410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?

[Ack-Ack]

I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.

Not me but then I am smart about the way I go and attack bomber formations.

ack-ack

[Butcher]

I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.

In the last scenario I racked up over 50 bomber kills without a single loss in a 262 or single ping on my plane. There was jokes flying that the bullets were "down graded" for the allies when in fact they were not tweaked, we just hit from the correct angles using the 262's...... SPEED and firepower to defeat the buffs.
You can try the same thing in a P51D and not get much results, thus is why the Germans had heavier firepower.

Me-410 is a great buff hunter, but add a single escort and its threat is practically zero unless the Escort is useless.

[M1A1]

You can go on and on but you can find it for yourself that a .50 cal AP round will penetrate over 2' of modern class 4 armored glass. Try as you might there is no way you are gonna get around arguing that point. While it may save your hide at distances over 1.5 miles away under it tests have shown time and again .50 wins 9 times out of 10. As for 20mm I can see where that might be true as the muzzle velocity was probably much less than that of the.50 cal browning. Even with todays modern advances armored glass designed to stop a .50 cal clean would weigh in excess of 30 lbs per square foot. In aircraft as we know weight = performance loss and it's not good..You don't beleive me fine go to Total Security Solutions websight and you can read what the experts say on the .50 cal debate themselves... http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4

[save]

In AH some good pilots/gunners can land good numbers of kills, sometimes that challenge  what a full scale raid of 500-700 buffs did IRL.

Why buffs did not get more kills IRL , can be related to how hard  it is to hit a moving target ,shooting from a moving platform in very turbulent air mass, among them the plane own slipstream.
Also the glass part of the frontal area must be a hard task to hit  under above conditions, without optics found in tanks at longer distances.

ave not seen any dispersion test in AH , but they hit harder than most escorts ever did

[titanic3]

It's too easy to kill planes with bombers. 

And there isn't a real solution without making bombers sitting ducks. You could up the amount of planes in a formation if you want to increase difficulty in gunning. Or you can leave it as it is and reduce a formation of 3 to 2.

[Karnak]

You can go on and on but you can find it for yourself that a .50 cal AP round will penetrate over 2' of modern class 4 armored glass. Try as you might there is no way you are gonna get around arguing that point. While it may save your hide at distances over 1.5 miles away under it tests have shown time and again .50 wins 9 times out of 10. As for 20mm I can see where that might be true as the muzzle velocity was probably much less than that of the.50 cal browning. Even with todays modern advances armored glass designed to stop a .50 cal clean would weigh in excess of 30 lbs per square foot. In aircraft as we know weight = performance loss and it's not good..You don't beleive me fine go to Total Security Solutions websight and you can read what the experts say on the .50 cal debate themselves... http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4

Hispano Mk II muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
Aircraft mounted Browning .50 muzzle velocity: 880m/sec

20mm cannons had markedly higher armor penetration than did the Browning .50.  The Browning .50 is not a god weapon that violates the laws of physics.

Sorry, but you are claiming that something that factually happened didn't happen.

[Zoney]

r105

Wing up with a bomber killer, and you might learn what you are doing wrong.

Change your perception of "I was poring ammo into the wing" to "I was poring ammo out of my guns hoping to hit a wing" and you will be more honest to yourself.

Patience is the key to attacking buffs.  It takes me more than 5 minutes to reset for the next pass sometimes.  Timing is everything.

I have exactly 50 kills of B17's this month so far and have been shot down 1 time by a B17.  I don't think it's because B17's are easy kills.

I would be happy to wing up with you and show you and explain everything as I am attacking. 

Currently I'm kickin around squadless so I also have no problem changing sides

to help someone who really wants to improve.

Not trying to thump you r105, I don't realy know you sir 

[Zoney]

It's too easy to kill planes with bombers.  

And there isn't a real solution without making bombers sitting ducks. You could up the amount of planes in a formation if you want to increase difficulty in gunning. Or you can leave it as it is and reduce a formation of 3 to 2.

