Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: ghi on November 29, 2005, 02:45:15 PM
-
Designation: Lancaster Type
Bomber Service Dates: 1941 to the late 1950s
Accommodation: Heavy-bomber which carried a crew of seven.
Power Plant: (Mk.l): Four 1,640-h.p. Rolls-Royce "Merlin 24" engines.
(Mk.ll): Four 1,650-h.p. Bristol "Hercules Vl" engines.
Canadian (Mk.lll): Four 1,390-h.p. Packard "Merlin 224" engines.
(Mk.VI): Four 1,635-h.p. Rolls-Royce "Merlin 87" engines.
(Mk.X): Four 1,280-h.p. Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engines.
Dimensions: Span, 102 ft. 0 in. Length, 72 ft. 2 in. Height, 20 ft. 0 in.
Weight: Gross, 68,000 lbs.
Performance: Max. speed, 287 m.p.h. at 1,500 ft.
Cruising speed, 210 m.p.h. Service ceiling, 24,500 ft... Range, 2,250 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did't find anywhere specifications showing service ceiling over 24 000ft
My question:
Lancs are the favotitte HQ busters for lot of players, i meet them at 30k +,many times outruning most of the fighter planes.
Did they realy climb and perform soo well at 30k+, loaded with 14 000lbs !!? :(
-
I'd guess it would depend on the fuel load, engines and props on it.
Keep in mind that RAF service ceilings are simply where the climb rate dropped to a certain point, not where it couldn't climb anymore. I don't recall that rate offhand though. 250ft/min or some such.
-
LOL Then the Ju87 service ceiling is about 50 feet (lmao).
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'd guess it would depend on the fuel load, engines and props on it.
.
30k would have been good defence, why did they operate like bats in the night mostly ?!:(
-
Originally posted by ghi
30k would have been good defence, why did they operate like bats in the night mostly ?!:(
If the Lancaster in AH is modeled correctly it would have taken it an inordinately long time to climb to 30,000ft. In addition it may have taken off with only 50% or even 25% fuel, thus greatly reducing it's weight.
In reality it was not worth the sacrifice in range to spend the fuel to climb to 30,000ft, if it even could.
-
Lancs are the favotitte HQ busters for lot of players, i meet them at 30k +,many times outruning most of the fighter planes.
Moin
Did you ever tryed to reach 30k with a full loaded Lanc?
You can belive me it is unposible. You only can reach 26k maybe 28k but for these 2 more Ks you need to spend a houer.
But if you were on 27k and you have dropped on target you can reach 30k.
Only a empty Lanc you can find on 30k.
It is coreckt that the Lanc is prety fast at these alts but not faster as b17 or b24.
cu chris3
-
Originally posted by syncrII
Did you ever tryed to reach 30k with a full loaded Lanc?
cu chris3
Lol,Cris, no way ,i don't have patience to climb 30k in bombers, i did it with some missions long time ago.
But i like to intercept them , i meet you over bish HQ many times, and i meet lancs also @30k, loaded or not i'm not sure,
imop the bombers are fast, ridiculos fast @ high alt ,and the bombing is too acurate from 30k, running with max speed:)
-
ghi,
The problem with the bomber vs fighter dynamic in AH is that the bombers fly at max power 100% of the time, none of this "cruise" setting stuff for them as they carry so much fuel they never need to worry about it.
In the 1942 Pac CT setups the Boston Mk III cannot be intercepted by the Japanese. It is simply faster than the A6M2. Do you really think we were using bombers that the Japanese could not intercept as early as 1942? Certainly Sakai never mentioned that problem.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
ghi,
The problem with the bomber vs fighter dynamic in AH is that the bombers fly at max power 100% of the time, none of this "cruise" setting stuff for them as they carry so much fuel they never need to worry about it.
Most of the radial aircoled engines , running few hours with max rpm,100% power,would overheat , and lose rings /cilinders. It would happen for modern cars also, running with max rpm few hours,
-
And this in reality means that a 30k buff is invincible. For example, this am I upped a G14 to intercept a porking strat runner. (No good fights around, so why not....) Turned out he wasnt the 15-20 I expected. I climbed up to him, he kept climbing, and by the time he had dropped ord he was 33k. I couldnt een get a shot on him, I tried to build up soeed at 31.5, hoping to have enogh momentum to be able to pull up and get a singel pass at his belly before I stalled, but I couldnt do it. Frustrating, even though I know he wasted more time getting their than I did chasing him....
So now (without the G10) is there any non-perk counter to the stratospheric buffer?
Normally HTC has things set up so action shave counters, maintaining play balance. As I see it, the only counter to 30k buffs is buffer impatience. No balancing tools for the interceptors....-
-
Originally posted by Simaril
So now (without the G10) is there any non-perk counter to the stratospheric buffer?
P-47N.
-
But P47N climbs like CRAP, and if the point is interception/chasing it'd be 15k by the time the 30k bomber was 2 sectors away.
-
P-47N climbs ok if you take 50% fuel, and while it loses ground at low altitude to things like the Bf109K-4 and Spitfire Mk XIV it starts gaining it back once it gets above 25,000ft. The goal is to get up there with a fighter than can actually perform up there. The Ta-152 climbs just as badly initially and the Spit XIV starts lagging if you get above 30,000ft. If time to alt is your priority, take a Bf109K-4. The Bf109G-14 is the wrong plane for the task.
Also, intercepting a bomber when it is over the base you are taking off of is the wrong way to go about it. You need to take off from a base well ahead of it. The British and Germans in WWII didn't wait for the bombers to be overhead before scrambling for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
[
So now (without the G10) is there any non-perk counter to the stratospheric buffer?
