Never mess with a drunken Kiwi
3rd January 2007
Tail gunning in FH2 is hard, in planes like the B17, the gunner had a gunsight and the actual 50.'s (could take down a Focke in a well aimed 3 sec. burst mind you.) where further down so that the muzzle flash wasn't a problem. also added on, Tracers are very key, as well as hit flashes, yes, bullets that hit aircraft do "burst" when they hit their target (more of a flash but you get the idea) other guns like the waist and the top and ball turrets... that's another story
jumjum;3999842Heh. I was about to ask FuzzyBunny how BSchool was going. Now, about the tg. You want more kills by the tailgunner, is that it? I dunno. I don't mind toning down a flash a tad, but otherwise I kinda like leaving it the way it is for authenticity's sake. The guns were not murder weapons.. They kept fighters from camping on the tail through the the threat of damaging them, not the reality. But then that is the actual problem - the fighters aren't scared off in FH. In RL the fighters ordinarily would make a high speed slashing attack with maximum movement (on all 3 axes). Fighters would usually just flash by and have just a breif attack. Or they would make a determined attack on the tailgunner himself to take out the main rearward defense. That's because in RL fighters would actually be scared off by active and accurate tg-ing. Since we're in an fps, the mere threat of damage to the fighters doesn't keep them from camping the tail. Thus, because the fear of death is missing, the result would seem to be (is it? t-gunners? fighters?) that fighters actually shoot down more bombers from the rear than in RL. More time spent nearly stable shooting at the plane from the the rear = more hits and kills. Thus the t-gunner must be able to kill the fighters in higher numbers than RL to approach a more realistic (lower) kill rate by fighters. Is that it, KIFM?
He summed up my thoughts perfectly. There is no point of having more then one person in a bomber, those things are death traps.
Gunners have point when all guns are occupied, in BOB a good option is for two bombers to bomb same object and fly close to each other so it's gunners can cover each other and Spitfires or Hurris won't pose much treath.
Was there a standard ammo loadout for Luftwaffe bomber gunners? Not the amounts but the ammo types. Like for an infantry mg it was fairly standard for most participants in ETO to use something like 4 ball, 1 tracer, 4 ball, etc..
I know US and Brit fighter pilots had a good bit of leeway about their ammo, and pilots often had "customized" ammo belts. I've been surprised recently to learn that a lot of US pilots intensely disliked tracer because it gave away their position. They said pilots could hear nothing over the roar of their own engine, so they couldn't hear an opponent firing at them. But if tracers were used, a miss would tell the target to break hard.
But if ball or some other type ammo was used, often the first time a pilot knew he had somebody on his tail was when he started feeling the thud and thump and bullets or cannon shells hitting his plane, even if the opponent had been firing at him for awhile.
Another thing that surprised me about fighter pilots' ammo choices was their regular use of 1) armor piercing and 2) explosive rounds. Apparently the armor piercing was considered excellent for ground attack and even other aircraft if they were armored. And the explosive rounds were used in place of tracers, and were intended to be a "marker" so that when the rounds hit the firing pilot could more easily see the hit and know he was on target.
*edit* Well, looks like I'm answering my own question. I found an interesting aviation page which includes mg ammo info. Listed is the Luftwaffe's prescribed ammo for bomber gunners - Doh! plane ammo It has some interesting info.
The main page is also very useful for you aviation boys out there. Main page