Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Packy on May 05, 2002, 05:34:00 PM
-
I'm still a newb to this flight sim/AH thingummy but i have been having tons 'o' fun flying as a gunner in B17s.
I read some passages and i have seen pics praising the durability of the B17 to withstand enemy fire and keep flying.
However, I noticed that in AH one pass from an enemy fighter often downs the B17 i'm riding in. Is this normal? or am i just unlucky to have been in B17s that received critical hits? Shouldn't the B17 be tougher to shoot down? any enlightenment would be appreciated! thanks
-
Basically, in real life, the hit % on a B17 was a lot lower than what we have in this, or any flight sim.
We put >50% of our ammo on a B17 here. That was not close to the case in real life. I forget the actual war gunnery %, but it was low, like 1% or so.
-
well you're not unlucky. Even the great superpug and his loyal servant b-17 has been getting clobbered. It's just that everyone knows the soft spots. I think i'll go back to my hurricane. but in battle the average BF 109 didn't have enough ammo to down a B-17.:p
-
The B17 was a very resiliant plane for being designed in 1935. I have pictures of B17s that have taken direct hits from Flak guns and have returned to base. Takes a tough plane to survive that.
As for a Bf109 not having enough ammo to down a B17- Its mainly due to the pilot missing the B17 rather than not having enough fire power. It took an average of 15-30 20mm shells to down a B17.
-
i've been playing b17 2 alot, and most b17s i've lost of due to engines being blown out (ie damaged so much they don't work), or the pilot AND co-pilot being turned into leaky pieces of meat
the only time one of my bombers was lost to structural failure was oce due to flak(think the right outer fuel tank blew up caursing the wing surface to go missing) and falling wreakage from LW planes
-
fdiron said:
As for a Bf109 not having enough ammo to down a B17- Its mainly due to the pilot missing the B17 rather than not having enough fire power. It took an average of 15-30 20mm shells to down a B17.
Not quite, what the German study showed was that of B-17's SHOT DOWN, the average of hits needed to do so was 15 to 30. This study did not include B-17's that were damaged but returned to base.
There were quite a few B-17's that took that level of damage and more that returned to base.
Then again there were some that took one hit and went down.
-
fdiron said:
As for a Bf109 not having enough ammo to down a B17- Its mainly due to the pilot missing the B17 rather than not having enough fire power. It took an average of 15-30 20mm shells to down a B17.
Not quite, what the German study showed was that of B-17's shot down, the average number of hits was 15 to 30. This study did not include B-17's that were damaged but returned to base.
There were quite a few B-17's that took that level of damage and more that returned to base.
Then again there were some that took one hit and went down.
-
Thats what I meant 202. It took an average of 15-30 20mm shells *impacting the aircraft* to cause a B17 to crash. Someone posted a statistic a few weeks ago that told how many 20mm shells that had to be fired to destroy a b17. Just going from memory, I think it took 1000 20mm shells fired in combat in order for 20 of them to actually hit a plane.
-
B-17 Battle Damage (http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/B-17/contents.htm)
-
Not to mention that many of us have had the opportunity to practice our attacks repeatedly without the threat of impending doom. No sweat, no fear only tipped beer in the keyboard.
-
The B-17 and Lancaster were both renown for taking a tremendous amount of punisment before going down. Obviously some took light damage and went down, but a surprising number returned with heavy damage.
I read one RAF Bomber Command statisitic where they had found that men flying in Halifaxes were (IIRC) 30-40% more likely to get out of a stricken bomber than men flying in Lancasters. However, the Halifax had a loss rate that was 50% greater than the Lancaster's loss rate even though the same missions were being flown.
In AH, 12 .50 cal hits can completely sever a Lancaster's wing from the fuselage.
I have not tested the B-17G.
-
In AH, 12 .50 cal hits can completely sever a Lancaster's wing from the fuselage.