Normally HTC has things set up so action shave counters, maintaining play balance. As I see it, the only counter to 30k buffs is buffer impatience. No balancing tools for the interceptors....- [/B]
Ta152 is cheap under 10 perks, climbs slower than k-4 up to 24-25k but is much better than k-4 over 25k, plus the firepower, 90 x 30mm +2 x175 mg151 shells, not 65 rounds only on k-4
-
[
Lol,Cris, no way ,i don't have patience to climb 30k in bombers, i did it with some missions long time ago.
But i like to intercept them , i meet you over bish HQ many times, and i meet lancs also @30k, loaded or not i'm not sure,
imop the bombers are fast, ridiculos fast @ high alt ,and the bombing is too acurate from 30k, running with max speed:)
Moin
yes i knew i lost meany bombers to you. But the badest think you have done to me was killing my 12 formation Ki 67 HQRaid with your 20 me 163. I still remember be sure. im still workink on a plan to pay it back ;).
For me its ok that the bombers are realy fast at high alt because it is there best devense. And everyone who spent over a houer to get there should get this litel price.
I think this is the complet other side of game play. some people search the short quick fun in a furball and the others flys houers on there ouwn mission to have fun on that way. you can say the way is the coal.
For me it is much fun to fly a ju88 at 30k with only 10 50kgs bombs to a target far far away and than fly home because not many people do something like that and reaching the max. abilitis of a plan is a kind fun too i gues.
cu chris3
-
Originally posted by syncrII
Moin
yes i knew i lost meany bombers to you. But the badest think you have done to me was killing my 12 formation Ki 67 HQRaid with your 20 me 163. I still remember be sure. im still workink on a plan to pay it back ;).
cu chris3
Ohh ja warte ich Ihren folgenden HQ-Überfal, ich liebe den geruch von rosted Bomber !:)
-
Originally posted by ghi
30k would have been good defence, why did they operate like bats in the night mostly ?!:(
Just look at the defenses the lanc has. The lanc wouldnt last as long in the daytime then the American made bombers.
-
idiots.
if its 30k hq runners you want to kill, up a 163.
-
I concur with Furball. How much does a 163 cost? 50 points? 75 points?
-
163 is only useful if the bomber(s) are heading for the HQ. The question was not "What unperked fighter do you use to intercept a high altitude bomber heading to the HQ?" It was "What unperked fighter do you use to intercept a high altitude bomber now?"
-
Originally posted by ghi
Ta152 is cheap under 10 perks, climbs slower than k-4 up to 24-25k but is much better than k-4 over 25k, plus the firepower, 90 x 30mm +2 x175 mg151 shells, not 65 rounds only on k-4
Only.... When you put all 90 rounds into 2 B24s (and SEE them hit, SEE them land on target) nothing happens. When you spray with MG151 you can use half your 500rds ammo load just to get a gas leak from a B24.
I was in a 109K4 just earlier today and attacking some lancasters. Firing only my 30mm hub cannon I landed no less than 5-7 hits sprites all in a row all in a tight spot all in the rear fuselage. No damage. Got this BS on film, no less. Bomber damage isn't the problem, necessarily, but the 30mm is ^%!$@^$^!$#^$#@! messed up, damage wise.
-
Next time, aim for the wings :D
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
Just look at the defenses the lanc has. The lanc wouldnt last as long in the daytime then the American made bombers.
American bombers didn't survive either unless they had escorts. Just look at Black Thursday.
The hand held waist guns were pretty much useless, so the only advantages the American bombers had was the ball turret , the .50s and a heigher ceiling.
-
Would they have a higher ceiling with the same weight of ordnance? Somehow doubt so....
-
Yes, good point. The Lancs hold 14k of bombs. They wanted to do more damage with less bombers. Its their design. US bombers were meant for massive formations (for mutual defense) so they didn't need more payload. In fact I believe the B17 could carry about 17k of ord but was limitd to 5-6k operationally because of range and performance limitations.
So the lanc should suffer more at alt, IMO. It shouldn't be able to fly better than the B24 when the B24 is empty and the lanc is loaded.
-
Lanc B I data
tare weight - 36,900lb
mean weight - 55,000lb
normal gross - 68,000lb
max TO weight - 72,000lb
service ceiling (max weight) - 20,000'
service ceiling (mean weight) - 24,500'
total fuel - 2134 Impgal (6 tanks)
bomb loads:
14 - 1000lb > 14,000lb
1- 4000l, + 6 1500lb mines > 13,000lb
6 - 2000lb + 3 250lb > 12,750lb
1 - 12,000lb > 12,000lb
1 - 8000lb + 6 500lb > 11,000lb
1 - 4000lb + 6 1000lb + 2 250lb > 10,500lb
-
What is mean weight? Is that with gas but no bombs?
In that case HTC needs to tweak climb rates over 20k. It should be almost nil at 24k unloaded, and nil at 20k loaded.
-
Krusty,
By nil do you mean 0fpm? If so, that is not the RAF's definition of "Service Ceiling". They used a definition based on when climb rate dropped below, IIRC, 250fpm.
Also consider that most people who fly bombers only take 25% fuel, thus greatly lightening the weight.
-
True, very true about the gas load. I think we need 2 fuel burn rates. 1 for bombers and 1 for all the others.
As for nil I was just meaning 100fpm or so. Not enough to really go any higher.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Only.... When you put all 90 rounds into 2 B24s (and SEE them hit, SEE them land on target) nothing happens. When you spray with MG151 you can use half your 500rds ammo load just to get a gas leak from a B24.
