Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[horseback]

That "classical" aproach to the bombers self protecting capacity is not that fair at all. If Germans tried to take down American bombers as any other single flying aircraft, they will probably got serious losses. Even if they look dumb on Hollywood films, they played smart with their resources, and instead of making extremely daring attacks on bombers, by single engined fighters, they picked them with heavy two engined fighters and with long range devices. Those bombers forced to fall back, were then to be finished by single engined fighters.

This ignores the fact that the Luftwaffe had already demonstrated that they had heavily armed, long range heavy fighters like the Bf 110 and the Ju-88C, and had demonstrated that they were particularly useful against bombers, long before anyone came up with underwing rocket canisters. In fact, we could consider the American P-38 the ultimate WWII expression of the twin engine, high speed bomber destroyer concept (it was originally built to USAAF requirements for an interceptor rather than for a fighter), and the American bomber generals were certainly well aware of the Lightning’s capabilities, and the basic military principal that if you can do it, chances are very good that the enemy can do it too.

So, the doctrine wasn`t that wrong, it just generated new tactics, and new weapons that made this doctrine obsolete. Actually US bombers faired fairly well at he begining. Germans just happened to readjust faster than expected. When escorts started coming with the bomber formations, single engined fighters were not as good as the bi-motors on the bomber killing task, but will have some chance against escorts, where bi-motors would have none.

I would agree that the high altitude massed formation heavy daylight bomber doctrine would have worked very well against Bf 109E-1s over a Germany without an early warning radar system, but those days were long past by the time the 8th Air Force even arrived in England in 1942.

The US bombers fared well at the beginning because the JGs had never fired at such big targets before, and because they if anything over-respected the defensive fire from the gunners. It didn’t take them long to figure out how to estimate the range or re-set their convergences and recognize that for all the tracers flying past their ears that they were rarely hit before they could do serious damage and veered away. Even so, they recognized that being hit was a serious thing and when they were hit, they returned to base (unlike certain ai routines I could mention). If anything, the early confusion and hesitancy by the German fighters served to sucker the bomber groups into overconfidence and the early fiascoes over Germany before they had adequate numbers according to their own doctrines, much less adequate fighter escorts.

By that time, the Germans had said to themselves, “Hey, we have all these zerstörers and trained aircrew for them; they may not be very useful against enemy fighters, but they will be deadly to viermots. Let’s kick some Yankee air pirate ass.”

The reality was that long after the bomber generals’ doctrine was nullified, the bloody-minded commitment to ever bigger formations continued for reasons of ‘face’; if you look at what happened every time an unescorted US heavy bomber formation was detected and attacked by single engine fighters, the casualty figures were heavily in favor of the fighters, period. Luftwaffe Over Germany authors Caldwell & Muller reported several instances late in 1944 where bomber formations would miss their rendezvous with their escorts and were caught by even ‘light’ fighter formations of Bf 109Gs without gun pods and were decimated while the fighters got away with much fewer losses—and this was with the supposedly less capable ‘new growth’ generation of LW fighter pilots.

In any case, being hit by defensive fire is more a matter of the numbers of guns being fired in your direction than it is any one (or five) gunner's accuracy or skill. The closer you get, the more gunner skill enters into the equation, but individual accuracy did not become a factor unless the range was very short (as in under 150m) and the speed difference and angles were minimal.

cheers

horseback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

The closer you get, the more gunner skill enters into the equation, but individual accuracy did not become a factor unless the range was very short (as in under 150m) and the speed difference and angles were minimal.

This squares with my attempts at air gunnery in IL2 - and that's ignoring all the other factors that make real gunnery difficult.

Citing that book you mentioned, I think that these are the "money quotes," at least for U.S. bomber turrets equipped with 0.50 caliber MG.

