Matrix Games Forums

I've played been having problems from the begining with the effectiveness of Jap fighters against B-24 and especially against B-17's, for some reason no matter how experienced or how many fighter I rarily shoot down either problem, its as if my fighter don't exist the the AI simply goes in for the kill bombing my ships. I know the zeroes are lightly armed but even the Tojo's and Tony's don't seem to be effective in CAP defense, is it the game, did they make the bomber too strong to shoot down, from what I can see they're not much use and tilt the scales on the extreme side for the AI, can anyone help me on this

ORIGINAL: Japanese Ace

I've played been having problems from the begining with the effectiveness of Jap fighters against B-24 and especially against B-17's, for some reason no matter how experienced or how many fighter I rarily shoot down either problem, its as if my fighter don't exist the the AI simply goes in for the kill bombing my ships. I know the zeroes are lightly armed but even the Tojo's and Tony's don't seem to be effective in CAP defense, is it the game, did they make the bomber too strong to shoot down, from what I can see they're not much use and tilt the scales on the extreme side for the AI, can anyone help me on this

Something to read and think about...
tm.asp?m=2697696
tm.asp?m=2671900

Pray for N1K1-J. Nothing else will work

Remember, Luftwaffe had hundreds of FW-190s with extra gunpods, 8x20mm guns in the wings along with 2 .50 on the nose
and they still had a bit of trouble against the masses of 4E

Japan needed to take the fuel out of their Ki-45 and put some more guns on them



Japanese commanders at Rabaul were stratching thier heads just like you are. Their zeroes were being cut to pieces by the defensive guns,
they had no plane to take down B-17s effectively, and their flak was pretty weak too. They managed to keep port moresby suppressed (for short periods)
during 1942 by daily Betty raids, but once Guadalcanal was secured and Milne bay was built up, there was no way to keep Rabaul operational.


There is one certain way to take down a B-17:

look up warrant officer kiyomi katsuki - rammed a B-17 in an F1M floatplane, then he parachuted to safety along with the observer.
B17 crew did not survive. Epic.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=vBlmvG7 ... &q&f=false

Use your Zeros to glide-bomb the B-17s with phosphorus bombs from above.

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Remember, Luftwaffe had hundreds of FW-190s with extra gunpods, 8x20mm guns in the wings along with 2 .50 on the nose
and they still had a bit of trouble against the masses of 4E

Japan needed to take the fuel out of their Ki-45 and put some more guns on them



Japanese commanders at Rabaul were stratching thier heads just like you are. Their zeroes were being cut to pieces by the defensive guns,
they had no plane to take down B-17s effectively, and their flak was pretty weak too. They managed to keep port moresby suppressed (for short periods)
during 1942 by daily Betty raids, but once Guadalcanal was secured and Milne bay was built up, there was no way to keep Rabaul operational.


There is one certain way to take down a B-17:

look up warrant officer kiyomi katsuki - rammed a B-17 in an F1M floatplane, then he parachuted to safety along with the observer.
B17 crew did not survive. Epic.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=vBlmvG7 ... &q&f=false

8 x 20mm? More like the standard load 4 x 20mm + 2 x 13mm or 7.92mm depending on the model of the Fw 190. And not every LW fighter was an Fw 190. Some special units late in the war(very small % out of all fighter force) used twin MG151/20 gunpods(6 cannons in total) or Mk 108 cannon pods(in outer wing weapon bay).

The Rammjaeger Fw 190 units lost very close to 1 pilot per each confirmed 4E kill. Probably 1,5 to 2 planes per B-17 or B-24. However, great majority of their losses were against the escorts: either directly near the bombers or indirectly when P-51s or P-47s picked off damaged planes on their way home or waited above their base(Osprey's Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front).


Not that anyone cares about my opinion but IMHO the heavies are about as difficult to down in WitPAE as they were IRL especially to the Japanese who had mostly ill-suited equipment. What I on the other hand hate about them(and think that is modeled incorrectly) is the way they shoot down fighters... Its funny how a formation of 100+ Japanese bombers(any types) is unlikely to even hit attackers let alone down them, but a handful of Allied heavies has no trouble scoring 1:1 or better(plus destroy more planes on the ground).