I was in a 109K4 just earlier today and attacking some lancasters. Firing only my 30mm hub cannon I landed no less than 5-7 hits sprites all in a row all in a tight spot all in the rear fuselage. No damage. Got this BS on film, no less. Bomber damage isn't the problem, necessarily, but the 30mm is ^%!$@^$^!$#^$#@! messed up, damage wise.
Krusty,
I usually use the K-4 against B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters. At least 10-15 rounds of the K-4's 30mm are needed to shot down one of them. That is, firing from 200-250yds. And I have to shoot mainly in the wing if I want to be sure. Firing in the fuselage has never produced good results in AH.
There are very interesting 1945 test results in the book of Tony Willliams about the use of 30mm and 20mm to shoot down bombers during WW2. They calculated that 360g of HE was needed to bring down a heavy bomber. Assuming 5% hit ratio and the use of M-Geschoss for all weapons, these are the results:
- 4x151/20: 9.5sec
- 2xMk108: 5,0sec
Theoretically, just 3 or 4 30mm hits were considered enuff to shoot down a bomber, but it was probably very difficult to hit with the Mk108, except at short range. So they developed the Sturm units.
The single nose mounted Mk108s of the G-6, G-10 and K-4, dont seem to be considered as a bomber killer weapon.
-
What is never mentioned is the area hit by those rounds, gatt.
-
Also remember that in the real planes you had such things as oxygen bottles, hydralic lines and many other explosive and flamable items. A couple of hits with a 20mm or 30mm in the body of the real plane could produce some very bad problems for the plane and crew. Not so in AH.
-
Back on topic, I've encountered many times Lancs at 28K+ flying and above all maneuvering so well (before dropping bombs on the HQ) that I had problems to chase them with the C.205. It could probably be due to the fact that at normal operational heights the Lancs would be quite easy to shoot down. So the choice of the type with 12,7mm in the tail and the (maybe) softened FM.
Off topic again, I dont know how the buff DM model works. From what I see after many attacks againts buffs, the 20mm and 30mm hits in the fuselage dont seem to produce those (sometimes deadly) damages and fires as in the RL. Would be interesting to know how the whole thing works. We could avoid to waste too much ammo in the fat body .....
-
Originally posted by gatt
the 20mm and 30mm hits in the fuselage dont seem to produce those (sometimes deadly) damages and fires as in the RL. Would be interesting to know how the whole thing works. We could avoid to waste too much ammo in the fat body .....
in RL the 30mm didnt have such a big effect on bomber fuselages. The open space within the fuselage acted to dissapate the explosive force, the 30mm really had a major impact on the wings and other tightly packed areas.
-
I don't know how the shells were triggered though, maybe, when it impacts, the explosive is triggered, or a trigger on top of the shell?
In any case, the shells would come clean trough a lancaster, not inflicting much damage (although all those holes might give the crew a flew!)
-
Hi Frank,
>I don't know how the shells were triggered though, maybe, when it impacts, the explosive is triggered, or a trigger on top of the shell?
The 30 mm mine shells had a chemical fuse that did not need to strike with any defined point. Its sensitivity made duds unlikely except at very shallow striking angles.
The amount of explosive carried by a 30 mm mine shell is about half of that of a hand grenade.
How many hand grenades do you think you can safely detonate inside a Lancaster fuselage? ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Furball
in RL the 30mm didnt have such a big effect on bomber fuselages. The open space within the fuselage acted to dissapate the explosive force, the 30mm really had a major impact on the wings and other tightly packed areas.
Well, theoretically speaking yes. That rule is good for every kind of explosive, not only for the german 30mm HE shell. I guess that in RL many pilots aimed at the main body as wings are pretty thin to hit, especially from 6 o'clock. And in the body there are oxygen and oil lines, wires, crew-men, many things. Luftwaffe gun cameras are very interesting to look at, as fires spreaded very well from fuselages as well as from engines. Many crew accounts about 20mm and 30mm hits in the fuselages are quite interesting to read as well.
-
Thanks for the information HoHun,
But would the shells even explode at a soft target like aluminium skin of an aircraft?
-
Hi Frank,
>But would the shells even explode at a soft target like aluminium skin of an aircraft?
Yes. That's exactly what they were built for :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
sorry... maybe i should have been a little more clear...
Originally posted by gatt
the 20mm and 30mm hits in the fuselage dont seem to produce those (sometimes deadly) damages and fires as in the RL.
i replied in response: -
Originally posted by Furball
in RL the 30mm didnt have such a big effect on bomber fuselages.
key word being such. you were asking why they do not have such a big effect, i was saying why!
Originally posted by HoHun
How many hand grenades do you think you can safely detonate inside a Lancaster fuselage? ;-)
That is not what i was implying at all.
What 30mm does to an enclosed space: -
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/16/Mk108.jpg)
-
My point on the Lancaster is this: If the weight is levelled with a B17 for instance, which one has a higher ceiling, speed and ordnance.
The Lannie sports a merlin which is a good engine at high altitde. Or?
-
Angus, the Lanc used 20 series motors which were not that great at altitude while the Wrights of the B-17 were still putting out the ~power they were at SL when over 20kft.
-
Oh TY didn't know that.
Anyway if it had been seen as needed the Lancie could have mounted any Merlin right?
BTW, a lightly loaded Lancaster (little fuel and no ordnance) could apparently LOOP. It could also turn very well. And corkscrew...
