Bomber vs Fighter thought

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Bomber vs Fighter thought

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Bomber vs Fighter thought

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Bomber vs Fighter thought - 12/2/2002 2:52:17 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Am still loving the modified air to air routines in 2.10, particularily fighter vs bomber. However in observing B-17 vs A6M, it still appears that small #'s of the bombers are proving as effective as fighters themselves in hitting and downing them. The A6M's are hitting them back more which is very nice (as i've said....i have no problem with Allied four-engine DUR) as it can often lead to an operational crash after the long flight. Still......the exchange rate bugs me as it still entices players to play the reduce IJN exp game using bombers vs the more realistic fighter vs fighter way.

I took a look at the B-17 stats to see if something would come to mind (not just for B-17's but for all bombers, just using this particular as an example as it produces the effect the most in my games)

Then it hit me......the B-17 carries the same armament as many Allied fighters.....and as such has the same ACCURACY rating as the weapons employed on the fighters

Now i dont recall if Matrix addressed this....i checked all my available patch update Adobe's before posting this and didn't see it so i'll take the plunge and make the suggestion;

Should bomber defensive weapons have the same ACC rating as those weapons have on dedicated fighters? My thinking is this. Japanese accounts against Allied bombers, particularily B-17's confirmed their toughness. However these same accounts often repeated that they feared their defensive fire little. This is understandable when the usual attack method against these porcupines was high side deflection attacks (attacking a four engine from low defection angles is a universally held bad idea)

Though a difficult shot to make, a good fighter pilot was usually far more capable of doing this vs a lone gunner, sporting a single MG and using his MK-1 Eyeball to try to spot then hit the fast agile plane attacking him.

So i'm wondering.....especially now that air to air has gotten more satisfyingly intense...should bomber ACC ratings for the same weapons they use as the fighters be reduced to account for a less favorable firing and/or training situation vs dedicated pilots, in fast planes, trained for their task using the same weapon? Should the same Browning .50 on a bomber have an ACC of 13, vs an full fighter plane ACC of 26? Or if thats too difficult maybe a penalty for ACC in the to-hit calculation for the bomber.

Same would go for Japanese bombers too. Dont recall many IJN bombers hitting allied fighters

It might reduce this tendancy for bombers to score as well as fighters, even in small #'s, bereft of escort. It would certainly give players caution in deploying unescorted bombers vs targets with high fighter presence. True the increased to hit is helping things but I still feel, particularily from the Allied side, that i can successfully employ bombers as fighter attrition weapons, something they were not able to do in this theatre....at least not without suffering undue wear and tear themselves.

Anyway thats my 1st thought for the day. My 2nd thought of the day is, and this may have been addressed, is do head on attacks vs bombers recieve a bonus in both damage and destruction? A big bomber, even a heavy B-17 is far more vulnerable to a frontal attack vs one from the side or rear. Course i dont often see IJN CAP's attack head on very often but when they do i havn't noticed a profound difference....nor have i seen one from the Allied side.

Loving the patch.

Repeat....loving the patch

Not getting any work done...........hating the patch......Matrix is evil for tempting me with all-weekend UV play......bad Nik.....should be responsible instead of sitting in front of computer playing UV......slap my hand with a ruler.....all Matrix's fault.....i cant be blamed for slacking ;) :p :D

I'll be good and study now....after this next turn.....yeah, thats what i'll do......

Post #: 1

- 12/2/2002 3:08:11 AM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

For PacWar I halved the weaponry of all Tactical Bombers (or was it 75%?) due to the facts mentioned above, plus the cold hard fact that bombers had their guns placed all around the aircraft, a few facing forward, a few in the rear, a few at the sides, a few on top, etc..

So, when you have, say, an A6M attacking a B-17, the A6M has ALL of its guns against the B-17, but the B-17 has only a few of its guns on the A6M.

Then comes the problem about bombers flying in tight formation. The tighter the formation, the more fire can be brought on an attacking fighter. However, this fire was not as accurate, nor designed to shoot down the attacker (done more to make their attack run called off, basically to keep fighters away).

So, I think that there should be more then one factor in deciding the cannon firepower of bombers.

#1. Numbers and formation. Large numbers of closely packed bombers are tougher to attack then fewer numbers of lose formation bombers.

#2. Fact that only a few of the bomber's guns face a target at any one time, while the fighters get the benefit of all of their guns.

Even still, bomber firepower should be directed more towards its own protection then out to kill enemy fighters. Maybe adding a factor (possibly for WitP) that has bomber cannon ratings dedicated not to killing enemy fighters, but to stop their attack. So, you will end up with bombers killing significantly less bombers, but more surviving (as their cannon factor is used to deflect an enemy attack). A bomber 'kill' would not be a 'kill' persay, but will have that fighter 'turned back' from attacking the bomber formation (i.e., not allowing the fighter to attack the bombers).

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 2

- 12/2/2002 5:29:29 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

good suggestions Jeremy.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 3

- 12/2/2002 5:34:20 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello...