"8 x 20mm?"

Yes 2 in the wing root, 2 outboard and 4 in the dual gunpods. It was a pretty common loadout for the
FW-190s on the western front (when they went up against 4E). BF-109s had single 20mm gunpods in each wing.

4x20mm was the basic loadout. Sometimes the 2 outboard 20mm were removed to increase speed and reduce wing loading.



Again I make the point.. our knowledge of history has been confabulated by 65 years of conjecture.
I was taught this history a looong time ago, books written just after the war.

Some things we can agree upon: both Luftwaffe and Japanese bombers had poor defensive firepower EXCEPT
for the ones with 20mm cannon. Look at the first F4Fs attacking the G4M from astern, they were torn apart by the 20mm rear gunner.

By 1942, practically all British, Soviet, German, and American fighters were immune to 7.7mm fire,
that's why they dissapear from fighter armaments

Japan would have been smart to put 20mm turrets in each gun position (something they do, but very slowly)
Japanese designers were ordered to maintain a large fuel capacity for range , (armor and guns were secondary)
(betty could fly really far, but was vulnerable)

Its funny how a formation of 100+ Japanese bombers(any types) is unlikely to even hit attackers let alone down them

Just think of it this way.. a P-47 is about 5 tonnes of metal, most of it heavy steel deflector plates
how do you expect the axis gunners to take such fighters down?

An A6M is 1.6 tonnes, and it is loaded with about 600L of fuel in unprotected tanks.

Japanese gunners have 1 or maybe 2, 20mm guns to defend the bomber with
Allied gunners have 10+ 12.7mm guns and fly in large formations.

Luftwaffe pilots called attacking these formations "controlled suicide"

Cannot find the book, but here is a quote from the internet

"Fips" Phillips, a 200+ Eastern Front Ace wrote the following while in command of JG 1
defending against American Bombers over Northern Germany:

"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun.
But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."

Lol 8 x 20MM? No way any fighter carried that many in WW2 (I suppose it was possible but it would make the fighter as manouverable as a tank).

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

"8 x 20mm?"

Yes 2 in the wing root, 2 outboard and 4 in the dual gunpods. It was a pretty common loadout for the
FW-190s on the western front (when they went up against 4E). BF-109s had single 20mm gunpods in each wing.

4x20mm was the basic loadout. Sometimes the 2 outboard 20mm were removed to increase speed and reduce wing loading.



Again I make the point.. our knowledge of history has been confabulated by 65 years of conjecture.
I was taught this history a looong time ago, books written just after the war.

Some things we can agree upon: both Luftwaffe and Japanese bombers had poor defensive firepower EXCEPT
for the ones with 20mm cannon. Look at the first F4Fs attacking the G4M from astern, they were torn apart by the 20mm rear gunner.

By 1942, practically all British, Soviet, German, and American fighters were immune to 7.7mm fire,
that's why they dissapear from fighter armaments

Japan would have been smart to put 20mm turrets in each gun position (something they do, but very slowly)
Japanese designers were ordered to maintain a large fuel capacity for range , (armor and guns were secondary)
(betty could fly really far, but was vulnerable)

Its funny how a formation of 100+ Japanese bombers(any types) is unlikely to even hit attackers let alone down them

Just think of it this way.. a P-47 is about 5 tonnes of metal, most of it heavy steel deflector plates
how do you expect the axis gunners to take such fighters down?

An A6M is 1.6 tonnes, and it is loaded with about 600L of fuel in unprotected tanks.

Japanese gunners have 1 or maybe 2, 20mm guns to defend the bomber with
Allied gunners have 10+ 12.7mm guns and fly in large formations.

Luftwaffe pilots called attacking these formations "controlled suicide"

Have you ever seen those nice cut-through pictures of various planes? There isnt much room in any plane for a bullet to pass through and do no damage. Let alone for an explosive shell to go off. A single bullet of any caliber fired from ahead against even the mighty P-47's engine hitting can cause immediate engine stop and/or fire. Or penetrate into the cockpit(through armor glass or fuselage and gauge panel) and kill or injure the pilot. Or destroy other on-board systems.