-
Alex Henshaw rolled a Lancaster
-
TELL ME MORE!!!!!
:) :) :)
-
I've got a Lancaster pilot quoting that on occasion they'd fly Lancasters up to 27-28k during WW2. However, they'd also do many missions around 15-16k... but then it would be at night!
-
some trivia
During the filming of the Dam Busters the actors were told how to start up the engines of the Lanc and and start to taxi the plane. When they got a distance from the camera a real pilot would take over for the take off. On one occasion the folding seat that RAF pilot used collapsed during the take off and the actor had to get it off the ground and circle while the Pilot could get up and take over.
pulled off another board
-
Oh please, actors can hardly act, let alone take off with a Lancaster!
-
he cheated, he used auto take off
-
But did the real pilot really needed that much time to get up and take over?
I mean, between taxiing and take-off stands at least 5 minutes!
-
there is nowhere for him to really fall to either unless he fell down the small passage into the nose section
-
Funny, just bought the Dambusters!
Have to have a lookie. Saw it when I was a kid and remember it as very good!
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
some trivia
During the filming of the Dam Busters the actors were told how to start up the engines of the Lanc and and start to taxi the plane. When they got a distance from the camera a real pilot would take over for the take off. On one occasion the folding seat that RAF pilot used collapsed during the take off and the actor had to get it off the ground and circle while the Pilot could get up and take over.
pulled off another board
Also during filming the real 60 feet altitude over the lakes didn't look low enough so they flew even lower!! Can't remember how high exactly but I think it was 30-40ft! I'll try and dig the magazine out with it in!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
But P47N climbs like CRAP, and if the point is interception/chasing it'd be 15k by the time the 30k bomber was 2 sectors away.
I've tested the P-47N's time to climb, and it's far and away the fastest climber from 20k to 30k. Yeah, if you overload it with gas it doesn't climb very well from sea level. But, it was designed and engineered for high altitude performance. Within that context, it is simply awesome.
For example, let's compare the Bf 109K-4 to the P-47N. First, I will compare climb rates a various altitudes beginning at 20,000 feet. Just remember that the P-47N can fly as far on 50% fuel as the Bf 109K-4 can fly on 100%. Fuel burn 1.0
Bf 109K-4, take off with 100% fuel, climb in WEP.
20k: 3,200 fpm
24k: 2,950 fpm
27k: 2,400 fpm
30k: 1,850 fpm
33k: 1,400 fpm
P-47N, take off with 50% fuel, climb rate in WEP.
20k: 3,200 fpm
24k: 3,050 fpm
27k: 2,650 fpm
30k: 2,450 fpm
33k: 2,000 fpm
Let's look at performance at 33k, assuming we would be chasing bombers up there.
Max speed, in WEP at 33k.
Bf 109K-4: 422 mph
P-47N: 475 mph (444 mph in MIL power)
While the P-47N is much faster, that's only part of the story. Level at 33k, 300 mph TAS, apply power and monitor acceleration. The P-47N accelerates 2 times faster in MIL power than the 109K-4 does in WEP!!! Engage WEP in the P-47N and the Jug accelerates 3 times faster, getting from 300 to 400 mph in 1/3 of the time the 109K-4 requires.
So, my choice for bomber interception is the P-47N if I takeoff far enough ahead. I prefer to climb on the same heading as the bombers. Granted, the 109K-4 will get to 20k faster. However, if you need to chase down super-high bombers, the P-47N is the best. Especially when one considers that its about 190 mph faster than any bomber at 30k or higher.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Have to point out something, however...
The P47 will only do those rates with WEP. WEP in a p47 lasts only a couple of minutes at best. Ki84 might have longer WEP than P47.
Also, while it is faster, even though it has 8 guns, they are all 50cal. Even 1 30mm with 65 rounds is better for bomber busting than 8 50cal with 3600 rounds.
And, while above 20k it does do rather well, it takes forever to get to 20k. I'm going to go offline right now and time it from SL to 30k 50% gas in p47N and 100% gas in 109k and use as much WEP as I can to figure it out real quick.
-
P-47's WEP is 5 minutes, just like all WEP other than the Ki-84 and select German kites. In any case, the P-47N vastly out performs the Bf109K-4 at those altitudes even when it is on MIL power and the K-4 is on WEP.
-
indeed the P47N wep is 5 minutes exactly, found that out in my test. The 109K4 is 10 minutes.
Here is the setup: I used auto takeoff, and no throttle until the clock's second hand hit 12, then full throttle and wep, once gear was auto retracted I hit auto angle (because auto T/O stays at about 135) until best climbing speed reached, then autoclimb. Noted times exactly as needle passed the mark for the following alts. At 30k exactly leveled out timed it til 350TAS. Fuel burn is at 2.0
109K4: T/O 1:13pm
5k 1:14 30s pm
10k 1:15 39s pm
15k 1:16 52s pm
20k 1:18 13s pm
25k 1:19 50s pm
30k 1:21 59s pm
350TAS 1:22 56s pm
Lost wep: 3-4 seconds after reaching 350TAS at 30k
Climb was pegged past 4000fpm until about 18k, where it dropped to less than 4000. At 22k it was down to 3000fpm. At 26k it was down to 2500fpm. It was closer to 2000fpm by 30k, but never dropped below roughly 2250 fpm or so.