Unlike PacWar, UV does not use the "cannon factor" of a bomber against fighters. Each gun mount has an arc of fire and all are fired individually. The gunner must make an experience check and the enemy must be within his arc and range, before he can fire and another experience check before he can fire accurately. The relative angle of attack of the fighter already affects his chances to hit and is factored into the calculations. As the enemy plane approaches and departs, more than one gun can gain a shot, as the enemy plane comes into new arcs of fire. Fighters generally get 2 to 4 more bursts than bombers, when they fight, due to the way the system works. And, fighter shots direct all forward firing guns at once, which make them dangerous. Japanese Zeros do have two problems, in this game, attacking heavy Allied bombers, one being ammunition. They do not carry much ammunition for the 20mm guns and it is difficult to hit the big bombers with enough rounds in important enough places to bring one down. The second problem is the fragility of the Zero. It must continue to fire at the heavy bomber long enough to bring it down, while avoiding being hit, itself.

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]For PacWar I halved the weaponry of all Tactical Bombers (or was it 75%?) due to the facts mentioned above, plus the cold hard fact that bombers had their guns placed all around the aircraft, a few facing forward, a few in the rear, a few at the sides, a few on top, etc..

So, when you have, say, an A6M attacking a B-17, the A6M has ALL of its guns against the B-17, but the B-17 has only a few of its guns on the A6M.

Then comes the problem about bombers flying in tight formation. The tighter the formation, the more fire can be brought on an attacking fighter. However, this fire was not as accurate, nor designed to shoot down the attacker (done more to make their attack run called off, basically to keep fighters away).

So, I think that there should be more then one factor in deciding the cannon firepower of bombers.

#1. Numbers and formation. Large numbers of closely packed bombers are tougher to attack then fewer numbers of lose formation bombers.

#2. Fact that only a few of the bomber's guns face a target at any one time, while the fighters get the benefit of all of their guns.

Even still, bomber firepower should be directed more towards its own protection then out to kill enemy fighters. Maybe adding a factor (possibly for WitP) that has bomber cannon ratings dedicated not to killing enemy fighters, but to stop their attack. So, you will end up with bombers killing significantly less bombers, but more surviving (as their cannon factor is used to deflect an enemy attack). A bomber 'kill' would not be a 'kill' persay, but will have that fighter 'turned back' from attacking the bomber formation (i.e., not allowing the fighter to attack the bombers). [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

- 12/2/2002 5:46:43 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Thanks Mike, that does help. I agree fully that A6M's will have their hands full bringing down a B-17 and will have to most of the time be satisfied with damaging it in the hopes that it will not come back for a long time if at all. I've read many accounts that verify this, in contrast to the bombers scoring against fighters.

It just still appears in practice that the 17's in particular are still bagging too many enemy fighters.....once more making them almost as effective as their little friends with the hot-shot pilots stuck down in New Gineau :)

Do you think perhaps that along with the EXP checks, that the base ACC of the defensive guns might warrent reduction in lieu of their placement and having to be manually hauled around and aimed. I think Jeremy's thoughts here are on the money on the function and purpose of the defensive guns vs their function on a fighter plane. Either reducing the ACC of the defensive guns or increasing the liklihood of driving off the attacker vs shooting him down ala a fighter vs fighter situation might prove beneficial.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

Bomber gunner inaccuracy.... - 12/2/2002 7:12:28 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

In the War in Europe, bomber gunners got VERY few kills....if you've seen one of the restored B-17s on tour or something with all of their kills painted on them, the overwhelming majority were bogus.

The deal was, when the 8th AF campaign started, B-17 losses were, of course, EXTREMELY high, meaning there were morale problems. Thus, the process for bomber gunner kill claims was changed...basically eliminated, actually. In contrast to fighter claims, which had a fairly rigorous investigation and witness requirement process, relative to other WWII combatants (and even this resulted in twice the number of official kills than Luftwaffe losses for US fighters) there were basically no requirements for bomber kills....you claimed a kill, you got one. Typically, a LW fighter might attack a US bomber "Box", and actually get shot down....and every single one of the 20 or so gunners who fired at it claimed a "kill"...and had that kill recorded.

So bomber gunner kills were laughably inflated....if they had been accurate, they would have shot down the entire LW fighter force in Western Europe EVERY week in late 43 through 45 :-)

The overwhelming majority of LW fighter losses were to US escort fighters...the B-17 (and B-24) gunners DID have the effect of forcing LW fighters to change their tactics to make head-on attacks, of course.

Unfortunately, Japanese data on losses in the Pacific is far less accurate than the LW in Europe. Given the fragility of Japanese aircraft, I think it's plausible that, as a % of attackers, far more were lost attacking heavy bombers in the Pacific than in Europe.

But given what we know from Europe, I'd be very dubious of allowing large numbers of fighter kills by B-17s in UV...especially considering they had fewer guns than later B-17s.