Fighters were far from immune to rifle caliber fire... For example, the Bf 109s of the Battle of Britain didnt have any less armor than the later models(except thicker armor seat in G series and later) but the British Hurricanes and Spitfires had little trouble shooting them down. All warbirds were and are stuffed full in stuff that can break when the plane gets hit from engine and cooling systems to control wires, pilot, hydraulics, electrics, oxygen bottles, piping. Even just a flat tire from a shrapnel surprising the pilot at landing touchdown is more likely than not to results in a kaputt and a writeoff, even KIA pilot if the plane noses over. Of course bigger guns were more effective(and usually also offered better ballistics) and more destructive power per weight of the gun and ammo on board...


But back to the point: why do Japanese bombers with just as many gunner positions(and Netties even with 20mm tail guns) fail to even hit the attacking fighters, no matter how big the bomber formation is, while even a handful of Allied 4Es, or lets face it, even A-20s, can score as well as 1:1 against Japanese fighters with crack pilots? I dont expect the gunners to always hit or to down the fighter most of the time and I do acknowledge that a 50 caliber is better than rifle cal and is more likely to do more damage on the fighter, but why dont they even hit?

I have never seen a Japanese bomber or strike aircraft shoot down an Allied fighterin WitpAE after some 400 turns. I've seen a G3M and a G4M damage P-40s, once each. Neither even disengaged. When Zeros attack 4Es the 4Es hit the Zeros more than the other way round... Maybe I'll have more luck with the Ki-49-IIb or Ki-67s, who knows? [&:]

A different question is why isnt, or wasnt, this considered a seriously enough issue to fix to a certain mod I happen to play... [;)]When the same mod fixed Japanese ASW, AASW, submarine torpedo launching, AAA(again acknowledging that these were wrong, or are at least more accurately/historically modeled in the mod, and of course I want them fixed) and many other things...[:D][:@][:'(]

[:-]

A single bullet of any caliber fired from ahead against even the mighty P-47's engine hitting can cause immediate engine stop and/or fire

No.

Maybe I'll have more luck with the Ki-49-IIb or Ki-67s, who knows?

Allied fighters had no concerns about attacking formations of japanese bombers (see Marianas turket shoot)
The Zeroes were annoying but the .30 caliber rounds did not penetrate and the 20mm rounds were not accurate.


Read about Sakai.. shooting 1000 30 caliber rounds into a wildcat and it doesn't go down

By 1944 the germans give up on using bombers altogether and the FW-190 does most of the ground-attack missions

The Allies got it right.

1) heavy bombers that can defend themselves (B-17)
2) fast bombers that can outrun fighters (Mosquito)

ORIGINAL: Erkki
I dont expect the gunners to always hit or to down the fighter most of the time and I do acknowledge that a 50 caliber is better than rifle cal and is more likely to do more damage on the fighter, but why dont they even hit?

They do - you may not have noticed it, but they do. Thing is, most of the guns poking outwards are just single 7.7s - so it barely registers against armoured aircraft. You can see this particularly in the first weeks of the war - none of the Dutch Buffalos, Hawks etc are armoured and you will often see quite significant numbers of damaged aircraft in those encounters as long as the Japanese show up in sufficient numbers for formation defensive fire to have an effect. Outright destruction is very rare (which makes sense, considering what they're shooting), but damage does accumulate and you do get aircraft being written off at the end of it. Everything else is pretty much armoured, so it's not so significant.

I have never seen a Japanese bomber or strike aircraft shoot down an Allied fighterin WitpAE after some 400 turns. I've seen a G3M and a G4M damage P-40s, once each. Neither even disengaged. When Zeros attack 4Es the 4Es hit the Zeros more than the other way round... Maybe I'll have more luck with the Ki-49-IIb or Ki-67s, who knows?

