nothing at all like any gun cam footage I've seen. In the guncam footage the bullets seems to be an inaccurate wild spray. In AH, we're able to easily hold our fire on target.

Keep in mind that the vibrations from the guns will really get that camera bouncing around. Doesn't take a lot of motion from a camera to make things look wildly out of control.

[Charon]

You can hit things fine with a flex mounted .50, out to 800 yards even (actually done that). There isn't that much real vibration with a hard mount and controlled bursts (I actually found the M2 somewhat boring to shoot, compared to the M-60). A lot of the shaking you see on film is actually the barrel moving in a locked recoil action, and not a vibration of the gun and the mount.  

As far as the effects of the slipstream, cold, heavy clothing and armor and oxygen system, fear, lack of deflection training, etc. these should be issues for the waist guns, but not the turret mounted or glass-enclosed weapons (except for gunnery training/lead issues etc.).

I generally think bombers are too easy to kill, according to the ancedotal evidence. They should, though, be relatively easy to wound, easy to kill gunners, easy to set on fire for an ultimate explosion etc. with the occasional 1-pass kill by an aircraft with the appropriate cannons. The bomber gunners should also be deadly for fighters attacking in a low-deflection/low energy manner. My$.02.

[edit: Firing while manuvering is another matter too. It would be very difficult to track and engage a target in a bumpy enviromnet with a flex-mounted gun. I know that in an M113 traveling over moderately bumpy ground you would be shooting everyting from the sky to the dirt if you tried to engage a target. Hell, half the time you had to concentrate on not getting beat up by the end of the gun ]

Charon

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by AtmkRstr
For the time, I find the gunnery in IL2 to be more realistic but that might only be because I'm not as experienced with IL2's FM.

The gunnery is no more difficult there with icons on, it just takes a lot of practice and the proper stick scaling & Dampening.

Although long range sniping with wing mounted weapons is damn near impossible, it's easy to do with fuselage mounted low-caliber weapons.
-SW