Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[MaxGunz]

Were P-51 guns harmonized to different ranges? Or P-40 guns?

The game has mechanism to set 2 ranges per plane. Hard to imagine the howling if planes with 4 MG's had those split up. They're not uber together!

I want *sprinkles* on the chocolate on my cookie now.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

As a mud mover my armaments have been messed with enough over the past few years changing the game to a confusing unreliable experience, so lets leave the bombers alone please.

Nobody's asking you to give up what you've got already.

As with any proposed change to armaments, I believe that there should be an option in the GUI to turn off elements which are "excessively realistic" or "not fun" for some people.

So, if TD were to actually implement realistic flexible or fixed gunnery, sticking to the current standard would be as simple as clicking on a difficulty setting.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Flying to a target for an hour to have your weapons not detonate or fail to run in the water (toprs) is not amusing especially when they used to work perfectly well in the past.

As I said, there's a difficulty setting for that. Or, at least there should be.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

The fighters still enjoy
no freezing
no overheating
no prop-wash
no vibrations
no g-force effect

Yep. You'll get no argument from me there. IL2 has some pretty realistic exterior ballistics models, but they still miss a lot of little elements which made realistic aerial gunnery such as tricky business.

Those of us who like those realistic fiddly bits find it annoying that they aren't properly modeled, especially since IL2 tries so hard for realism in other respects.

And, in fairness to online bomber and attack pilots, it would only be fair to implement realistic flexible and fixed gunnery at the same time, so both sides are equally disadvantaged.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Were P-51 guns harmonized to different ranges? Or P-40 guns?

The fixed guns on any plane could be set so that individual guns converge with the sight reticule at a certain range. Typically, however, pairs or sets of guns on opposite sides of the plane were set so that they converged, so that the recoil of the guns didn't throw the plane off course when maneuvering or aiming.

At least for the USAAF, it wasn't that uncommon to have one pair of wing-mounted MG set to converge at 300 yards, another pair at 350 and yet another pair at 400 yards to create a "beaten zone" where at least some of the bullets were likely to hit. I don't think that it was just the P-47. I believe that the P-51 and P-40 could have the same option.

The problem is that, in the game you've got just two convergence settings - "cannons" and "machine guns." Furthermore, some planes had the ability to shoot single guns, or just pairs of guns, rather than the current "guns or cannons" option.

So, for realistic fixed gunnery, you need to add the option of setting convergences for each pair of guns (or single gun), and the option of shooting just single guns or pairs of guns.

Neither option seems like it would be that much work, mostly just reworking key bindings and some messing with the GUI.

[ElAurens]

That is one of the things CloD got correct.

You can/could even choose the ammo belting for each gun.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

That is one of the things CloD got correct.

You can/could even choose the ammo belting for each gun.

Yea like unrealistically using de-wilde ammo in all guns where available.............

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Yea like unrealistically using de-wilde ammo in all guns where available.............

Or filling the skys with E4s and Spit IIa.

CloD is dead. Time to move on.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The fixed guns on any plane could be set so that individual guns converge with the sight reticule at a certain range. Typically, however, pairs or sets of guns on opposite sides of the plane were set so that they converged, so that the recoil of the guns didn't throw the plane off course when maneuvering or aiming.

At least for the USAAF, it wasn't that uncommon to have one pair of wing-mounted MG set to converge at 300 yards, another pair at 350 and yet another pair at 400 yards to create a "beaten zone" where at least some of the bullets were likely to hit. I don't think that it was just the P-47. I believe that the P-51 and P-40 could have the same option.

The problem is that, in the game you've got just two convergence settings - "cannons" and "machine guns." Furthermore, some planes had the ability to shoot single guns, or just pairs of guns, rather than the current "guns or cannons" option.

So, for realistic fixed gunnery, you need to add the option of setting convergences for each pair of guns (or single gun), and the option of shooting just single guns or pairs of guns.

Neither option seems like it would be that much work, mostly just reworking key bindings and some messing with the GUI.

I've seen historic records saying that the all the guns were harmonized to create a 1 yard wide circle at 'convergence' at some range with each gun aimed slightly off a central point.