P47N: T/O 1:25pm
5k 1:22 16s pm
10k 1:28 58s pm
15k 1:30 29s pm
20k 1:33 26s pm
25k 1:35 37s pm
30k 1:38 14s pm
350TAS 1:39 25s pm
Lost wep: 1:30pm, 1:34 34s pm, 1:38 14s pm
Restarted wep: 1:33pm, 1:37pm (3 minute cool down, reached 350TAS before restarting a third time)
Climb at all alts was 3000fpm with wep, 2000fpm without (give or take 50fpm), even up to 30k.
Conclusion:
109K4 from takeoff to 30k is 8 mins 9 seconds, and from takeoff to 350TAS @30k is mere seconds under 10 minutes (9 minutes 56 seconds).
P47N from takeoff to 30k is 13 minutes and 14 seconds, and from takeoff to 350TAS @30k is 14 minutes and 25 seconds.
The 109 climbs 50% faster based on time alone. Add to that the P47 ran out of wep 3 times and the 109 didn't run out at all, and I think the better interceptor is still the 109.
EDIT: Note: I still like the 47N for fighting, but I'd not use it to get to alt really fast in order to intercept bombers, that's what I'm concerned with in this thread
-
I agree with Widewing,
the P-47N and his 8x12,7mm are better for shooting down buffs. You can attack them at very high speed, begin shooting from 800yds, break at 250-300yds, you can even use deflection and under-g shooting. The problem is to get into the right position quickly, since the buff encounters happen usually between 10 and 20K where the P-47N is not as good as the K-4.
With the K-4 is the opposite. If you want to survive and kill, you cannot attack bombers at very high speeds, you cannot shoot from more than 250-300yds, you cannot do deflection shooting, you cannot fire under g-effect. You have to sit on their 5-7 o'clock for at least some seconds. Thats what Sturm Staffeln usually did, with armored A-8 that is ....
That said, I love the K-4, so ... I warp a lot into bombers, I die alot and waste a lot of ammo.
-
Hi Gatt,
>With the K-4 is the opposite. If you want to survive and kill, you cannot attack bombers at very high speeds, you cannot shoot from more than 250-300yds
Hm, what do you consider the range-limiting factor?
(In our recent long-range fire discussion, I suggested that the MK108 shoots "true" out to 500 - 600 yards.)
Undoubtly, the 12.7 mm Browning has a longer range, but an 8 x Browning battery has only half the firepower of a 1 x MK108 "battery".
Just as you do, too, the Luftwaffe considered the time the fighter is exposed to defensive fire a major factor. They concluded the 15 mm MG151 was a poor anti-bomber weapon for that reason - and from its characteristics, it could be considered the Browning's bigger, badder brother ;-)
Do you use a long convergence range when hunting bombers with the P-47? (That's what I do in other games, seems to help a lot.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Gatt,
>With the K-4 is the opposite. If you want to survive and kill, you cannot attack bombers at very high speeds, you cannot shoot from more than 250-300yds
Hm, what do you consider the range-limiting factor?
(In our recent long-range fire discussion, I suggested that the MK108 shoots "true" out to 500 - 600 yards.)
Undoubtly, the 12.7 mm Browning has a longer range, but an 8 x Browning battery has only half the firepower of a 1 x MK108 "battery".
Just as you do, too, the Luftwaffe considered the time the fighter is exposed to defensive fire a major factor. They concluded the 15 mm MG151 was a poor anti-bomber weapon for that reason - and from its characteristics, it could be considered the Browning's bigger, badder brother ;-)
Do you use a long convergence range when hunting bombers with the P-47? (That's what I do in other games, seems to help a lot.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi HoHun,
based on my experience made in attacks against buffs I found that the 30mm is indeed quite good with no-deflection shots. Sometimes surprisingly good up to 400yds and more. But kills in this situation are quite rare in the MA, mostly against pilots with low or no SA or against buffs on bombing run and above all not manoeuvering, you know.
From everything I read on the matter, it seems that the LW considered *two or more* Mk108s the best weapon against heavy bombers. The single nose mounted Bf109 Mk108 (as in the K-4, G-10, G-14 and late G-6) is (from what I read) seldom considered as a bomber killer weapon.
Theoretically the 30mm had much more destructive power but, IMO, a battery of 8x12,7 or even 6x12,7, in our MA, have better chance to hit and shoot down for the reasons I explained above. One more reason is that I can shoot for some seconds more and this could make the difference. Keep in mind that I never (and cant) separate this reasoning from surviving: firing from a high speed Jug with 8x12,7 helps in surviving *and* killing. For the same reason the A-8 4x20mm are much better in shooting down bombers than the single Mk108 in our MA.
As far as convergence is concerned, when I used the Pony or the Jug I always use 400yds for all the weapons and begin firing at 600yds. I got hits on enemies with deflection shooting up to 800yds. The Browning is something incredible to see in action, especially when you are used to the Mauser 13mm or the italian BREDA-Safat 12,7mm ;)
Disclaimer: everything is based on my (and my squaddies) experience. So, YMMV. You know, just to avoid getting jumped by some loud voice cheerleader ;)
-
Come on, it's 30 millimeters! The firepower is stunning, just have to hit!
The .50 cal is almost useless far out against a bomber box, and the box is firing back with a similar firepower.
If I'm gunning a formation of B17's, you'll never survive on my 6 at 250 yards......:D
-
Angus ;) ,
the funny thing is that I'm asking for the pods but I keep shooting down heavies (and die ;)) with the lone Mk108 of my K-4.
BTW, where do you usually fly and gun in your B-17 box? :D
-
Fly bishes, all over the place, and use mostly, the Lancaster.
Don't get on my 6 though, ;)
-
K4 only good for 250-yard dead-6 shots?!?!? Uhm.... okay apparently only if you don't know how to fly it at all!