"In reply to those who felt that firing should begin at a range of 1,200 yards, although the aircraft was not in a position to make an attack, he claimed that tests conducted at the University of New Mexico and reports from theaters of action indicated that the .50-caliber machine gun could not be fired accurately at a distance beyond 600 yards. It was also pointed out that reports and experiments indicated that computing sights then in use on B-17's and B-24's were not accurate under combat conditions. It was believed by some, however, that the General Electric Computing Sight used on the B-29 incorporated "all known principles and should give very accurate results."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...-4.html#page66

Also:

"during 1942 gunnery students had to became familiar with six different types of iron ring sights and four varieties of optical sights." The same authority has given the following excellent description of the relative speed system of sighting, which was the first scientific system:

The gunner was taught to use the following sequence of action in sightings: (1) recognize the enemy ship, (2) estimate the range with 600 yards as the critical distance for opening fire, (3) estimate the difference in speed between his ship and the enemy ship by holding the sight stationary for one second, (4) compute the lead according to a definite table which he had memorized, and (5) open fire. Under combat conditions there was usually no target in sight by the time the student had gone through this involved system of computing the lead."

"Another experiment was the use of tracer as an aid to sighting. This had been tried during World War I, but had been abandoned because it gave the gunner the impression he was hitting the target when he was not, and because flight speeds were then slow enough to allow the use of an alternative system of sighting. It was believed, however, that the increased flight speeds during the present war made its use practicable, provided it was used in conjunction with other sighting systems."

"Approximately one year after this time Headquarters AAF indicated to the Commanding General of the Fourth Air Force that not more than 10 per cent of the ammunition used by an aerial gunner would be loaded with tracer and that it should be fired during the final training phase. It was claimed that when gunners resorted to tracer they depended upon it entirely,and to the complete neglect of their gun sights. After students were proficient as a result of training, they might explore the possibilities and proper use of tracer."

"Tests at the Kingman Army Air Field in the fall of 1943 suggested in a practical way the defects in tracer firing. One of these tests involved the use of an AT-23 for towing a target at high speed and a B-17 for air-to-air firing against the target. The tam plane did all of the maneuvering. The experiment produced poor results, for "in every case the individual whose tracer appeared to be piercing the target and who might be considered to have high scores received no hits on the target, and in every ease the individuals whose tracer appeared not to pierce the target were in all cases the individuals who received hits on the target."

"It is claimed that tracer, if its illusion is controlled, has distinct advantages. It makes possible visual checking of harmonization of guns and sights, and indicates whether there is proper lead in deflection shooting. However, the student "must realize that he sees the light, not the bullet; and he must realize that light does not give the same effect of distance as a bullet. For example, a bullet half the size of another bullet is twice as far away. But a light half the size of another equal light, is not twice as far away; in fact, when it is twice as far away, it is only a quarter the size of the other." (Emphasis mine)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...AFHS-31-4.html


So, add to all the other woes of realistic gunnery the fact that tracers produce an optical illusion that makes the gunner think that he has proper lead on his target when he does not!

And, mind you, this is 1944. By then, the U.S. had been at war for about 2 years and they'd produced whole classes of gunners whose training was useless. (This squares with 8th Air Force doctrine of immediately retraining gunners who were direct from training schools in the States. I thought that this was just "advanced training," but it might be that the guys in the 8th Air Force actually had a clue that gunnery schools were teaching their students incorrect methods of engaging targets.)

One possible fix for TD is to make Rookie gunners basically useless and Average gunners only slightly useful. Only Veteran or Ace gunners should be anything like a threat.

[Pursuivant]

Good empirical data here (reminiscences by veterans):

http://forum.armyairforces.com/Lared...43-m50398.aspx

Takeaway:

Gunners were mostly trained to deal with fighters attacking via "pursuit curves" (e.g., rear and rear beam attacks), which might account for the greater number of victories claimed by U.S. tailgunners and top gunners.

2% hits vs. a sleeve target towed was considered acceptable air-to-air gunnery standard.

Gunners were trained to shoot no more than 20 round bursts. Guns could be damaged by longer bursts, or "cook-off" could result in unwanted firing which might hit friendly aircraft.

Bullets could be deflected by aircraft slipstream (further reducing accuracy for anything but tail guns fired directly to the rear).

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

One possible fix for TD is to make Rookie gunners basically useless and Average gunners only slightly useful. Only Veteran or Ace gunners should be anything like a threat.