It simply was incredibly hard to hit a fighter with a turret gun on a bomber.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 6

- 12/2/2002 7:53:45 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

WitP will have each gunner on a bomber crew represented and given individual skills of accuracy and attentiveness. You will be able to move the gunners around to the different positions on the plane to optimize defensive firepower. For example, putting a skilled gunner in a ball turret would be better than having him on one of the side guns because he has a double .50 cal instead of just one.

Just kidding, I wanted to see if Grognards would read that and wet their pants.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7

- 12/2/2002 8:00:50 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Snig, I think that "handsome b*stard" comment has gone to your head.

Ah, a skilled gunner in the ball turret, eh? I just went out with one of those last Saturday night ... Falayshia I think her name was ...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 8

- 12/2/2002 8:40:35 AM

SoulBlazer

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline

ROTFL! Oh man.....no comment. :) Unh uh, I'm keeping my mouth shut, not touching it with a 10 foot pole! :)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 9

- 12/2/2002 11:45:02 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]WitP will have each gunner on a bomber crew represented and given individual skills of accuracy and attentiveness. You will be able to move the gunners around to the different positions on the plane to optimize defensive firepower. For example, putting a skilled gunner in a ball turret would be better than having him on one of the side guns because he has a double .50 cal instead of just one.

Just kidding, I wanted to see if Grognards would read that and wet their pants. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, I was ready to sh!t my pants. Last thing this game needs is more complication. Tracking individual pilots has already caused more grief than it is worth. An overall squadron rating would have been fine: goes up when losses are low and kill are high, goes down when losses are high (or if you are jap, if you take any losses at all. :D ) If this game had more of a role playing aspect, ala Close Combat, then the current system might be justified. As it is, I think that it has made the code more complex and therefore more subject to problems.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 10

Bomber pilot skill levels and air to aor combat. - 12/2/2002 11:53:01 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I wonder if the high 90s bomber pilots (which level they rapidly attain) shoot better than those in the 60s etc. Hopefully the game does not take this into consideration as pilots don't fire the guns on bombers.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11

Crew Experience - 12/2/2002 12:17:06 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I would hope the rating for the bomber pilots reflects the whole crew, not just the pilot.

That was my assumption.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 12

- 12/3/2002 12:29:43 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

That would make perfect sense, because the crew would have in most cases flown the same number of missions as the pilot.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 13

B17 gunners - 12/4/2002 5:27:21 PM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

Hi all,
I have read that frontal attacks against B17s and B24s were also more successful because most of the forward-firing guns were manned by officers (navigator, bombardier) with no specific gun training. The most effective forward-firing position was that of the top turret (manned by a NCO flight-engineer). In fact, the NCO crewmen looked with some contempt at the officer's gunnery skills.

Another point: in the UV bomber attack phase, some interceptions against P-39 fighter-bombers are returning messages of "driven off by defensive fire". Surely this is an error?

Cheers.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 14

- 12/4/2002 11:24:24 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Ent

Another point: in the UV bomber attack phase, some interceptions against P-39 fighter-bombers are returning messages of "driven off by defensive fire". Surely this is an error?

LOL not if it is a Head on attack !

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 15

- 12/5/2002 4:47:36 AM

entemedor

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/14/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Another point: in the UV bomber attack phase, some interceptions against P-39 fighter-bombers are returning messages of "driven off by defensive fire". Surely this is an error?

LOL not if it is a Head on attack !

HARD_Sarge[/QUOTE]

Rats...
You got me with this one, Sarge.
And thanks for the tip on updating to v.211... Patches are going out too often for me!

Entemedor

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 16

- 12/5/2002 7:33:25 AM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

Hello...

This was one of the flight messages removed in version 2.10. Until 2.10, these messages referred to 2 to 4 planes (flights) and were general messages. In later version, 2.10 and 2.11, messages show the actual dogfight or attack against individual planes.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
[B]Hi Ent

Another point: in the UV bomber attack phase, some interceptions against P-39 fighter-bombers are returning messages of "driven off by defensive fire". Surely this is an error?

LOL not if it is a Head on attack !

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 17

Re: B17 gunners - 12/7/2002 1:18:58 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by entemedor
[B]Hi all,
I have read that frontal attacks against B17s and B24s were also more successful because most of the forward-firing guns were manned by officers (navigator, bombardier) with no specific gun training. The most effective forward-firing position was that of the top turret (manned by a NCO flight-engineer). In fact, the NCO crewmen looked with some contempt at the officer's gunnery skills.

Another point: in the UV bomber attack phase, some interceptions against P-39 fighter-bombers are returning messages of "driven off by defensive fire". Surely this is an error?

Cheers. [/B][/QUOTE]

Frontal attacks were more successful because of the closing speeds (fighter speed plus bomber speed 600+MPH) the bomber gunner have a harder time tracking a fast moving target and the attacker has all his guns concentrated. Thus the 12 O'Clock High attack so favored by the Germans. These attacks were the reason the chin turrent was added to the B-17, and the nose turrent in the B-24.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 18