It is in fact better to make high speed passes in the 109K4 because you only need one burst to land to do damage. It's the P47N that needs to linger on the shot, because it needs to land more hits on target due to the guns.
109K4 is great for frontal aspect shots, for top down or bottom up, and can be good with slashing attacks from the side if you lead enough.
To say that "Plane A has to sit on a bombers tail to kill it, while Plane B can fly fast and slash away" is silly -- because every plane can make slashing attacks. The ones with heavier cannons especially so, as they don't need as many hits to kill/injure.
EDIT: P.S. even above 20k the 109K4 outclimbed the p47N and matched acceleration to 350TAS. Under 350 (to 200) it outaccelerates the P47N I believe (didn't take notes on the 200mph mark in my test). P47, on the other hand, being 5 times as large as the 109, will present a larger target but probably be able to withstand more fire before being critically damaged.
-
Krusty,
lets see ... hmmmm, are you the Krusty that in the whole 2005 has flown more or less one TOD with a k/d of 0,63 and got 3 kills in 109G-6 and G-10 (perhaps) against heavy bombers? Are you really that Krusty? :eek:
P.S.: you didnt read the above disclaimer, eh?
-
Hi Gatt,
>based on my experience made in attacks against buffs I found that the 30mm is indeed quite good with no-deflection shots. Sometimes surprisingly good up to 400yds and more. But kills in this situation are quite rare in the MA, mostly against pilots with low or no SA or against buffs on bombing run and above all not manoeuvering, you know.
So reading between the lines, it seems that in Aces High, the bombers fly evasive manoeuvres, too?
(My own Aces High experience is very limited. I had quite good luck against B-17s with a P-51B, and poor luck against other B-17s with a Ta 152. This might not have been an armament question, though :-)
>From everything I read on the matter, it seems that the LW considered *two or more* Mk108s the best weapon against heavy bombers. The single nose mounted Bf109 Mk108 (as in the K-4, G-10, G-14 and late G-6) is (from what I read) seldom considered as a bomber killer weapon.
Quite right. They figured 7 - 8 hits in random locations were necessary to bring down a bomber with 95% chance, and expected 1 out of 12 shots to hit at 500 m. That meant 88 rounds had to be fired for a 95% kill, and the Me 109 only carried 60 rounds. (Other charts use 5% hits, which would make the ammunition supply even more inadequate.)
Extrapolating from another chart, I'd say 110 hits by the MG151 were necessary, and for high velocity weapons the Luftwaffe expected a slightly better hit ratio of 1 in 10. The MG151 is about twice as powerful as the Browning, so we might use a figure of 220 hits or 2200 rounds fired required to bring down a bomber. (Could be I posted a differing figure in another thread, but hey, it's back-of-the-envelope only :-)
>One more reason is that I can shoot for some seconds more and this could make the difference.
Sounds sensible! If I remember correctly, the P-47 carries a bit more than the 2200 rounds I mentioned above, so even under real-life Luftwaffe conditions, it would be more likely to bring down a bomber than the Me 109. However, as it only has half the firepower of the Me 109, it would be exposed to return fire for twice as long, which is a bad trade-off. (It probably could fire from farther out, making the return fire less effective, so it's not as disadvantaged as it might seem at first.)
The attractiveness of the MK108 for the Luftwaffe was its low weight. With the Me 109's 60 rounds, gun and ammunition weighed only 95 kg. Eight Brownings with 2500 rounds weighed 507 kg for roughly comparable bomber-killing capacities! (Both weights are for guns and belted ammunition only, mountings etc. are not counted.)
>As far as convergence is concerned, when I used the Pony or the Jug I always use 400yds for all the weapons and begin firing at 600yds.
Hm, I was thinking of real long-range fire against non-manoeuvring bombers, but if they refuse to fly straight and level, that's not an option of course :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hello HoHun,
in AH there are very good bomber pilots, they fire and manoeuver well, even at full load and high altitude.
Do you have Tony Williams book? There you can find an interesting 1945 (german, I guess) report. They said that 360gr of HE were needed to down a heavy. Assuming a 5% hit ratio and the use of M-Geschoss for all weapons, these are the results (in term of firing time needed):
- 4 x MG151/20: 9,5sec
- 2 x Mk108: 5,0sec
A 10% hit ratio can be considered a good one in AH2 and 4/5 seconds of firing with the AH2's 190A-8 4x20mm are enuff to down an heavy. Same thing goes for the single AH2's Mk108, a couple of seconds or even less are enuff. This can be considered quite accurate :)
As far as distances are concerned ... hits from 500mt (it means even more yds)? I'd say a *very* difficult shot with AH2's Mk108, especially during a fight or a chase. You should be *very* lucky. I have difficulties to hit even with the MG151/20 at those distances.
Do you have any more info about firing distances using the Mk108 and the MG151/20?
-
(My own Aces High experience is very limited. I had quite good luck against B-17s with a P-51B, and poor luck against other B-17s with a Ta 152. This might not have been an armament question, though :-)
Bomber Gunners are more accurate in AH then real life for several reasons all related to 'game play'.
In AH Bomber pilots can up with a 'V-formation' of 3 bombers. A single 'gunner' can control a whole battery of bomber guns. The Pilot can jump to a gun position and aim all the guns in that 3 bomber 'V-formation' at a single attacking fighter. In AH you can be hit and killed from ranges up 1200yards from bomber gunners, mostly spray and pray at that range but you can still be hit.