They may have the one 20mm, but the rest are all just more 7.7s - only useful as deterrence.

I would guess that, as with fighter combat, speed matters - B-17 is pretty fast, A-20 particularly fast (faster than Ki-43 or A6M until you start getting into the 43/44 stuff); so you've got fast bombers up against slow fighters. Less interception time, less chase time, less speed differential...more defensive hits. Conversely, with the Japanese you've got slower bombers going up against faster fighters - not exactly a recipe for success. By the time bombers with something resembling credible armament show up (G4M2, Ki-49 2b, Ki-67 etc) the opposition has also gone up a step in speed and durability, so it's a bit of a wash.

[/quote]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

A single bullet of any caliber fired from ahead against even the mighty P-47's engine hitting can cause immediate engine stop and/or fire

No.

Really? [&:]

Maybe I'll have more luck with the Ki-49-IIb or Ki-67s, who knows?

Allied fighters had no concerns about attacking formations of japanese bombers (see Marianas turket shoot)
The Zeroes were annoying but the .30 caliber rounds did not penetrate and the 20mm rounds were not accurate.


Read about Sakai.. shooting 1000 30 caliber rounds into a wildcat and it doesn't go down

Zero has 1000 MG rounds and 120 cannon. I doubt Sakai had 100% shooting accuracy (who knows, if he was keeping trigger down, guns might have jammed before the belts ended, "Sakai's" book isnt accurate). CV strike aircraft with minimal protection and just 1 gunner with a single barrel gun are hardly even Japanese 2Es either.

Single real world examples are hardly useful. What about all those who didnt make it? Just one of those rounds shot by Sakai could have cut the elevator control wire or penetrated into fuel tank. Or if not shot directly from behind, hit the pilot in the arm and made him unable to control or bail out.

I know one case where a Bf 109 was hit by multiple 20mm ShVak rounds on the engine from above so that the crankshaft was visible and the oil was leaking out. The pilot didnt even notice it and flew happily home for over 40km. Maybe in a game Bf 109 should get higher durability rating than other western planes? [:)] Or what about the guy who was saved from a 20mm AP round by the last ½ millimeter of his seat armor?

By 1944 the germans give up on using bombers altogether and the FW-190 does most of the ground-attack missions

They did that because as the V-VS, Luftwaffe flew mostly CAS and tactical strikes and not strategic bombing. They also lacked the bombers to do that, but the doctrine was also different, especially early in the war. JABOs and dive bombers were better than level bombers in killing point targets such as infrastructure, gun emplacements and vehicles. Most of the East Front Fw 190s flew as JABOs with no or only minimal air combat training. The tide of the war had turned and Germans were by then fighting mostly a defensive war, especially in the air, and needed as many fighters as possible - Göring went as far as ordering all bomber production shut down.

The Allies got it right.

1) heavy bombers that can defend themselves (B-17)
2) fast bombers that can outrun fighters (Mosquito)

Heavy bombers could not defend themselves over Germany, not even before Luftwaffe introduced specialized anti-bomber aircraft and equipment. There were good reasons as to why the USAAF VIII didnt attack Berlin in 1943 - and it wasnt B-17's range. Sure, they did shoot fighters, and fighters shot them, but the ratio was not 1:1 nor sustainable aircrew training and plane production wise.


ksfgo:

Shouldnt the game report a plane damaged each time it gets hit? I'm pretty OK with the rifle cal gunners just poking some holes most of the time and doing little to no real damage(even when, well, most of the area a rear gunner even CAN hit is made of the engine and cockpit...) but at least my bombers dont even hit, even with equal number of gunner positions and depending on plane, even guns, compared to Allied designs.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Shouldnt the game report a plane damaged each time it gets hit? I'm pretty OK with the rifle cal gunners just poking some holes most of the time and doing little to no real damage(even when, well, most of the area a rear gunner even CAN hit is made of the engine and cockpit...) but at least my bombers dont even hit, even with equal number of gunner positions and depending on plane, even guns, compared to Allied designs.

