Free 6 min video of guncamera footage....

[Mister Fork]

When the Bf-110 was on the tail of the bomber, there is a tonne of propwash turbulance from it when you get on it's six.  That's not modelled in AH.

As well, realistic air turbulance was a lot more prevelant in the footage - especially with the 190 vs 51.

The first and the last clips make me cringe.  I can guarentee you the foward crew of the Liberator and the tail B-17 were mashed up pretty good.   I mean, the 190 just mauled the front of the B-24. And the 110 hammered the B17. You can actually see the bottom turret gun go dead when it riddled it. That meant he killed the guy inside. The tail and side gunners were also killed. I'm also sure the guys in front were getting shrapnel from the tail.

to those brave souls.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
When the Bf-110 was on the tail of the bomber, there is a tonne of propwash turbulance from it when you get on it's six.  That's not modelled in AH.

As well, realistic air turbulance was a lot more prevelant in the footage - especially with the 190 vs 51.

That is a great point actually. It would be great if AH had propwash and turbulence modelled as it would change a lot of things.

Just think how many LA7s you could auger as they chased you down on the deck. Let them loose lift in one wing for a couple seconds and see how well they stay on your 6.

[Hristo]

190 vs B-24 seems to be the work of an expert, if such qualification can ever be made.

[Batz]

Actually none of the bombers were actually hit with that many 20mm rounds. Even the worst one at the end has very few actual hits and few if any of them are repeated concentrated hits in any one area. The difference in AH is that you would hit that bomber with much more concentrated burts of fire in any one area. In fact I'd say the AH bomber takes the same amount of damage if the cannon hits are placed one by one here and there and a bit over there and here and so on as in the last film.

BTW I have the whole guncam film on VHS and none of the bombers are ever lit up as bad as we do them in AH.

Gunnery is the issue in AH, IMHO.

Gruen is dead on. The hits look devasting in the video with all the smoke and explosion (like il2) but you dont see the concentration of fire that you see in ah.

I admit that bombers in ah are very easy kills but thats because its easy to keep the gunsite lined up. Whether thats because of the lack of turbulence, range counters, very visible tracers, or hit sprits or just time in plane remains to be seen. But Gruen is right its the "gunnery" in AH and all that it entails.

I have the VHS as well and this video has been around for some time. I have the wmv version I can zip and email to anyone who wants it. I have several others as well.

[Kweassa]

I agree with Grun and Wot.

 When playing IL-2 or Forgotten battles, the spectacualr visual effects of smoke, shrapnel and explosions really give you the illusion that you are smoking your target pretty bad. However, in many occasions, when you really go over just how much rounds you hit him with, it's surprisingly low.

 My opinion is also that gunnery is the true factor. I'm an average pilot, and I know I don't have the skills to give concentrated bursts on a single area of a bomber. In my case, when attacking bombers, it often takes many bursts and shots which spread usually all over the fuselage and wings. Naturally, it takes a lot longer for me to take a bomber out, than some of the better pilots.

[Michele]

Gunnery is "the dark side" of Ah.
It is a "marketing gunnery".

Bye

Michele