The gun positions themselves are completely stable platforms with no 'shake' or vibration. Dispersion on the individual guns (turret, tail, side etc..)is all the same, about 20ft @ 600yards (IIRC from past tests). As such a single player can control all the guns of a 3 plane formation 'Vic' and can throw out a cone of fire that can easily kill at the longest ranges. The bomber pilot also has the ability to fly in 'external views'. He has complete 360 degree unobstructed vision to watch for approaching attackers. In AH icons begin at 6000yards (plane type, friend or foe, range etc..)
It's not set up to be realistic in anyway, the rational most often heard is 'If bombers aren't given a chance then no one would fly them'.
Even with the advantages bombers stand little chance and are most often cannon fodder, not only in the open main but in scripted event and scenarios.
-
Hi Gatt,
>in AH there are very good bomber pilots, they fire and manoeuver well, even at full load and high altitude.
That seems to be the key then. The weapon lethality you describe seems to be roughly in line with one could expect, at least.
>Do you have Tony Williams book?
2 of them :-) I have scans of (excerpts of) the original reports, too, and I believe the lower figures are for the 50% probability of kill, judging from a longer, slightly deviating version of the table.
>As far as distances are concerned ... hits from 500mt (it means even more yds)? I'd say a *very* difficult shot with AH2's Mk108, especially during a fight or a chase. You should be *very* lucky.
Hm, even against a non-manoevring target with no deflection?
>Do you have any more info about firing distances using the Mk108 and the MG151/20?
The MK108 of the Bf 109G-6 was sighted for 400 m distance. That means that they meant to use it at least out to that distance, and probably a bit beyond. From the trajectory, the weapon could be sensibly sighted out to 500 m, but drop after that is sharp.
The gondola MG151/20 were sighted for 500 m, but that might have been to make them match the MK108. Convergence range was 300 m, so that meant that they expected to press attacks at least to that range, and probably a bit closer.
For the Fw 190A-8/R1 with 6 x MG151/20, the cannon were sighted for 550 m, but convergence was at 900 m for the wing root cannon and at 800 m for the gondola cannon! I'd say they meant to use all that firepower to kill from farther out, and perhaps to create a large pattern. (I believe the Sturmbock with shorter effective range and the armour to survive the counter-fire was more successful :-)
The standard Fw 190A-8 with 4 x MG151/20 had the cannon sighted for 550 m, too, but convergence range was 600 m for the wing root cannon and 400 m for the outboard cannon, so this indicates a bit shorter ranges.
For the MK108-armed Me 262, standard tactics were to open fire at 600 m range, but as that was during a rapid overtaking attack, it might be that this was to get some tracers into the air just before getting into effective range in order to exploit the short engagement time most efficiently :-)
So Luftwaffe tactics probably expected the following normal engagement ranges:
Bf 109G-4/U4 with gondolas: 450 - 200 m
Fw 190A-8 with 4 cannon: 600 - 300 m
Fw 190A-8 with 6 cannon: 800 - 400 m
Me 262: 500 - 200 m (short range determined by speed :-)
Of course, the Sturmböcke closed to even shorter range, it was not the attacker's weapon that determined minimum range but the defenders' firepower :-)
But the above is what one can sensibly conclude from the information on gunnery setups.
It would be interesting to see the convergence ranges for wing-mounted MK108s, but I haven't seen those anywhere yet.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
As a small aside, Gatt, despite the weak attempt to insinuate that I don't have the experience or skill that you do, and thus have no voice, the info you posted isn't right. Not sure where you got it. Last I checked I've got 1.5 K/D and that's without having much time this tour to fly.
-
Hi Bruno,
>The Pilot can jump to a gun position and aim all the guns in that 3 bomber 'V-formation' at a single attacking fighter.
I saw that in action, it had a positively robotic air to it :-)
>The gun positions themselves are completely stable platforms with no 'shake' or vibration.
Hm, what about manoeuvres? Apparently, the British corkscrew worked quite well even in daylight, but I believe that it was almost impossible for the rear gunner to hit anything during a corkscrew.
>Dispersion on the individual guns (turret, tail, side etc..)is all the same, about 20ft @ 600yards (IIRC from past tests).
That is about 11.1 mil, which could be seen to represent one of the most accurate turrets.
>It's not set up to be realistic in anyway, the rational most often heard is 'If bombers aren't given a chance then no one would fly them'.
I have often heard that, but people flew bombers in Air Warrior, too, and there you'd not even have a single gunner if you didn't invite another player along before the sortie :-) And there were hardly any volunteers ... and if they got bored in mid-flight, they'd just leave, and you were undefended again :-/
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
It is my experience in AH that if I am gunning a bomber that is controled by somebody else I have essentially zero chance to hit anything if he does any manuvering at all. It is just impossible to compensate for movements that you do not know where they are going.
It is hard to hit anything when you are just using the rudder from the gun position when you know what is going to happen.
-
Hm, what about manoeuvres? Apparently, the British corkscrew worked quite well even in daylight, but I believe that it was almost impossible for the rear gunner to hit anything during a corkscrew.
The pilot can control the bomber from the the gun position using his rudder only. In order to cork screw he would need to jump back to the pilot seat thus, no more wall of fire. If he has a gunner (an additional player who has 'joined' his bomber') its been my experience that harsh maneuvering makes them lethal but a more difficult target to hit. I actually had a single lanc (the other 2 having been killed) split esse at 5000ft and pull out, I couldn't due to excess speed.
