Fixing bombers

[BnZs]

"bombers are too tough" sounds like "tanks kill me with main gun"

do it correctly, they are both sitting ducks.

I do not know whether it was physically possible for one guy to to effectively target a shallow-diving airplane with the main gun of a tank, although I know it was surely uncommon. I do know it was physically impossible for one man to fly 3 airplanes and control 36 .50s mounted in various locations, unless that man was the Kwisatz Haderach 

[caldera]

Even though I said this:

Lack of patience or ignorance of tactics is why your bomber numbers read the way they do.

You have convinced me that what I really meant was this:

Surely you're not claiming the numbers read like they do because the average buffer is relatively more experten than the average fighter pilot?

It seems that I have been arguing with a crazy person.  Enjoy the rest of your thread without me, thanks.

[guncrasher]

A speedy attack not from dead 6 was always prudent against bombers in R/L, this I grant you, though even a dead six approach still ended up doing more damage to the bombers. But conditions in AHII are so distorted that the historically rare straight vertical dive is the ONLY valid approach. And can you imagine doing it against an actual stacked formation of buffs, instead of 3 plane element? The chances of collision would go through the roof.

one time i let this guy follow me for about 30 minutes in a fighter.   to be honest i was bored waiting for him to attack.  when he was in a position of advantage i bailed all my buffs and he got not even a proxie.  I could have bailed out before but i went to the bathroom, got a snack, got a second beer and he was still not in a position to attack.

the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms.  i am no more wrong that he is.


semp

[BnZs]

one time i let this guy follow me for about 30 minutes in a fighter.   to be honest i was bored waiting for him to attack.  when he was in a position of advantage i bailed all my buffs and he got not even a proxie.  I could have bailed out before but i went to the bathroom, got a snack, got a second beer and he was still not in a position to attack.

the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms.  i am no more wrong that he is.


semp

Well, that puts a whole new wheel on the wagon when it comes to all this being patient and setting up your attack. Well done sir, I'm sure you're proud. 

(Then again I once inadvertently shot down the same guy AFK twice in the same evening, then proceeded to convince him that if you look really, really, really carefully, you can tell AFK players because their icons are slightly dimmer. So who am I to judge?)

[Ack-Ack]

But conditions in AHII are so distorted that the historically rare straight vertical dive is the ONLY valid approach.

Attacking bombers from above like you describe is called the "Overhead Attack" and was the primary bomber attack tactic taught by the USN and USAAF, along with the "Beam Attack".

ack-ack

[Chalenge]

the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms.  i am no more wrong that he is.

You're assuming there is something wrong with setting up a proper attack. I say you knew you were up against somebody that was going to hand you your head and you didn't want to see it happen.

The direction this thread is going suggests that you think bombers have some magical advantage because they have an F3 view. The only real advantage a bomber can have is to climb very, very high. At 37k a B29 formation can make it difficult for even a 163 to kill his planes, because of compression. Most other planes are defeated because they just cannot keep up. Snailman has learned that allowing a fighter to get to his high twelve is a very, very bad thing, so he turns a lot to prevent that. He does that now in every bomber he flies. It is an advanced technique (advanced because it is beyond the average flier). Likewise, the high twelve attack is an advanced technique. If you see someone going far out in front then you know he is not a beginner. That's why bombers bail. You climb up their six they won't bail. The F3 view only makes up for the fact that there are not actually ten pair of eyes in each bomber, as there would be in a real B17.

If you want to wish for something, wish for realistic turret hydraulics. Knock out #2 (#3 in AH) engine and the turrets are stuck in the B17 (B24, and Lanc too I believe). Like that's going to happen.

[BnZs]

  It was an attack from altitude yes, but not the virtually  STRAIGHT down attack needed in AHII. In AHII diving on bombers at 45 degrees is almost as bad as the attack from 6. Which itself was used by the Germans to inflict horrific tolls on the big American heavies.

Attacking bombers from above like you describe is called the "Overhead Attack" and was the primary bomber attack tactic taught by the USN and USAAF, along with the "Beam Attack".

ack-ack

[Karnak]

  It was an attack from altitude yes, but not the virtually  STRAIGHT down attack needed in AHII. In AHII diving on bombers at 45 degrees is almost as bad as the attack from 6. Which itself was used by the Germans to inflict horrific tolls on the big American heavies.

