Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 01:58:00 PM

Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 01:58:00 PM
Last night I shot down a Lancaster, a B-26B and B-17G in one flight using a Spitfire MkIX armed with 2 20mm cannon and 4 .303 machine guns.  In each case I blew the left wing off (I don't know why, but when I attack a bomber I almost always blow off the left wing).  I'm not a notable pilot in any way, I do get lucky once in a while (downed a Spit IX when I was in a Bf109G-2 starting at a SEVERE energy disadvantage on Saturday), but nearly everytime I meet an enemy bomber it means a dead bomber.

Karnak has 5 kills and has been killed 1 times against the B-17G
Karnak has 3 kills and has been killed 2 times against the Lancaster
Karnak has 3 kills and has been killed 0 times against the B-26B
Karnak has 0 kills and has been killed 0 times against the Ju88A-4

I know that is not a large sampling, I don't have much time to fly, but these things are EASY to kill.  It just feels to me like their wings come off way too easily.  Look at those wings, they're huge.  Thick, broad, tough things.  I can see losing aerilons reasonably easily, but the whole wing should be much more durable.

I just can't see the point in flying bombers when the first fighter to find you gets a cheap kill at practically no risk to the fighter.  Why would anybody waste 45 minutes climbing to 25,000ft only to be wasted by a fighter that got there in less than 10?  It seems to be a waste of time when you could just take a P-47D-30 and be about as effective and still have a shot a getting there.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Fishu on October 02, 2000, 03:05:00 PM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
I just can't see the point in flying bombers when the first fighter to find you gets a cheap kill at practically no risk to the fighter.  Why would anybody waste 45 minutes climbing to 25,000ft only to be wasted by a fighter that got there in less than 10?  It seems to be a waste of time when you could just take a P-47D-30 and be about as effective and still have a shot a getting there.

Ju-88 below 15k,  K/D 28:11  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(plus few smoked planes that had to give up)
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 03:22:00 PM
Fishu,
I hope you take this the right way, but I think you're the exception rather than the rule.  Unlike me, you are exceptionally good at this game.  I don't think that it should require one of the best pilots to survive.

I also note that we have not met as enemies (you fly Rook as well, correct?).

I have to admit that I'd like a crack at you.  Ah well.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Pongo on October 02, 2000, 04:01:00 PM
Its your teqnique.
The wingtips of bombers are far more vulnerable then rest of the AC, and when you focus on the wingtip you are not giving the gunners as good a shot at you.
I dont know if that is realistic. Also. The two hispanos on a spit are very effective guns.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: HABICHT on October 02, 2000, 04:15:00 PM
for me they are ok.
on one day, i need 2 passes in 109 with
single 30mm, seeing 2-5 flashes every pass.

then there are days, were they won't die.
flying 4-5 passes and the buff is still
flying, but me down to 20rnds of 30mm.
hit him 10-18 times..still up.

the only "one pass buff killer" for me (only
LW) is the 190 with 2x20+2x30mm. 1-2 passes,
every buff is (normaly-> look "days") history.

i like them like they are now.

------------------
-------------------
Habicht
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
  (http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)  

       
Quote
"Die Ta 152 war meine Überlebensversicherung in den letzten Tagen des Krieges" OFw Willi Reschke, Ritterkreuzträger, 38 Abschüsse

[This message has been edited by HABICHT (edited 10-02-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 04:51:00 PM
HABICHT,
Hmmm.

When I did some testing with a friend in the TA I downed his B-17G in one pass using the Bf109G-10 with the single 30mm cannon.

I blew his left wing off.

Maybe I got lucky.  I've never shot at a B-17G with a 109 other than that.

I haven't found bombers to be too weak if I shoot their fuselage, only the wings.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-02-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: funked on October 02, 2000, 05:03:00 PM
I honestly think the balance right now is really good.  With all the different parts on the bombers that can break, you can absorb a lot of hits without dying.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 05:44:00 PM
I don't know guys.

I have yet to have a bomber survive a single pass from me, reguardless of what I am flying.

Maybe I've just been lucky or I'm really good at drilling that left wing.