No, I don't think so - after all, if the aircraft is hit but not damaged (You can see a magnified version of this at work if you fly some IL-2s around against aircraft with 7.7s - Nates, Oscar Ia etc - takes dozens of shots per 'damage' even without defensive armament firing back) it's not going to tell you that it is. What you'll see a lot of against armoured aircraft is 'X driven away by defensive fire' - no damage, but that usually seems to terminate the particular fighter/bomber attack run and so you might think of it as a 'hit'.

I would also get over the hump of considering all attacks stern chases - you see many more attacks from sides, front, above & below etc where the aircraft have the ability to make them, and that again is a problem the Japanese have far more than their opponents, magnified further (I'd imagine) by their tendency to concentrate armament rearwards & in non-flexible positions.

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Shouldnt the game report a plane damaged each time it gets hit? I'm pretty OK with the rifle cal gunners just poking some holes most of the time and doing little to no real damage(even when, well, most of the area a rear gunner even CAN hit is made of the engine and cockpit...) but at least my bombers dont even hit, even with equal number of gunner positions and depending on plane, even guns, compared to Allied designs.

No, I don't think so - after all, if the aircraft is hit but not damaged (You can see a magnified version of this at work if you fly some IL-2s around against aircraft with 7.7s - Nates, Oscar Ia etc - takes dozens of shots per 'damage' even without defensive armament firing back) it's not going to tell you that it is. What you'll see a lot of against armoured aircraft is 'X driven away by defensive fire' - no damage, but that usually seems to terminate the particular fighter/bomber attack run and so you might think of it as a 'hit'.

I would also get over the hump of considering all attacks stern chases - you see many more attacks from sides, front, above & below etc where the aircraft have the ability to make them, and that again is a problem the Japanese have far more than their opponents, magnified further (I'd imagine) by their tendency to concentrate armament rearwards & in non-flexible positions.

I see what you mean with the damage... I have opposite experience here, after seeing the same single Hurricane or bomber(1 vs. many fights so it can only be the same bomber) take damage on and on and not get downed by the relatively lightly armed Ki-43s. And wouldnt other than stern attacks also face the nose of the attacker towards the bomber and the bomber formation... Aye? [;)] Only hits not from small angle from ahead would be from the crossfire within the formation as the fighter flies through it.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

I see what you mean with the damage... I have opposite experience here, after seeing the same single Hurricane or bomber(1 vs. many fights so it can only be the same bomber) take damage on and on and not get downed by the relatively lightly armed Ki-43s.

I can't really work out what your point is here, or at least I'm not sure I can.

And wouldnt other than stern attacks also face the nose of the attacker towards the bomber and the bomber formation... Aye? Only hits not from small angle from ahead would be from the crossfire within the formation as the fighter flies through it.

Well, you seem to be attempting to make a spectacle out of aircraft fragility and I'm not sure it's warranted to that degree; yes, a bullet or shell can hit a point where it'll do significant damage - but there again it can also not, and the odds of it not doing so are liable to increase as you go up in aircraft size. I mean - it's all very well saying that a burst tyre is likely to result in a writeoff - that's fine, but it's also pretty much irrelevant until the aircraft actually lands!

Leaving that aside, an attack from ahead or laterally is a much, much more difficult shoot for everyone involved - if you have a fighter moving at 350mph and a bomber at 300mph...well, you can do the math, I'm sure. So, you're creating a situation where the time window of opportunity for effective fire is minuscule, and that's a situation where being able to maneuver your firing platform is a great advantage - you're magnifying the opposing firer's math problem while not appreciably complicating your own, and you only actually need to be pointed directly at your target for an extremely brief moment; so, while projectile impacts will be no less impactful they're much less likely to occur in the first place.

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

A single bullet of any caliber fired from ahead against even the mighty P-47's engine hitting can cause immediate engine stop and/or fire

No.

Yes.

It isn't likely that a single small caliber round would totally disable a large 1E engine, but I can assure you that MANY an engine fire has happen from a lot less than a small piece of metal being injested. Sometimes all it takes is a bad day.


Total conjecture and I'll say right now I haven't a clue. . .