In solo flight, I attacked a formation of two flights of four rookie G4M each from dead 6, 10 times, in an F6F-3. I tried to maintain a position at their 6 at a distance between 500 and 700 m. I shot down 20, and got hit exactly 8 times, 3 times one flight, once in five flights, not at all in four flights. One of the hits was a 20mm hit, the rest came from the light machine guns. I always returned to base no problem.

To sum it up, the gunners were basically useless.
---
Got curious about how gunners will do when faced with proper tactics - so I engaged the same two flights in head on passes and shot down all eight of them without getting hit at all. Will probably not always work like that, but four kills for every hit received in return appears conservative.

I don't know what's "too good" about that abysmal performance.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by JtD

In solo flight, I attacked a formation of two flights of four rookie G4M each from dead 6, 10 times, in an F6F-3. I tried to maintain a position at their 6 at a distance between 500 and 700 m. I shot down 20, and got hit exactly 8 times, 3 times one flight, once in five flights, not at all in four flights. One of the hits was a 20mm hit, the rest came from the light machine guns. I always returned to base no problem.

But, on the other hand, you were hanging out at 500-700 meters rather than getting any closer.

While I don't know what the Japanese gunnery doctrine was, or what they considered the effective range for machine guns/20 mm cannons to be for aerial gunnery, consider that USAAF doctrine held that 0.50 caliber MG were basically useless beyond 600 yards (~550 m).

So, that actually means that the "rookie" AI might have been pretty good.

A slightly more realistic scenario to test gunnery skill would be to fly a typical "pursuit curve" coming in from 2-4 or 8-10 o'clock high initially, making a diving turn as the bomber flies straight and level to attack from 5-7 o'clock level or high, and then continuing the dive beneath the bomber to the other side. On the the exit, drop at least 300 meters below the bomber, gain speed to get ahead of it bomber, zoom climb to gain altitude and repeat the attack. That would test the AI gunners' ability to hit an attacker traveling in two three dimensions and at very different ranges.

But, to test your theory about effectiveness of rookie AI gunnery, I set up a QMB mission - Midway map, 5000 meters altitude, no advantage, no situation, 2 flights of 4 Rookie G4M1 vs. 1 Ace F6F-3. 10 different flights. Autopilot for the F6F.

In sortie, the Hellcat got lucky and/or used good tactics and got 5 Betties before he broke off the attack. That was the exception, however.

In the other 9 sorties, despite jinking around as he bored in from the stern (obviously, in IL2 AI fixed gunnery school, they don't teach pilots beam or head-on attacks, nor diving attacks, against bombers), he ate a significant amount of lead while shooting down a maximum of 1 Betty per mission.

In 2 sorties he took enough damage to the engine or fuel tanks that his engine stopped in the air. In one, he burst into flames. In the other 6 sorties, he suffered enough engine or wing damage and fuel leaks to the point where he couldn't keep up with the bomber formation or felt the need to RTB.

NOT a realistic outcome, to say the least, if only due to the amazingly Stoopid Hellcat tactics.

And, while the rookie Japanese gunners weren't exactly wielding Radar-Guided Blaster Cannons of Death like their Ace counterparts, their gunnery was quite effective even at ranges well beyond 150 meters.

I hate to say it, since TD has done so much to improve AI behavior, but at least in this case the gunners ARE still too accurate, and fighter tactics vs. bombers, even for Ace AI, would get you washed out of fighter training.

[Pursuivant]

Just for fun, I did a variation on the scenario above.

QMB Midway map, 5000 meters, no advantage, no situation, 1 Ace G4M1 vs. 1 Ace F6F-3. Autopilot for the F6F, 10 sorties.

In EVERY sortie, the Hellcat did the same damned thing. 1) Fly past the Betty with about 300 meters of altitude and 1,000 meters of separation. 2) Split S about 1,500 meters behind the Betty. 3) Chase the Betty to within ~200 meters, SOMETIMES NOT EVEN SHOOTING!

If the Hellcat didn't shoot on its first pass, it then:

4) Climbed directly over the Betty to about 1,000 meters above. 5) Slowed down until it was about 1,500 meters behind the Betty. 6) Repeat steps 3 & 4 until Betty turns left (always left), watching the tracers fly past as you crawl into range. 7) Once the Betty finally turns, make a deflection shot at 20-45 degrees angle off.