I just don't know.  They just don't seem tough to me.  My room-mate and I went over this for several hours and he concurs with me, or rather I concur with him.  I'm posting what our observations have been.  I just don't see how a bomber can make it to the target if even one fighter shows up.  Right now it seems to me that bombers have to rely on stealth to sneak in.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: minus on October 02, 2000, 05:44:00 PM
hmmm the problem is the Frigin turbo laser hispano
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Soda on October 02, 2000, 06:05:00 PM
In my experience, if you spend the time to set the bomber up to make a smart pass on him with a fighter you can usually inflict serious damage or down him in 1 or two passes.  The the other hand if you just try and tail-chase him, you'll lose unless you fly a Hog-C and open up at D1.2

I actually have the most problems with Ju88's, they are tough bastards sometimes.  I've hit them with a whole lotta 20mm Hispano and had them survive.

Soda
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 07:16:00 PM
Sure, if the fighter is an idiot and does a level attack from 6 or tries to HO a B-17G.  But if even a modicrum of intelligence is used the bomber is dead.

I just can't see that many of us being dumb enough to try those attack patterns on a bomber.  If those attack patterns are removed, that sets us back to having easily killed bombers.

Minus,
My experience has been the same wether I was using Hispanos or not.

But in a sense, maybe you have a very good point.  Not so much about the flat trajectory of the Hispano, which is correct AFAIK, but rather about their hitting power on bombers.  If the Hispanos are AP then they'd be great against fighter and light to medium vehicles but not so good against a bomber.  The Mg151/20 and Type 99 M2 both used HE rounds to blow big holes in bombers.  The reason they should be more effective against bombers on a hit per hit basis and the same against fighters is because there isn't a whole lot to hit on a small aircraft like a fighter that won't seriously break something, but on a bomber there is a lot of open space that would not affect the bomber if it got a 20mm hole punched in it.  The HE round on the other hand makes a BIG hole and thus has a greater chance of breaking something.

I think that HTC should reduce the damage that the Hispano does to bombers by 33-50%.

'Course, that wouldn't solve my room-mates personal "most feared bomber killer", the P-47D-30, problem.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-02-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: minus on October 02, 2000, 07:46:00 PM
heh  i dont know but must be all my bulets ruber made
 how many time i hit a buff with 10 and up 30mm round and thety go away  2x3x   A8 need a nice 50 canon shel hit to get down them
 same in panzer hiting the enemy 10 time until hiz g oin to blow up

 i cant say  Buff are tough orr not inaf tough I can just say Some people , player , pilot  or call it howu like take 2 time more dmg like the other   NET lag   Packet los ? no idea
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 10:00:00 PM
My friend and I just ran a couple more tests.

He blew the wing off of my Lanc with 7 hits from his P-38s cannon and on the 2nd test blew it off with aproximately 20 rounds from his .50 cals (note that this closely matches the US Navy's claim that 1 20mm cannon was worth 3 .50 cals as Pyro mentioned in an earlier post).

It seems to me that Lancaster's thick wing should require a bit more to destroy.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Tac on October 02, 2000, 10:12:00 PM
One word:

HISPANOS.

Try doing that in a pony or p-38 (which supposedly has a hispano like cannon.. hmm... must be the BB firing version of it  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Citabria on October 02, 2000, 10:17:00 PM
stop whining
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 02, 2000, 10:22:00 PM
Tac,
The tests were done using a P-38.  Note my post immediately above yours.

Hey Citabria,
I don't think I am whining.  I'm the one shooting them, not the one being shot.

They're just too easy to kill.  Its almost like a free kill.  

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-02-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: gatt on October 03, 2000, 01:30:00 AM
2 things: 1 laser hispano, 4 laser .50's

Sorry couldnt resist  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)


Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Fishu on October 03, 2000, 02:23:00 AM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo:
Its your teqnique.
The wingtips of bombers are far more vulnerable then rest of the AC, and when you focus on the wingtip you are not giving the gunners as good a shot at you.
I dont know if that is realistic. Also. The two hispanos on a spit are very effective guns.

Bit too effective guns  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: RAM on October 03, 2000, 05:53:00 AM
If it serves for any purpose, then I'll tell that if bombers are weak then I am Frank Sinatra.