BUT from as far as I can tell from game results I have read, I'm wondering if the 4E air model was designed to match reported allied success with 4E defensive fire rather than reported axis losses. The difference between the two was dramatic. The allies never required confirmation for reported 4E kills. Fighters of every nation had tough requirements for claiming a kill. Bomber crews were given a free ride because the mission was usually a big morale hit anyway. The more the crews thought they were kicking the enemies tail, the better they felt. Most the time, the issue was traced to multiple 4E crews hitting a plane and all reporting the kill afterwards. Other times it was simply seeing a smoking aircraft diving for the deck to RTB. Regardless, the German and Japanese reported losses from engaging these beasts were significantly different than what we are seeing in game. And the night defensive and offensive results just makes me scratch my head.

I will say that the 4E loss rate appears much closer to what I would expect. And as long as the 4E's are used as they were historically, their mission results seem just about perfect to me.

Again just my humble opinion.

Agree that night ops are completely off the mark, my house rule is that night ops against industrial targets only

if a mod is made for the war in Europe, with FW-190 fighters with 8x20mm or Me-262 with 4x30mm and rockets,
the 4E losses will be much higher [X(]

Lol 8 x 20MM? No way any fighter carried that many in WW2 (I suppose it was possible but it would make the fighter as manouverable as a tank).

FW-190-A8 .. basically as manouverable as a tank..yes.. (like kurt tank the designer?)
..so was the P-47 (wing loading is 300)

some common wing loadings:

Nieuport 17 = 35
I-153 = 85
A6M = 107
Spitfire I = 120
Me-109E = 170
Mustang = 200
FW-190 = 260
P-47 = 300


..yeah with those underwing gunpods better stay clear of any escort fighters...also make the fighter a lot slower too

USAAF fighter design was to pack as much armor and guns as possible, Mvr was secondary

does it work? makes the fighter resistant to ground fire and defensive gunners.. not good for the 1 on 1 dogfight

also, im convinced that rookie pilots can make better use of a low Mvr fighter, that has more armor and guns (like the N1K george)
whereas such fighters are despised by some of the dogfighting experts (sakai flew an A6M5 instead of the N1K)

the lack of effectiveness of the japanese fighters is because

a) they have less armament than german fighters
b) they are more vulnerable to defensive fire than german fighters
c) germans had better flak guns alllowing the fighters to pick off damaged planes that leave the formations
d) in many cases japanese had a lack of radar, so less time to organize an interception

remember the 20mm carried less ammo than 12.7mm USAAF guns,
a thunderbolt's weapons package 8x12.7mm with 425rounds weighs 500kg and the 8x20mm of FW-190 with 150-200 rounds weighs about 600kg
(guns and ammo weight included), but still the 20mm is more effective per unit mass due to the HE content

if going up against fighters, many german pilots had their FW-190s equipped with just 2x20mm to have
a competitive speed against the mustang (less weight = more speed). Basic loadout was 4x20mm and 2x13mm.


The people here are too fixated on the pacific front, remember the Soviets had Mig-1 and Mig-3 fighters that flew 400+mph... in 1941.
Germany was so desperate to take on the B-17s, even things like the Ju-88 were fitted with 37mm flak guns and pressed into service against the B-17.
Germany had some pretty good designs to take on the B-17 (Me-262, FW-190-A8, BF-109K), remember these types of planes when you complain
that your Ki-43 oscars are ineffective [:'(]

Attrition by fighting the bomber streams caused germany to begin the emergency fighter program (this during a time when bombers would be more useful....allied armies pouring in and still they build fighters?) Germany failed, 8th Air Force won. Remember Dresden? Hamburg? [:)]

Don't bother looking at german statistics, the general rule of thumb with german claims is to divide their wins by half, and multiply their losses by 3.

I feel the problem is damaged planes like B17 maybe repairing too fast and maybe planes with higher maintenance numbers need to suffer more op loses.

I find I do damage a lot of B17 but I am in Feb and April 42 only. In WITP I found the Nick to be quite good and it looks better in this game?