gunners in he111 -1 reply

Please wait...

Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#11 15 years ago

I think the bombers overall should have more hitpoints, if not, its no fun flying them...




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#12 15 years ago

You have to see my side of the bomber/fighter problem: Right now, the Hurricane has 80 usable hitpoints. The He111 has 345. That's about 4 times as much, and the He111 is only a twin engine bomber, and lightly armoured. When there is an encounter where the Hurricane pilot and the He111 gunner fire the same instant and hit just the same way, the Hurricane still delivers 8 times as much firepower (Since the He111 defensive positions don't cover each others field of fire anywhere). This means to even the chances, the He111 would need 640 HP. But: If the He111 had 2xcal50 mounts like US bombers, the calculation would look pretty different. A cal50 is about as strong as 2xcal30. That means that the defensive gunner has half the firepower of the attacking Hurricane. That means, the time he'd need to kill the 80 HPs of the Hurricane, the Hurricanes own guns can only deal 160 HP, which is less then half the necessary damage to down a He111.

As you can see by this calculation, the problems with the He111 for example are: 1. Bad aiming by the def gunner (due to the BF problems) 2. weak armament in the bomber 3. Strong armament in the fighter




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#13 15 years ago

yeah ok, so they are badly armed, but that doesnt matter if you can't see them anyway. And the worst tailgunner of all must be the aichi val's that's stuck with a measly type99 lmg, while it should be a vickers clone with drum mag. Dime said he'd fix that but I guess he forgot..




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

6th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#14 15 years ago
D-Fensyeah ok, so they are badly armed, but that doesnt matter if you can't see them anyway. And the worst tailgunner of all must be the aichi val's that's stuck with a measly type99 lmg, while it should be a vickers clone with drum mag. Dime said he'd fix that but I guess he forgot..

badly armed!! nonsense!!:p v1_3.jpg Oh yea FZG-76 power!! The v-1 launch site getting bombed so they launched a number of them this way, probaly the biggest advantage of the 1 over the 2. Well of course being serious about the defensive armarment- they actually did put more guns and better ones on it, but his caused problems because all the added wait kept reducing performance beyond what better engines accomodated. IMO they did not add the armorment in very good places either. What they really needed IMO in BoB thouse was better fighter coverage then they got, nevermind the bombers themselves. Variations in armorment I have read of include adding mg-15 waist gunners, a 20 mm cannon in front side of the botttom rear blister, adding fixed rear firing mg 15/17s in the far back tail and/or fixed forward firing mg 15/17s. There are som other various up armorments floating around to. They are main for the H model though, the P as far as I know only had 3 mg-15 postitions. The H model with improved armorment but some reduced performace or payload might good for BoB though but Im not sure how much which version were used.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#15 15 years ago

Could the MGs on tailgunners be given more spread, visibility. And/Or make the pilots vulnerable through the windscreen or a tiny area that's really vulnerable to small cal fire?

In pacific fighters/ IL-2 you saddle up behind a Stuka, it only takes a few shots and you are no longer combat effective.

I wouldn't be offended if you overboosted tailgunners because seriously a bombers defense is its escort fighters.. and we know that's not happening in BF




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#16 15 years ago
Major HartmannNot entirely correct. They did ok in spain and france, because there was no real figther threat. When encountering organized modern figthers over Britain, the He111 showed it's problems at once. @Dfens: My comment was aimed at von Mundra, I will look at the mgs later on.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does everyone mispell my name!!!! IT IS VON MUDRA!!! NOT VON MUNDRA!! Ok, yeah, anyways, still, I am saying over all, the dogfighting itself is not realistic. WHen you pump 30 20mm shells and several dozen 30cal shells into a planes, it wouldn't even be ther anymore. It should be 3-4 20mms to a plane. In real life, the 20mm only had aroudn 40 shells, in the 37mm ones, maybe only 10-12. Also, although, yes, a 7.62 mg will not do much, it should take down a plane after firing 100 rounds into its engine and cockpit. Remember, when a bomber is attacked, it is shooting the engine. On planes like the 109, Yak, P51, etc, with liquid cooled engines, just one well placed bullet could take them down.




mondogenerator

Wolfgaming.net *****istrator

50 XP

24th September 2003

0 Uploads

568 Posts

0 Threads

#17 15 years ago

A hurricane IRL, unless he goes for the engines/radiators or pilot it wouldn't bring down a He111. .303's, even 12 on a Hurricane IIB isn't a formidable set of weapons. They were considered weak. You could fire thousands of 0.303 rounds into a He111 and do little to it if your hitting the fuselage or wings. And firing from a dead 6 is very ineffective with them.

The bullets up close will penetrate the skin of the plane but a dead 6 attack, the bullets wil ride up the skin due to its angle, also the pilots have armoured seats which can stop .50's, .303's won't even make it far enough though the aircraft structure to hit the armoured seats unless it was a dead 12 attack. also .303's cause no structural damage to speak of. Look at what fighters were armed with when the lessons from the BoB was evaluated: .50's and 20mm's.

If FH was anything like RL a Hurricane pulling up on the 6 of a He111 would be dead in seconds as there engine and radiator and oil coolers would be crippled and the volume of fire would kill the pilot.

Look at the way aircraft were equiped and for the tasks ahead of them. Bombers needed big guns to take them down. Germans used 1 or 2 30mm's, the British used 4 Hispano 20mm's in there anti bomber night fighters. The US didn't have the problem with armoured German planes in the PTO so there .50's worked OK because of the Japanese planes lack of armour and self sealing tanks.

Frederf In pacific fighters/ IL-2 you saddle up behind a Stuka, it only takes a few shots and you are no longer combat effective.

The difference is your flying with other Stuka's or He111's. A lone bomber IRL is a sitting duck, almost 100% chance they will be shot down. Join warclouds Il2/fb/aces/pf server and there TS. The reds sometimes get 10 plane bomber formations in boxes with escort all working on TS. Now thats team work;)

Von Mudra, the amount of ammo differs from plane to plane. Early Spits V's had 60 20mm rounds per gun, from then on they had 120 rpg's. Typhoons and Tempests had 200 rpg for there 20's etc. P39 could have as little as 30 rounds for there 37mm, P63's had over 60 rounds for there 37mm. German antibomber planes could carry from 30-100 30mm rounds depending on type and configuration.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#18 15 years ago

The planes in FH have as correct ammo as we were able to investigate.....

@mondo: The British had only 0.303 mgs in their planes in the BoB, and they ripped lonly bombers apart like paper.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#19 15 years ago

Do not question the great mondogenerator on his knowledge of planes!

The He-111, indeed all bombers save the B-17, are plain suicide to fly in. I'm fine with this myself. No matter how you look at it, or from whatever cause, bombers were the most dangerous assingment in the USAAF.




[CoUk]niu

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

12th March 2004

0 Uploads

2,110 Posts

0 Threads

#20 15 years ago

Might be wrong,but muzzleflashes of that size would be a sign of overloaded ammo,sending unburnt and still burning powder out of the muzzle to no use,or?