Yesterday night I flew a 190A5 with Bikekil as observer. I saw a low bomber and did a lateral approach. I fired only cannons.

got the right wing LIGHTED UP. I mean LIGHTED UP. I spent some 150 rounds in the bomber, estimated that more than the half of the burst landed on the B17. NO, I repeat NO effect. At all. Zero.

Turned back, latteral approach with a little delay (I was in his 3.5 position or so). I lighted his fusselage, and the wing again. He got a fuel leak. I got 3 pings, and my wing went kaboom.Bike and me were ashtounded . that B17 had survived MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED 20MM ROUNDS!

This has only two phrases (again):
1-MAUSERS SUCK, for HEAVEN'S SAKE, THIS GUN WAS USED TO KILL BOMBERS!
2-HISPANOS are turbolazers. and Bomber's 50 cals are like lazer cannons.

THis is getting old...TOO old...

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-03-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Vermillion on October 03, 2000, 07:13:00 AM
Karnak try that in a MG only aircraft or an aircraft like the Yak or any 109 with only a a single (non Hispano) 20mm with small ammo load.

Anything with hispano's eats up the enemy.

I am constantly amazed at how well the Spitfire is in "bomber busting".

Well, I guess they don't call this game "Cannon Birds" for nothing.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: gatt on October 03, 2000, 07:25:00 AM
I find those long shot by buff gunners very strange. Especially long (I mean more than 500-600yds) deflection shots that cut wings off from attackers aircraft. This is an high price to pay to have buffs in arena. Indeed.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 03, 2000, 09:47:00 AM
I have done it with non-hispano armed aircraft.  I've done it with non-cannon aremed aircraft.  One of my posts in this thread mentions the need to reduce Hispano damage against bombers.  Please stop with the hispano talk.  It doesn't explain the problem.

The example I used was with a Spit, which is my normal ride.  It was not intended to mean that I had only done it with Spits.

Nikis and P-47s have no trouble either.  Bf109G-10s with a 30mm cannon have no trouble.

The wings on bombers are just WAY too weak.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: RAM on October 03, 2000, 09:53:00 AM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:

The wings on bombers are just WAY too weak.

Sisu
-Karnak

Then explain how one of them supported at least 75 direct hits of 20mm, please.

Remember that I saw it, but Bikekil was too in my cockpit, we both saw it.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: RAM on October 03, 2000, 09:54:00 AM
and dont start telling "connection" things. Mine was smooth, both in Ping plotter and in AH's connection tester.

And,for sure, he had no connections problem to break my wing.

75 rounds of 20mm. Explanations, please?
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 03, 2000, 10:07:00 AM
RAM,
I don't know what to say.  I keep having them pop off after 10 to 20 hits regardless of what I am flying.

I'd have to see your film to say anything else.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Vermillion on October 03, 2000, 10:10:00 AM
Again Karnak, I am not turning it into a "anti-hispano" thread. I am pointing out that you conducting your tests with cannon armed aircraft.

G10 w/30mm=BFG specifically designed to kill bombers.
P47 = x8 .50s
N1K2's = x4 20mm cannons.

Go conduct your test (with a gunner at the controls actively trying to fight you off) with the Yak-9U, or the G10 with a single 20mm, or the C.202, or the P51 with x4 .50s.

I will do it with you in the TA tonight if you wish and we can film it.

My experience is that its a much different story with the "non-cannon" aircraft.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 03, 2000, 11:49:00 AM
Vermillion,
In the test I ran with my friend, the P-38, using just machine guns, blew my Lanc's wing off with 20 to 30 hits.  That was just 4 50 cals, no cannon.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Fishu on October 03, 2000, 11:55:00 AM
I've flown bit those buffs..
When it's been about Hispanos shooting the bomber, it has blown up.
No matter was it two or four hispanos.
when its been Fw190 or 109, I have at least kept myself still flying, although with severe damages.
And I can swear those LW planes has shot me far more than Hispanos, and yet alot worse results.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Vermillion on October 03, 2000, 02:01:00 PM
Karnak, now your just look at X hits = wing removal and making a judegement call on what you think is tough enough.