You see additional 'players as gunners' mostly in events, in the main its usually 1 player per bomber and he does it all. The smart bomber pilots will simply slide side to side using their rudder and unleash their fire. Small maneuvers but they are effective in avoiding some of the longer range shots.
-
Thanks HoHun, interesting data. From the 190A-8 Handbook I have it seems that the A-8/R1 had the inner MG151/20's harmonization at 550mt and the crossover at 600mt, but the other pair(s) (gondolas or outer) had the crossover at 800 and/or 900mt. How does it sounds?
Lancs seem to be the best in sharp manoeuvering. I've seen chandelles and something like wingovers done by them (I cant always judge if light or heavy). When you have much speed in excess you can get only a snapshot on them, then reposition and then attack again.
The MA bomber's usual manoeuver is trying to keep you constantly on his six o'clock, since in the Main they dont have to stick with the whole combat box (like in RL, that is).
Bruno is right when he says that even with all those (apparent) advantages bombers seldom survive in the Main if attacked in the right way. That said, there are some bomber gunners out there able to kill you quite easily from 700-800yds (on your FE) and while you are manoeuvering. Dangerous but very challenging ;) Anyway, what I see is that bomber formations flying above the main furball are seldom attacked, few gamers want to spend time to climb, position and attack.
Krusty, hmmmm, the score system seems to be broken then .... I checked all your 2005 TODs and the only one with some numbers is TOD #67. If the system does works, then in the whole 2005 you shot down, hear, hear, 6 heavies. Definitely an expert, who can tell whats *silly* and whats not :huh
-
I shot down about 23x b24s, 8x b17gs, and 14x lancasters last tour. This tour I've not had much flight time, only 18x b24s, and 4x b17s and 7x lancasters.
-
Dang, since TOD #67 you are probably flying with another nick ....
-
what shocked me when I looked this up is that Ihave more b24 kills than I do la7s and spit16s, but more la7s/spit16s than I do lancasters.
-
Hi Gatt,
>From the 190A-8 Handbook I have it seems that the A-8/R1 had the inner MG151/20's harmonization at 550mt and the crossover at 600mt, but the other pair(s) (gondolas or outer) had the crossover at 800 and/or 900mt.
Roger, I confused the guns!
To sum up the posts by all contributors, it seems that in Aces High, the perfect fire control combined with low dispersion and side-slipping evasives make bombers a more difficult target than one could expect in real life?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun, that might be so, but I would add a comment to the summary:
I find making attacks on a turning bomber easier and safer, as I can get cannon shells "over" the bomber and toward the cockpit for a better chance at a kill shot. If I'm in a rear angle aspect and he turns toward me it gives me a better shot. I also feel more confident that I will be harder to hit while the bomber is manuvering, due to the movement of the bomber itself. I think those temper the benefits somewhat.
-
Hi Krusty,
>I also feel more confident that I will be harder to hit while the bomber is manuvering, due to the movement of the bomber itself.
Very interesting thought! In games with computer gunners, defensive fire usually stays accurate no matter what the platform does, so the aspect you mention had completely escaped me. So here we have a realistic aspect of having humans man the guns :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I remember a fight just after the Bf109E-4 had been added. I was RTB in a Ki-67 when a Bf109E-4 bounced me. I was already pinged up a bit, but the Bf109E-4's 7.92mm guns quickly killed all of my remaining gunners except the right waist gunner. I fought the Bf109 from the waist position with the rudder as far over as I could get it so as to bring my last gun to bear on the Bf109 parked behind me. I doubt I would have won if the Ki-67's waist guns weren't in those blisters giving them better arcs of fire. I think that is the only fighter I have ever shot down with a waist gun in AH.
-
Well, the LW found the US bombers somewhat difficult to approach from behind, so they reverted to HO tactics, the US reverted to heavier frontal armament and so on.
Not nice facing 50 cals with the wind on their side, so I sort of understand the frustration of those who try to lob a formation of B17's with their 30mm's, - even Lancasters for that sake.
And Krusty, - after all a slowly turning bomber offers a lot larger area to hit ;)
-
If he has a gunner (an additional player who has 'joined' his bomber') its been my experience that harsh maneuvering makes them lethal but a more difficult target to hit. I actually had a single lanc (the other 2 having been killed) split esse at 5000ft and pull out, I couldn't due to excess speed.
I mispoke in the above, it should read:
If he has a gunner (an additional player who has 'joined' his bomber') its been my experience that harsh maneuvering makes them less lethal but a more difficult target to hit. I actually had a single lanc (the other 2 having been killed) split esse at 5000ft and pull out, I couldn't due to excess speed.
Less lethal meaning the gunner has a harder time zeroing in on the attacker. That is why I mentioned the small manuevers like a sliding (slipping?) with the rudder. With the cone of fire from the 3 bomber formation the gunner can adjust his aim for such small manuvers. For an attacker at longer ranges its hard to spot the slide.
I never chase bomber personally, usually when I see them they are low and about 50 other guys are spraying at them. The guy with Hispanos typically always wins (gets the kill)...
-
As far as HO attacks are concerned it would be interesting to know how many bombers fell down (or left the formation damaged) after the first HO attack, and how many after the (I guess) following attacks from 5-7 o'clock. I guess it was quite dificult to reform and reposition for a second HO attack.
In AH, hard manoeuvering bombers (so not with rudder only) usually cannot fire back. So, if it happens you are slow, you can follow them and fire all over the fuselage, as Krusty rightly says.
Angus, I'd say more dangerous than frustrating. The feel of a 30mm kill in fact is much more rewarding than any 2x or 4xMG151/20 :)