Well everone knows the AH BS Laser ".50 Cals" are overmodeled! :)
-
I saw somewhere(dont remember where, so I could be completly and utterly wrong) that the reason the guns on the b-17's proved to be inadequate was that the german 20mm and 30mm cannons could simply out-range the b-17's .50 machineguns. Is this true? Do cannon rounds simply time-out so soon that they can't out range the .50s?
-
Hi MC202,
>Not quite, what the German study showed was that of B-17's SHOT DOWN, the average of hits needed to do so was 15 to 30. This study did not include B-17's that were damaged but returned to base.
Actually, the German research included anaylsis of the gun camera films and took damaged bomber into account as well as destroyed ones. The conclusion was that 18 hits were necessary to achieve a bomber kill with 50% probability, while 25 hits would yield a 95% probability of kill. (Note it's not linear.)
This is not aircraft-type specific, so expect it to be an average over B-17s and B-24s both. It was common wisdom among Luftwaffe pilots, though, that the B-17 was a lot tougher than the B-24, so the B-17 could be expected to take a few more hits than indicated for the kill.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Buff's guns has long range (very long range). If my f4U can rip a wing from lanc with only 12 impacts (ejem ejem ejem are you sure? maybe he's in his convergence distance and a lot more 12 impacts), a gunner can shoot me down with 1 or 2 good impacts (that's overmodeled) from his tail, ball, upper, etc... before i had a solution of fire (between 2k and 600yds i don't fire because you didnt do nothing with dispersion of .50). IN REAL LIFE a b17 could be shoot down by LW planes before they shoot buff's guns because 20 mm and 30 mm has better range that buff's guns.
-
Firing from beyond the range of the B17s guns is very inaccurate though. For whatever reason, if German fighters could find B17s that were unescorted, the Germans could almost fight with impunity. Even at close ranges the German fighters were able to blow bombers out of the sky with ease.
-
Now tell that to NOD fdiron, he claims the b17 could dogfight, outturn and shoot down 25 a6m's in one mission let alone those pesky 109's.
A P47 is a good long distance buff killer.. It can be parked 1.5k away from the buff and then shoot long bursts painting the buff up. In most cases the buff is too confused to even shoot back and will eventually lose vital parts.
-
From articles I've read by and interviews with LW pilots who actually attacked B17s - several things were obvious:
1) There was an enormous amount of respect for the massed gunfire of the "boxes" - they basically made quick slashing attacks whenever possible at high speed, with high deflection. Whenever possible they attacked "stragglers" that were out of the box. Certainly none of these guys who lived made slow climbing attacks on the 6 of the box.
2) The preferred attack was from directly ahead, with the objective of firing directly into the cockpit. This nullified the resilience of the buff overall. 2 dead pilots and a wrecked flight deck meant one dead bomber. Early models of the 17 without the beefed up front guns were very succeptible to this kind of attack.
3) The second preferred attack was a diving attack from above almost straight down - this attack didn't produce many direct "kills" but the objective was usually to disable engines and produce stragglers that could be picked off more easily.
Kills were usually the result of multiple attackers scoring a few individual hits.
Buffs in AH seem much tougher than historical buffs because, we generally attack alone and from behind going for the single pass kill - this usually results in one dead fighter. Multiple attackers, deflection attacks, and patience are a must for safely attacking 17s. The same proceedures that worked IRL will work in AH, we just seldom have the patience to employ them. This may be in part because real LW pilots didn't get to up a new fighter after they had gotten themselves killed by employing suicidal tatics.
- Seagoon
-
Buffs in AH fly at full throttle, real B17s couldnt do that for very long. I think B17s cruised inbetween 150 and 200mph. They do ~300 here in AH.
-
More battle damage. (http://free.prohosting.com/~kopper/acdamg.htm)
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Buffs in AH fly at full throttle, real B17s couldnt do that for very long. I think B17s cruised inbetween 150 and 200mph. They do ~300 here in AH.
... and heavy armored vehicles go down hills at 100+ mph.
So what's yer point? ;)
-
My point is- Model engine overheats and thrown tracks/cracked axles.