I'm saying that getting those X hits on the bomber, before the bomber kills YOU is rather difficult in the lighter armed aircraft. Not only because you are using smaller weapons, but less of them. Which means much higher time on target requirements

So my point is the direct inverse of your original arguement that bombers are too easy to kill.

You can't change the debate half way thru.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 03, 2000, 02:23:00 PM
Vermillion,
I understand what you are saying, but I have not had any trouble getting my guns on target for long enough regardless of what I was flying.  This includes machinge gun only aircraft, e.g. P-51D and P-47D-25 (in tests, not in MA).

Certainly I'd expect a Mustang to have a rougher time of it than a Spitfire, but from my personal experience, the fighter can get as much gun time as it needs unless the bomber has flown to an unrealistc altitude (which I also think needs to me changed).

The tests I am refering are not changing my arguement mid-way through.  They are merely pointing out what I've found and what I was basing my feelings on from the start.  Another thing is that most of the fighters in AH have at least one cannon, exceptions being the P-51D, P-47D-25, P-47D-30, F4U-1A and C.202.  Chances are that anyfighter the bomber encounters is going to be cannon armed.  Should bombers be that vulnerable to cannon armed aircraft so that the few machine gun armed aircraft can kill them easily as well?

Somebody posted a quote from a German pilot a few months ago.  That German said that a B-17's wing took about 7 rounds of 30mm cannon to be blown off.  In my tests the P-38 blew my Lanc's wing off with 7 rounds of 20mm cannon fire (no machine guns were fired).  Seems to me that a B-17 wing and a Lancaster wing are not that different.  More tests seem to be required.

Who knows, maybe in Tour 8 I got lucky and in Tour 9 I'll get slaughtered by bombers.  We'll see.

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 04, 2000, 01:12:00 PM
I flew a single B-17G sortie last night.  My experience on this mission has suggested several things to me, some of which may be sound insulting to you guys.

First, I can't do any more tests because my friend has declined to do anymore.  He likened you guys to Necromancer players in Everquest (they were the most powerful class, got nerfed so that they were still the most powerful, but not so ridiculously and then whined endlessly about how they were now useless) based on his experience with that and your posts here, which can only be considered complete exaggerations or outright lies by him.

Because he declined, I decided to fly a bomber mission and try to gather data that way.  Here is what happened:

1) I took off from a rear field and climbed to about 15,000ft.
2) I proceeded south into Knight territory and dropped 2,000lbs of bombs on one of their cities.
3) Deciding that was not the best use of my bomber, I turned and flew to the Knight HQ.
4) In two passes over the Knight HQ I dropped my remaining 4,000lbs of bombs, destroying 3 Radar factories, however I also lost my #2 engine to flak on the second run.
5) Now empty, I turned north east and headed for the nearest Rook airfield, this course would take me close to a Knight airfield and would hopefully cause an encounter with at least one fighter.  I need not have done so.
6) After making it about two thirds of the way home, I spotted two fighters in pursuit.  I guess that they had climbed up to try to defend the HQ.
7) The first came into view and was IDed as a Spitfire.
8) I watched him from my tail turret as he moved into my 10 o'clock level position.
9) Just before he attacked, the second fighter was IDed as another Spitfire.
10) Bandit One moved to just beyond my tail turret's tracking capability before rolling in for the attack.  In doing so, he sloppily slid to my 11 o'clock, well within my firing arc.  I shot him down when he was about 500 yards out.  He never hit me.
11) Bandit Two moved in to my 2 o'clock, just inside my firing arc before he rolled to attack.  Like the first one he had a slight altitude advantage over me, but unlike the first one he did not slide significantly closer to my 12 o'clock.  Because of his better position I didn't shoot him down until he was about 200 yards away.  Because he had a better run, he hit me and did significant damage.  He destroyed the following systems: Right Aerilon, Left Aerilon, Tail Turret, Ball Turret and Top Turret.
12) Using my rudder to stabilize my aircraft, as I had no aerilons, I proceeded to the friendly base and landed.  After taking screen shots, I exited with a successful landing and return to my credit as well as the two Spitfires.