I read about bullet scatter and so much of it is empty speculation that I just laugh. I've fired M-60's on bipod which is more scatter prone than the fixed guns on planes and got nowhere near the scatter often mentioned even out to 800 yards.

Planes do vibrate in a mostly parallel way, not twisting. Some bullets will get an up-down vector (you can figure out why sideways is more constrained) but that's inches per second where in 1 full second the bullet goes how far?
Imperfections in the bullet will cause less to more, they were not shooting modern match ammo. The tracers especially aren't even and still --- in less than a second they only get so far off the mark.

Look at the convergence geometry not as the out-of-scale diagrams used to emphasize the concept but as about 5 meters wide (for outer guns) at the wings versus 200 to 300 meters out to 'convergence' and figure out from how far to how far you get a 2 or 3 meter wide pattern of 'beaten zone'. Answer is about halfway to convergence to about the same distance beyond.

Convergence is about rise and drop and how much below the line of sight is as well. Spend time reviewing tracks made in gunnery practice and see how often the tracers go just above or below where you thought they were aimed. Know your range and when to shoot high or low.

I find closing speed affects aim. The faster I close the shorter the range effectively becomes. I like to shoot deflection, coming in not from six and that does make my closing speed higher. I trigger at 400 meters while aiming as if 350 meters to start my fire when I will be within 200 meters very soon. It lets me see where the first burst goes to get in one more before I have to avoid ramming.

If I am shooting horizontal I get more drop than shooting either up or down at more than a few degrees. Shots aimed in steep dive or climb, more than 10 degrees, will go high compared to the pipper but only by a fraction of the drop when horizontal. That changes with range.

A tail gunner firing at a following target has an easier task than a nose gunner. It's the side gunners who have the hardest job. That is just from moving geometry. With practice you can still get good but when the attrition gets high your average gunners won't be so experienced.

[horseback]

• The over accuracy of the ai gunners is primarily a concern for the off-liner; specifically the off-liner who mainly plays fighter scenarios. To me and those like me, the very idea that some poor schlub from the sticks of Bavaria, the rice fields of Honshu or the collective farms of western Russia dumped into a backless sling or seat and facing backwards while flying 200 kph or faster to shoot a light caliber machine gun mounted on a ball mount or ring at smaller, much faster attacking fighters could be accurate at ranges up to 750 meters is obscene, never mind historically false. We expect the default ai gunner routine to mimic or re-create the historic capabilities and limitations of the real human beings who flew those bombers and heavy fighters in WWII, not exceed them by squares and cubes.
• It is enormously frustrating to spend 30 or forty minutes trying to fly formation with an AI `escort’ routine that seems more concerned with either burning off your fuel or playing hide-and-seek behind your canopy frames than it is with keeping in close contact with the bombers we’re supposed to be protecting, finally catching a formation of Bf 110Gs down low and then getting your engine shot out by a Rookie rear gunner at an extreme angle at a range in excess of 400 meters while you’re diving on him at a steep angle and indicated speeds of over 500 kph. It’s unrealistic and grossly unreasonable, and it has nothing to do with `tactics’ or not knowing `how to fly’. A Mustang or Thunderbolt pilot attacking a zerstörer at those speeds and any angle was historically untouchable; the only thing between him and a victory was his guns’ reliability and his own shooting skill. Additionally, limiting all aircraft with rear gunners to `Rookie’ status means that both the heavy fighter and bomber aircraft are flown too poorly and ineffectively for the aircraft’s actual main weapons to be any use or danger in exchange for a minimal step towards realism.
• For the off-liner or online player who specializes or even dabbles in mud-moving in two-seater, medium or heavy bombers, the gunners are not nearly effective enough. From a practical standpoint I understand that imposing the real-life difficulty on the human gunner or the human pilot’s ai ‘crew’ would be suicidal, given the inability to impose the real-life discipline of formations and effective escort, even with other human players. For someone playing the bomber role, über gunners are an absolute necessity, and even then, the ai gunners protecting a human flown aircraft cannot enjoy the rail-smooth firing platform or even the basic levels of communication that a veteran real-life crew had, far less than the all ai “crew” that has the instant awareness and communication that so frustrating to the player who flies fighters.
• The players who campaign or do co-ops as ground-pounders naturally feel threatened by the very idea of limiting their already poor protection. I get that. Honest, I do. But nobody wants to take that away from the on-line or bomber campaign game. The off-line fighter players simply want a choice.
• We clearly now have the capability to give the off-line Player an option or tier of more historically realistic ai gunner routines for all-ai aircraft in off-line missions and campaigns. Therefore, we should:

1. Limit the `reality’ option to all-ai bombers, fighters and attack aircraft gunnery routines
2. Give turret style guns a 10 or 15% advantage over guns directed by human muscle power; the gunners in those were strapped in and had electrical or hydraulic aid in directing his guns
3. Make it strictly for QMBs and campaigns Off-Line as an option that must be selected before starting the QMB, Single Mission, or campaign. This means that I’ll have to re-start any existing campaigns to get this option; no mid-course changes.
4. Never apply it to Player-flown aircraft; in fact, make it impossible to apply it to a human-crewed aircraft or their formations, so that the mouse-gunners will have nothing to complain about or fear.

By the way Max, an M-60 has much less recoil and is lighter & far more user friendly than the older Browning MGs; that's what it was designed for and why it replaced the old-style .30 MGs in squad use and on Helos. No sprinkles for you.

cheers

horseback

[majorfailure]

Sometimes I think I'm playing a different game.
I've acquired quite some experience in shooting at allied heavys/medium bombers, and those are among the best armed/armored in this game IMHO.
I guess in about 40 missions I got shot out of the sky 8 times. Much? Yes.
But only two times when I got nailed (pilot dead) from below while turnig away and up (moving in all three planes of maneuvre) from the already dead bomber and from a landing B-17 about 400m below me on opposite course(thus the shooter had to lead a heck) that felt wrong. All the other times I got bored/greedy and decided to do a 6'o clock approach and forgot to break at 300m. So I'd say that my own poor choice of tactics fried my there.
Doing head-ons, side attacks, high attacks, even fast six o clock attacks with breaking of at ~250-300m regularly works for me.

Degrade the (rookie) gunners so they don't do the seemingly impossible shots that would be good, if it is not only pure luck but some kind of random deliberate ace gunnery. But do not degrade the gunners in general, they are fine IMHO.

And as a part-time mud-mover I can only say whenever you encounter an enemy fighter (AI) that you cannot outrun or outmaneuver and there is no clouds to hide in you are screwed. At least 19 out of 20 times.

The most interesting idea in your post IMHO is to be able to advise different levels of AI to different position, that would be useful. Could depict scenarios, where an all veteran crew got a member KIA and replaced by newbie, or splitting up an ace crew and mixing with regulars to get two useful crews.
Or for formations mission builders could use an ace bombardier/navigator/pilot for flight leader, and an all ace gunner crew for tail end, as surprise for anemy fighters.
And for offliners you could create enemy flights that have rookie skill at all gunner positions - but are pilot/bombardier able enough to bomb the broadside of a barn from three metres away.

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Sometimes I think I'm playing a different game.
I've acquired quite some experience in shooting at allied heavys/medium bombers, and those are among the best armed/armored in this game IMHO.
I guess in about 40 missions I got shot out of the sky 8 times. Much? Yes.
But only two times when I got nailed (pilot dead) from below while turnig away and up (moving in all three planes of maneuvre) from the already dead bomber and from a landing B-17 about 400m below me on opposite course(thus the shooter had to lead a heck) that felt wrong. All the other times I got bored/greedy and decided to do a 6'o clock approach and forgot to break at 300m. So I'd say that my own poor choice of tactics fried my there.
Doing head-ons, side attacks, high attacks, even fast six o clock attacks with breaking of at ~250-300m regularly works for me.

I feel the same, with a few notable exceptions. Horseback keeps talking about the gunner on the 110, I agree that he definitely seems to be more effective than most other gunners. There are also gunners on a couple older, rarer Soviet planes that seem super-human. It's those light MGs with the high rate of fire on the smaller, nimbler bombers that give me the most grief, especially when they are twinned like in the 110. Safer tactics can be used against bigger, more stable bombers; and the heavier machine guns have slower rates of fire and don't trouble me as much.