I do not agree sir.

But I have observed that the 410 does seem fragile.

[Rich46yo]

Everything with the 410, even vis-a-vis killing Buffs with its 50mm, seems accurate to me. The BK 5 was a brutal HE round against bombers. It might be said its far more accurate in the game then it was in real life, but bomber formation gunnery is a whole lot more brutal in the game too then it was in real life. The 410 is a duck against one engined fighters, but it was so in real life as well. Overall the destroyer concept was unremarkable in actual war conditions. The exception being maybe as a night fighter. It did OK when accompanied by enough fighter cover but so did the Stuka. Besides the Luftwaffe had a very short window when it had enough fighter cover for its bomber/attack planes.

Like I said its the fragility of the thing that doesn't seem right. Let alone the glass the frame seems made out of paper machete. With a .55 K/D already compared to the 110s .74s, along with the 110s versatility, I'll bet within 3 months the 410 will end up with at least 1/2 the usage of the 110. Maybe less. One interesting use I bet would be worth the effort is to fly one over a CV group. The IB bombers being often left unprotected.

[titanic3]

I do not agree sir.

But I have observed that the 410 does seem fragile.

I find it so. It's fun once in a while to up a set of B17s and go Death Star into a furball. This coming from some one who flies bombers maybe once a month. I haven't met a single situation where I found it hard to hit a fighter.

[Guppy35]

We had a post on here one time with a pic of a Beaufighter with a 20mm shell embedded neatly in the armoured windscreen - dead square in the middle. Shattered the centre of the screen but didn't get through.

Will see if I can find the pic, I think the relevant book may be in my local library.

Somewhere upstairs I also have a pic of John Cunningham's windscreen after it stopped a bullet from a German gunner.

I posted it.  See below.   I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time.  We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc.  The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home.  That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.

I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance.  Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target

[Tracerfi]

I posted it.  See below.   I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time.  We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc.  The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home.  That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.

I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance.  Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target

(Image removed from quote.)

Holy Crap

[AKKuya]

In the last scenario I racked up over 50 bomber kills without a single loss in a 262 or single ping on my plane. There was jokes flying that the bullets were "down graded" for the allies when in fact they were not tweaked, we just hit from the correct angles using the 262's...... SPEED and firepower to defeat the buffs.

You failed to mention that we were in B-26's flying NOE to sneak through enemy lines to hit our targets.  I do remember at least smoking some 262s but not shooting them down.

[W7LPNRICK]

Instant pilot kill from any aspect is seriously messed up. Should be more protected than that. Armored seat and headrest, aswell as an armored tub around the pilots -- I still found myself in the tower before I heard the ping from behind.

I managed to find a formation of bombers and popped 2 before he got out of the bombsight, and the first shot he fired I literally was back in the tower instantly -- no damage just instant tower. There should be forward armor somewhere on it. Doesn't appear to work.


Happens far too often, it seems.

Armored or not...even a Lanc can easily kill a 410 on his 6 co-alt or high with all that open glass in front....wonderful SA/visibility, but at a tremendous cost. I also was very surprised at the flat trajectory & overshot with the first 5/6 rounds scratching my head & not believing I missed. 

[W7LPNRICK]

Most in AH have the front pane as bullet proof.

Historically, for example, Robert Stanford Tuck's Spitfire Mk II had the front pane replaced with bullet proof glass when he was covering the Dunkirk evacuation.  He took a 20mm round from a Bf110C in a headon the flight after it was added and would have died then and there had it not been added.

I do not know where the Me410 stands in that regard, but given its role, size and weight I'd be surprised if it weren't bullet proof in the front.

I have no documentation to show whether it's ballistic glass or not, but I was killed with not more than 2-3 rounds from a Lanc @ my co-alt 6....So...? you tell me, maybe it's supposed to be, but it ain't!