Meanwhile, the Betty consistently opens fire just inside 1,200 meters (WAY beyond effective range), although it didn't start hitting consistently until 500 meters.

Not surprisingly, given its pathetic tactics, The Hellcat won this encounter just 50% of the time. 3 times, the Hellcat pilot was killed or his plane was set on fire. The other 2 times his engine was badly enough damaged that he RTB. In one case, the Hellcat got PK AND flamed in one shot from 300 meters while the Betty was in a 20 degree bank! There was obviously a serious muscle man hefting that 50 kilo cannon!

I think that the Ace gunnery is about right in accuracy in this situation, except for starting to fire way too soon and the lucky shot while the Betty was in a turn, but the fighter AI is just tragic.

[JtD]

Right, I guess 8 kills vs. 0 hits were too much of an argument to deal with, had to be avoided by starting some new "ace fighter AI is porked" red herring sideline. I take it the point now is that AI gunners mustn't hit anything even when faced with the most idiotic opposition. *facepalm* Nothing else to say, really.

Just out of curiosity - have you ever tried something bigger, like say 16 vs. 32 or something? Or is 1 vs. X the upper limit?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by JtD

Right, I guess 8 kills vs. 0 hits were too much of an argument to deal with, had to be avoided by starting some new "ace fighter AI is porked" red herring sideline. I take it the point now is that AI gunners mustn't hit anything even when faced with the most idiotic opposition. *facepalm* Nothing else to say, really.

Just out of curiosity - have you ever tried something bigger, like say 16 vs. 32 or something? Or is 1 vs. X the upper limit?

My reactions are a little different; at 500-700m, no human gunner behind a real machine gun or cannon could possibly have hit you on purpose from a moving aircraft. If you had been flying a real Hellcat against a real Betty formation and been hit at all from those ranges, you would have turned around immediately to inform your Task Force command that the Japanese have apparently developed some sort of automated fire control or aiming system that is accurate out to nearly a half mile, because more than one stray hit at those ranges would not be a coincidence.

The whole point of the ai is to mimic the capabilities and the historical behaviors of human beings in those aircraft, not to exceed them by several orders of magnitude. This is particularly true for the offliner who wants to re-create historical missions.

It is outrageous for the Rookie ai gunners to be able to hit a single Hellcat going the opposite direction from 780 meters while their aircraft is in a banking turn. It's just insulting when that hit results in the loss of rudder control in the bargain, which is what happened to me a couple of weeks ago.

If you want some sort of 'gameplay' difficulty (more Zombies!), then make the Veteran and Ace gunners your 'high difficulty' or online default, and make Rookies the single aircraft realism standard and 'Average' the 'formation multiplier' standard for offline historical players. And separate the pilots from the gunners, if you want to maintain some sort of bombing accuracy.

cheers

horseback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by JtD

Right, I guess 8 kills vs. 0 hits were too much of an argument to deal with, had to be avoided by starting some new "ace fighter AI is porked" red herring sideline. I take it the point now is that AI gunners mustn't hit anything even when faced with the most idiotic opposition. *facepalm* Nothing else to say, really.

That's NOT what I said.

I think that given the tactics used by the AI Hellcat in the 1 vs. 1 and 1 vs. 8 missions, the Japanese Ace gunnery is about right.

Rookie gunnery might be a bit too effective, however.

Gunnery might still be too effective at all levels when swinging a heavy gun - like a 20 mm cannon - while a plane is banking.

At least for Japanese gunners on the G4M1, they start shooting at extreme ranges - 1000 meters or greater.

I also previously said that hanging out at the limits of effective range for most air guns, even at 6 o'clock, and taking sniper shots is a good way to get lots of kills and minimal damage.

A better test of AI accuracy would be to take maneuvering shots from the rear quarter but within the effective range of the AI guns.

Originally Posted by JtD

Just out of curiosity - have you ever tried something bigger, like say 16 vs. 32 or something? Or is 1 vs. X the upper limit?

Yes.