|
ReDDoN45 -> [v1083c] head-on attacks in air combat vs. bombers (9/2/2009 1:58:56 AM)
|
This is going to be a tricky subject, but I think its worth posting it, since some of the things Iīm mentioning might be unintentional. It takes some space describing the issues and why I think they should get an overhaul.
While watching aircombat resolutions carefully I noticed several issues regarding fighter vs. (level) bomber attacks, which seem rather unrealistic or almost weird to me:
1. The frequency of head on attacks.
While I fully agree, that there is often an initial head-on pass vs. attacking bombers, it seems that the fighters get several of them, as otherwise I canīt explain why 4 or 6 remaining fighters after their combat vs. the escorting fighters get 10, 15, 20 passes. Just watch a combat resolution of a flight of e.g. escorted Betty Bombers vs. fighters. Allmost all Betty constantly get attacked from ahead.
My thoughts to this subject and why I think this is rather unrealistic:
The first fighters of the CAP making contact to the incoming raid are likely to be the first to be engaged by the escorts so the main fighter vs. fighter combat rages along the inbound path to the target. Those intercepters which are unmolested by escorting fighters can freely engage the bombers in a coordinated way and these are much more likely to be the scrambling ones, which start from the ground. But they arrive later at the scene and the time on target for the attacking bombers is much shorter then. THis in term denies SEVERAL head-on passes, as a head-on attack requires a long time taking over the bombers. Moreover they maneuvre a lot when closing on the target, i.e. dropping altitude (for Betty Torpedobombers) and getting in position. THis makes straight head-on attacks (few or no lead to take for the MG fire for the engaging fighter) even more difficult. To be more precise: Only with a low degree of deflection between bomberīs and interceptorīs, i.e. true courses differ by 170 - 190 degrees, an interceptor has a reasonable chance to hit the bomber with a longer burst. Those fighters which WOULD have more time engaging bombers, i.e. those first on the scene, canīt afford flying straight ahead for ages in an area where a lot fighter vs. fighter combat is going on. This is suicide, against all rules of fighter-combat and only done by complete rookies. These arguments combined donīt allow for such an excessive frequency of low deflection shot (i.e. those with a reasonable chance of hitting the target) head-on attacks.
2. The difficulty of a head on attack:
Currently allmost all head-on attacks are successful, even at long ranges. The fact that the convergence speeds are very high and even a slight change in deflection can mess up the whole attack run seems completely unrepresented. Pilots need to be crack shots and rather cool to hit successful in a head on attack. Head-on attacks with higher deflection, i.e. fighters vs. bombers true course differ by, say more or less than 200, repectively 160 degrees, are even more difficult to master. When wanting to hit the target with a burst (and not just a few spray-and-pray bullets) the shooting platform needs to move its nose in the angular speed of the target IN LEAD of the target, which means that the target is most often invisable at high deflection shots, since its concealed by the shooting planeīs fuselage.
My thoughts....:
A special experience check should be implemented here. Head-on attacks biggest advantage for the interceptor is surivivability, at the expense of accuracy and frequency. Even quiet experienced German Fw-190 pilots had to specially train this attack style against slow and big B-17s which stubbornly keep their course in big formations. Currently in the game, even mediocre to veteran(60 - 80 exp) pilots have a 70-90% hit ratio against considerably smaller targets during head-on attacks. Moreover do wing mounted weapons less damage (high influence of fixed convergence range for wing-mounted weapons - they spray more in ranges over and under convergency!) in head-on passes in exchange to an increased chance of hitting (due to more spray).
3. The survivability of the Betty-Bomber (in head-on attacks):
This subject is a bit more tricky. The first two observations combined with this one result in the almost allways excessive losses (50 - 100%) of Betty bombers when opposed by a considerable fighters force after the fighter vs. fighter combat (say half the number of interceptors vs. number of bombers). Watching fighter vs. bomber combat, not only do allmost all head-on passes (as mentioned, I allmost only see head-on attacks) succeed in actually hitting the bomber at all ranges, the Betty has a very high chance of becoming immediately destroyed (e.g. in combat vs. P-40E or F4F4 - fighters with wing mounted weapons).
My thoughts.....:
While I know that the Betty lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, this doesnīt mean, that every hit on this plane is deadly. I donīt want to restart this old discussion all over by mentioning that often enough WW2 veterans said that surely the Betty was prone to fuel-tank fires/explosions, but she didnīt fall out of the sky like a paperwork biplane of WW1 after every kind of hit as presesented in some games in the past years. This certainly leaves a lot of room for discussion, BUT beyond that, there remains the question why HEAD-ON attacks are that lethal vs. the Betty? In the end sheīs still a two-engined plane, i.e. higher survivability due to second engine. She is not known to be structurally poor constructed (granted, the fuel tank), she has pilot and copilot, so both have to be killed in a head-on pass to have an IMMEDIATE kill after the pass (i.e. G4M1 Betty destroyed and not damaged and later lost under OP-losses). Also hits vs. the fuel tanks are less likely in low deflection head-on passes (cross-section of fuselage vs. wings) and attacking pilots most often aim for the fuselage in head-on passes (biggest visable part in low deflection head-on runs). So a destroyed engine, a killed pilot, a sudden explosion or the physical integrity of the aircraft are the main reasons for a plane to be immediately destroyed and I donīt see why the Betty in comparison to other bombers is so brittle in this regard. Even the Zero, with one engine, one pilot, less structural durability and also a lack of self sealing fuel tanks gets less often immediately destroyed after being hit by an aircraft with the firepower of a F4F4 or a Kittyhawk.
Since the Bettyīs weakest armament is facing forward, allmost all attacks vs. them are made from ahead, but at no "cost" for the interceptors, as their attacks seem to be as accurate, frequent and deadly as if comming from (upwards) behind.
Back to the beginning and besides all those Betty-bla-bla, I insist on the statement that the frequency of head-on attacks, their chance of being successful (hitting) and their lethality (immediate destruction) require a thorough observation and most likely an overhaul.
Thanks for reading this neverending novel.[>:]
|
|
|
|