-
AH B17 has all guns in same convergence and the gunners can shoot through fuselage.. That means there is always an unrealistic amount of fire being shot at the fighter.. This aspect is porked in relation even to all other buffs in AH. It's time to get it fixed.
If the gunner is good not even slashing attacks or especially high speed ones will save the attacker. High speed attacks are murderous for the reason that the attacker can't manouver much during the dive if he wants to aim anything and that makes him an easy target for an experienced buff gunner. Try attacking a b17 with a 262 at 600mph and see how many pieces of you will fall to the ground :)
In reality the gunners in a bomber were not acting as one robotic unit but actually all tracked individual targets and also missed targets flying by even if the rear gunner was tracking him etc..
In real life a B17 or B26 couldn't outturn the top-of-the-line fighter that was attacking it, especially if he wanted his gunners to be able to shoot at anything. Now a 20k b26 can outturn a 262 making a vertical attack from below and actually gain separation on it if the 262 tries to follow to the turn. During and immediately after the turn the bomber can also shoot accurately with all its guns.
So the net effect is that a single bomber in AH is probably about as leathal as a full 'box' of bombers were in reality. Also the effect of bombing of a single bomber is greatly bigger than in real life. That is also why people do suicide attacks from 6 - they know that if they spend time climbing to a position enabling a slash attack the bomber will have laserbombed its targets - which means the defender already failed in his job.
The net effect is often better if you just attack the buff dangerously, ping him a couple times and force him to remain in gunning position instead of letting him release his payload.
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
In reality the gunners in a bomber were not acting as one robotic unit but actually all tracked individual targets and also missed targets flying by even if the rear gunner was tracking him etc..
In reality a B17 had a crew of 9, with 7 able to crew guns. We have a maximum of 1 Gunner, so slaving the other guns to that position is a must. Also, that 1 AH gunner can only effectively track *one* target at a time, which has to be the most consistently underappreciated fact in this game. 2 fighters attacking from different angles will always produce a dead buff if they are competent. When players finally realize that and act accordingly, the situation will change dramatically.
Oh except for us rooks, we instinctively oppose all forms of teamwork. ;)
- Seagoon
-
10
chin turret gunner/bombadier
navigator/cheek gunner
pilot
co-pilot
top turret gunner
radio operator/ cheek gunner
ball gunner
left waist
right waist
tail gunner
-
LW training film (3mb) (http://www.kolumbus.fi/koponen.lauri/guncam1.mov)
Note distance of succesful attacks. (very low, 30-400m)
190a7 at start does very nice head on pass.
Some slash attacks.
Then few longe range failed nervous shooters.
And last, look how close that 110 goes in following diving b17 in last clip.
Bit overkill:)
-
The german fighter command counted that it took an average of 20 hits from a 20mm or 6 hits of a 30mm cannon to down a B17...
julle
(http://www.1strof.com/lapwin/misc/warroom_logo2.gif)
http://www.eztargets.com
-
Originally posted by BenDover
10
chin turret gunner/bombadier
navigator/cheek gunner
pilot
co-pilot
top turret gunner
radio operator/ cheek gunner
ball gunner
left waist
right waist
tail gunner
9 :)
"The final version was the "G" model. Many minor changes had been made, but the most obvious was the chin turret which was prototyped on a few "F" models. Many also sported a gun for the radioman, which was more of a morale boost than a defensive measure. Eventually the gun would be removed. The B-17G originally had a crew of 10 men: A pilot and co-pilot, a top gunner/engineer, bombardier, navigator, radioman, 2 waist gunners, a ball gunner and a tail gunner. The USAAF removed the radioman's gun and reduced the crew to 9. The radioman would man a waist gun during battle. Often times the bombardier or navigator would be left behind, since the planes in a group would drop on the cue of the lead aircraft. A nose gunner would man the chin gun and sometimes act as togglier."
[http://www.486th.org/Aircraft/B17/b17.htm]
- Seagoon
-
What it takes to shoot down 4 engined bomber. Study using guncameras as reference. (i highlighted number of hits needed)
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/koponen.lauri/njg.jpg)
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/koponen.lauri/njg1.jpg)