There are several conclusions I reached from this.  They are as follows:

1) I am a poor bomber gunner.
2) The fighters made very poor attacks, basically feeding themselves to my guns.
3) The "Laser guns" (as you guys so like to call them) on the Spitfire will not give free kills to stupid pilots.
4) The fighter that did hit me sprayed all over my bomber (he managed to destroy both aerilons), hitting mainly fuselage (he destroyed my Tail, Ball and Top Turrets).
5) Bombers are VERY tough if the enemy is kind enough to distribute the fire or focus on the fuselage.

If this is an example of typical attack patterns, then Yes, I can see why bombers are complained about so loudly.  

If I had been in one of the Spitfires, the B-17 would have been shot down.  Period.  The fighters failed to cooperated.  They failed to make high-speed passes on me from an angle that would make it hard for me to hit back.  The fighter that did hit me failed to focus on a wing, something I have done to nearly every bomber I have killed.  If the fighter had focused, I would still have shot him down, but he would have shot me down as well (given his attack pattern).

This is only one experience and so could be grossly misconstrued.  Maybe my luck continues to hold, but it seems to me that many of us could use a lot of work on the way in which we attack bombers.  My friend was very surprised at the amount of damage that I had incurred.  He chalked it down to the fighter pilot's incompetence.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Nath-BDP on October 04, 2000, 01:20:00 PM
 http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/B1712.ahf (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/B1712.ahf)

Buffs can't defend from this kind of attack, and many others... buffs are fine. Its just their guns there are overpowered, or its the collective firing thing.

------------------
 (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/Stab%20JG77.gif)

Stab/Jagdgeschwader 77
"Herzas"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-04-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Pongo on October 04, 2000, 02:38:00 PM
I say again.
Its your teqnique.
The wingtips of bombers are far more vulnerable then rest of the AC, and when you focus on the wingtip you are not giving the gunners as good a shot at you.
I dont know if that is realistic. Also. The two hispanos on a spit are very effective guns.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 04, 2000, 02:46:00 PM
Pongo,
Yes, I know its my technique.  I just think the wings (its not just the tips that are too weak) need to be tougher.  The fuselages seem fine.

I've done this with non-hispano aircraft as well, but you are right, they are very good at it and need to be downgraded against bombers.

As I stated above, in tests, the P-38 took 7 20mm rounds to knock a Lancasters WHOLE wing off, or it could do it by hitting the wing with 20 rounds of the 50 cal.

What I am curious about is why people bother shooting anything besides the wings?  Why doesn't everybody focus on a wing like I do?

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Nath-BDP on October 04, 2000, 03:15:00 PM
Its the damage model, its diveded in sections, ie; wingtip, wing, aft fuselage etc... in real life it wasn't like this, usually planes weren't destroyed because a wing was shot off or both horiz stabs were.  They succumbed to holes in the wings which enduced drag.  Fire, oil leaking, and coolant, etc. I can remember one famous motion picture of a B17 falling from the sky with all its wings and stabs attached...

Also, B17s were prone to explode in mid air, but a wing could be seperated from the fuselage from a fire, but it was rare that it would be seperated solely by gunfire.

------------------
 (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/Stab%20JG77.gif)

Stab/Jagdgeschwader 77
"Herzas"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-04-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Nath-BDP on October 04, 2000, 03:24:00 PM
Not to mention gunnery was extremely harder in real life than it is here.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 04, 2000, 03:30:00 PM
Nath-BDP,
Yeah, the target was tryin' ta kill ya!!   (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Pongo on October 04, 2000, 03:34:00 PM
 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
Pongo,
Yes, I know its my technique.  I just think the wings (its not just the tips that are too weak) need to be tougher.  The fuselages seem fine.

I've done this with non-hispano aircraft as well, but you are right, they are very good at it and need to be downgraded against bombers.

As I stated above, in tests, the P-38 took 7 20mm rounds to knock a Lancasters WHOLE wing off, or it could do it by hitting the wing with 20 rounds of the 50 cal.

What I am curious about is why people bother shooting anything besides the wings?  Why doesn't everybody focus on a wing like I do?

