Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[Igo kyu]

I'm currently using 4.7, but I agree with everything Horseback says about over accurate bomber gunners, it always has been ridiculous, at least since the original Forgotten Battles.

The problem is, the only information the program has, is the exactly correct position, speed and heading of our fighters. That's available, with no work, somewhere that can be got at easily (if it wasn't, we wouldn't be in a flight sim). Generating approximations for those data, particularly accurate approximations of the data a human in the relative position of the gunner in of a bomber would have had, would be hard.

There's probably the processor grunt to do it now, but there wasn't back when IL*2 was originally written, so the code presumably wasn't writen that way. To get to a position where it could be done would presumably require a wholesale re-write, such that you might as well write a completely new simulation.

On another angle, most big air battles resulted in very small loss ratios even for the losers, the day the Stukas withdrew from the BoB, their losses were something like 20%. In IL*2 we often get most or even all of the bombers, I agree that the fighter losses should be lower than they are, but the bomber losses ought to be lower too.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

I'm currently using 4.7, but I agree with everything Horseback says about over accurate bomber gunners, it always has been ridiculous, at least since the original Forgotten Battles.

4.7 and 4.11+ are like day and night. Gunners received a complete rework with 4.11 (think it was, maybe even 4.10) and since then, they just suck. Sometimes they get lucky, but mostly they suck.

[majorfailure]

The engine on the P-39 is not tough at all - if you get shot from behind and slightly off-angle. Against ground fire and defensive fire it is very well protected.

And vs. gunner accuracy -currently playing vs. US/British, and on the first few missions I bothered to make head on or high off angle attacks vs. B25G/J -until I got lazy and tried to shoot a few from behind and it worked like a charm. Just go in there from 6'o clock below/high with lots of speed, shoot, and break at the latest at 200m.

Though VS. B-24 or B-17 this does not work. But using high or beam or head on attacks with good speed one nearly does not get hit. I have seen a flight of AI B-17s chopped up by AI Bf109G6s from behind with no losses once or twice, but most of the time the AI Bf109s lose one or two. And they more or less park behind the B-17s.

I like the way gunners are now, the still pose a limited threat - you can't get totally careless, but its not as fustrating as 4.09 and before where they shot out your pilot/engine with 50% reliabilty from 300m+ no matter what angle and speed you had -and even regularly killed you on head on passes.

If anything is done to lower their accuracy even more we will arrive at ridiculos scenarios where a single AI Bf109G will shoot down a whole flight of B-17s.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

The engine on the P-39 is not tough at all - if you get shot from behind and slightly off-angle.

Historically, this is one of the things about the P-39 that made it particularly vulnerable to fighters attacking from behind. Not only the engine being where it is made it vulnerable to fighters, but the Prestone overflow tank and the oil tank were positioned directly behind the engine, making them extremely susceptible in air-to-air combat.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Though VS. B-24 or B-17 this does not work. But using high or beam or head on attacks with good speed one nearly does not get hit. I have seen a flight of AI B-17s chopped up by AI Bf109G6s from behind with no losses once or twice, but most of the time the AI Bf109s lose one or two. And they more or less park behind the B-17s.

Yep. While I think that there's more to be done with gunner realism, things got a lot better in 4.11. My typical test is a QMB mission with 4 ace attackers going after a flight of 16 Average bombers. In those cases, it usually works out to 50% losses on both sides when late war German types go up against U.S. heavies. And that's with really dumb tactics on both sides. (i.e., Fighters never make high side or head on attacks. Bombers are always in loose echelon right formation with four planes per flight, and lose formation as they turn.)