By no means is a straight down attack the only viable attack in AH.  Any attack that requires constant adjustment by the gunner is viable.  The two worst attacks, straight 6 or straight 12 (against B-17, 24 and 29), are bad because the gunner doesn't have to adjust significantly.

[BnZs]

Anything other than the straight overhead is a bad idea. The buff gunner is firing more guns in tougher airplanes that are absolutely stable platforms.


Really, if you think about it, except for the straight overhead, anything that makes his gun solution more of a crossing angle, makes your gun solution more of a crossing angle, reducing the probability of killing a bomber in a single pass while still risking his fire.

The head on against bombers was a popular tactic in the ETO.

By no means is a straight down attack the only viable attack in  AH.  Any attack that requires constant adjustment by the gunner is viable.  The two worst attacks, straight 6 or straight 12 (against B-17, 24 and 29), are bad because the gunner doesn't have to adjust significantly.

[Karnak]

Anything other than the straight overhead is a bad idea. The buff gunner is firing more guns in tougher airplanes that are absolutely stable platforms.

Really, if you think about it, except for the straight overhead, anything that makes his gun solution more of a crossing angle, makes your gun solution more of a crossing angle, reducing the probability of killing a bomber in a single pass while still risking his fire.

I've found that a dive in from above and ahead, resulting in a crossing shot, is almost impossible for them to defend against and gives good guns on target time for my fighter.

You greatly exaggerate the ability of the bomber player to actually hit you.  Being able to point the guns at you is unimportant if the firing solution is too hard to pull off.

The head on against bombers was a popular tactic in the ETO.

Indeed, it is the reason for the chin turret on the B-17G having been added.

[BnZs]

Really, the accuracy of flex-mounted aircraft guns in AHII is perhaps the problem. Bounced a 410 in an FM2 last night. He attempted a head on, lead turn, was on his six and closing fast instantly. He went into a slight climb, probably hit shift-X to hold it there, and smoked my oil with that rear gun before I crossed inside D400 and my 4 .50s put him down. Even the F2B in the WWI arena can be the very devil sometime, out-ranging anything behind it with superior accuracy. I think they could use significantly more dispersion, to account for various factors that would in reality degrade their accuracy.

[Karnak]

Really, the accuracy of flex-mounted aircraft guns in AHII is perhaps the problem.

The dispersion of such guns in AH is very much less than it was on the real deal.

How much of a problem this is depends on how much of a concession you're willing to make in order for bombers to be playable.

[BnZs]

I've found that a dive in from above and ahead, resulting in a crossing shot, is almost impossible for them to defend against and gives good guns on target time for my fighter.

You greatly exaggerate the ability of the bomber player to actually hit you.  Being able to point the guns at you is unimportant if the firing solution is too hard to pull off.
Indeed, it is the reason for the chin turret on the B-17G having been added.

c

We are at an impasse-I have walked fire down a bomber with the 190A8 heavy guns, 30MM flashes all the way, to believe that a crossing angle is very efficient against the heavies.

I also believe that being in range of those guns is incredibly risky, even crossing at high speeds. That 190A8 I mentioned? Last time I upped one, I just had the alt and speed to make a pass from slightly above and directly on the beam of some lancs coming into our field, all I had time for. 90 degree crossing shot, walked fire all the way down the beam of the leftmost Lanc to no deadly effect. Presumably also a difficult high angle shot for him? Well, a single (tracerless burst) stopped my own engine. So again we are at an impasse and must simply agree to disagree I suppose.

[BnZs]

The dispersion of such guns in AH is very much less than it was on the real deal.

How much of a problem this is depends on how much of a concession you're willing to make in order for bombers to be playable.

See here now, I don't understand where you can look at a situation where one player is given 3 aircraft AND guns you acknowledge to be more accurate than real, and don't think things are a tad out of hand. No animosity towards you man, I just don't get it. How is that in principle different from giving, say the 109E better guns than real so that plane would be more playable in the MA?

[Karnak]

See here now, I don't understand where you can look at a situation where one player is given 3 aircraft AND guns you acknowledge to be more accurate than real, and don't think things are a tad out of hand. No animosity towards you man, I just don't get it. How is that in principle different from giving, say the 109E better guns than real so that plane would be more playable in the MA?

Because the alternative is to not see bombers get used in the game.  More accurate guns is the lesser of the two evils.

EDIT:

Well, ok.  They could increase flexible and turret mounted gun dispersion to historical levels, reduce bomb accuracy and increase the formation size from 3 to 10.