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Hispano is wrong. I don’t know. I can do the same thing with a single 20mm G10 and I have done it with only the cowl 7.9s on a fw190a5.  Why don’t more people do it.? It is harder then you seem to think.  I have told some people about it but many people find it challenging to intercept the center of mass of a buff little own a wing tip.
A lot of the issue seems to be that when the wing tip of a bomber disappears it becomes completely unflyable. This is certainly not the case with any of the fighters.  Maybe the mistake is there. If there is one.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Westy on October 04, 2000, 03:35:00 PM
 Karnak, I aim for the center of the plane because my eyes are not 20/20 and my aim is at best average.  If I found the trick to being able to consistantly put a steady pipper on the wing root of an enemy aircrat at 250-300 yards while flying 300 plus mph for just a short but crippling burst.....  

 I'd be King  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

    -Westy
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Nath-BDP on October 04, 2000, 04:42:00 PM
I have had many instances where the target was trying to kill me... they cant defend from that.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Soda on October 04, 2000, 05:21:00 PM
Now Karnak.. you hurt my feelings with the snub on the Spit attack.... You failed to notice that I was outta fuel and gliding when I cut behind you  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)  Kinda hard to set up a real attack when you are gliding at 20K and trying to maintain 300mph+.  I did see some hits though on my screen, so you aren't quite right there...  I was a pretty easy target though.. ha ha

Soda
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 04, 2000, 05:38:00 PM
Soda,
Sorry.

That does kinda change the situation.  I thought you two had grabbed Spits and climbed up to get me.

If you were out of fuel, you didn't have a lot of options if you were going to attack me.

I didn't hear the hits, but I was blazing away with my guns so it could easily have been hidden in the din.

May you have fuel the next time we meet.    (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 10-04-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Soda on October 05, 2000, 09:33:00 AM
 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
  I had actually been in the air a while but was really low on fuel trying to get back to base.. then I ended up chasing you and trying to play with the rpms and throttle to get the max range to catch u... ran out just as I got into range...  The other guy following was a long way back while still trying to climb up to you.  Needless to say I sat there a yelled at my computer... "come on baby, just a little more fuel... come on."

A good chase though, when you can get a bomber level like that and run it's sometime tough to catch.

Soda
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Major Tom on October 14, 2000, 02:38:00 AM
German guns aren't good at long ranges, but if you fire at point blank 300 yards or so, they are by far the most effective cannons in the game.  If you are a good shot, 400 or even 500 yards is still effective.

I did a little testing in the HtH arena with a friend.  It takes less than 10 rounds of 30mm to completely destroy a bomber.  That amount of fire will destroy any bomber regardless of where you hit it.

Some people are poor shots in LW planes, they are used to Hispano turbo lasers.  Either that or they try and hit the bomber from beyond 500 yards.

There is only one real solution to the all mighty Hispano turbo lazer problem, accurate countries with accurate planesets, USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan, Russia and Italy.  This isn't very a very plausible scenario right now due to the current planeset.  No more hispano laser cannon of death for the allied bombers, plenty for those who dare fly a Ju.88 or Betty bomber.
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Nath-BDP on October 14, 2000, 03:03:00 AM
 
Quote
USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan, Russia and Italy.


Err you mean USA, Britain, Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, Communist Russia and Facist Italy?

------------------
 (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/SturmJG3whitesofeyes.gif)

IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 "Udet"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-14-2000).]
Title: Bombers are not tough enough: A fighter's perspective.
Post by: Karnak on October 14, 2000, 12:08:00 PM
Major Tom,
This is not a cannon issue.  It doesn't matter what kind of cannon.  It isn't about the fighter's firepower.  Its about the bomber's wing's durability.

The problem I have is that if the fighter concentrates on the wing of a B-17 or Lanc (the two heavies) using only the machine guns on a P-38 (no cannon) it takes about 12 hits to blow it off.

Can you guys seriously sit here and tell me that 12 hits from a 50 cal machinge gun would blow the wing clean off of a heavy bomber?

There was a reference to an interview with a German pilot who said that it would take 7 hits from a 30mm cannon to blow a B-17's wing off.  Does the 50 cal hit 60% as hard as the German 30mm cannon?  In AH any 20mm cannon will blow a heavies wing of in 7 hits.  A 30mm takes only a few hits to do it.

The bomber's wings need to be strengthened (just the wings, the rest is fine).

Sisu
-Karnak