Bomber Gun Ratinss, what to do with the Beaufighter

[bradk]

Many years ago, either here or on the old PW mailing list, there was a huge discussion of whether bomber guns were over rated. Don't quite remember how it started by I think it had something to do with an IJ player being unhappy about an Allied player essentially using B17s - successfully - for fighter sweeps.

Anyway, both SSI and Matrix rate the guns by weighted count. .30 cal/.303/7.7mm = 1, .50cal/12.7mm = 2, 20mm = 3. Thought of the opponents of this was that a bomber couldn't fire all its guns at the same time, so giving it full credit on the formula of number x weight was wrong. OTOH, proponents said that because of combined fire of a bomber formation the current system was reasonable as a fighter would be exposed to the fire of mutliple aircraft.

Anyway, no changes made in the system from SSI to Matrix.

But then we come to the Beaufighter X, which a PBEM opponent pointed out that with a 20 rating appears to be too high. So I did some research, and found out that all the guns are fixed forward firing, meaning that a Beaufighter X can't shoot back without breaking formation. Well, OK, a straight head on attack at exactly the same altitude, but what's the chances of that?

Beaufighter problem aside, I'm wondering about views of the general situation of bomber gun ratings.

[Capt. Harlock]

But then we come to the Beaufighter X, which a PBEM opponent pointed out that with a 20 rating appears to be too high. So I did some research, and found out that all the guns are fixed forward firing, meaning that a Beaufighter X can't shoot back without breaking formation. Well, OK, a straight head on attack at exactly the same altitude, but what's the chances of that?

Not as low as you might think. Just as the heavier-payload fighters are classified as fighter-bombers, I would classify the Beaufighter and the Mosquito as "bomber-fighters". They were highly maneuverable, and from what I've read they were not generally used in rigid formations. In fact, versions of those two aircraft were the RAF's primary night fighters. Unfortunately, PacWar's program is not flexible enough to allow aircraft to be used as both torpedo bombers and night interceptors.

Going to the overall question, I would give bomber guns an efficiency factor based on the mount. Turreted guns would have full value, while fixed-position guns should be worth 50% or 60%.

[bradk]

Yes.  What do you do with an aircraft that isn't good enough to take on fighters during the day, can take on bombers at ngiht, and in low opposition situaitons is used as a torpedo and/or level bomber?  To some extent, I think the British put a lot of effort into finding uses for aircraft it had, or ways to modify aircraft that weren't competive to perform some specialty mission.
 
Thank you for your input.  I'm thinking of doing some aircraft modifictions in the next version of the revised scenario.

[bradk]

I revised bomber gun ratings and am currently playing a PBEM game with the revisions.  Basis is as follows.
 
.30 cal/7.7 mm = 1, .50 cal/12.7 mm = 2, 20 mm = 3.  (This is the system for gun points used in both SSI and Matrix).
 
Fixed guns as 25% of the points derived from the fomula above.
 
Flexible guns at 100% of the points for the first 6 gun points, 50% of the points over six rounded up.
 
Example 1:  Beaufighter, old rating 20, all fixed, new rating 5. (25% of 20.)
 
Example 2: B17, old rating 13, new rating 10.  (6 plus 50% of 7, the amount over 6, rounded up.)

[MXB2001]

ORIGINAL: bradk

I revised bomber gun ratings and am currently playing a PBEM game with the revisions.  Basis is as follows.

.30 cal/7.7 mm = 1, .50 cal/12.7 mm = 2, 20 mm = 3.  (This is the system for gun points used in both SSI and Matrix).

Fixed guns as 25% of the points derived from the fomula above.

Flexible guns at 100% of the points for the first 6 gun points, 50% of the points over six rounded up.

Example 1:  Beaufighter, old rating 20, all fixed, new rating 5. (25% of 20.)

Example 2: B17, old rating 13, new rating 10.  (6 plus 50% of 7, the amount over 6, rounded up.)

Some of GG's games used 4 for 20 mm cannons. I'm thinking of Second Front and War in Russia.

[Capt. Harlock]

.30 cal/7.7 mm = 1, .50 cal/12.7 mm = 2, 20 mm = 3.  (This is the system for gun points used in both SSI and Matrix).

I developed an interesting formula for firepower involving projectile weight, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity, which may have been incorporated into the Matrix versions. The major point was that Allied 20mm guns tended to be worth about 4 points, while Japanese 20mm's were worth 3.

[MXB2001]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

.30 cal/7.7 mm = 1, .50 cal/12.7 mm = 2, 20 mm = 3.  (This is the system for gun points used in both SSI and Matrix).

I developed an interesting formula for firepower involving projectile weight, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity, which may have been incorporated into the Matrix versions. The major point was that Allied 20mm guns tended to be worth about 4 points, while Japanese 20mm's were worth 3.

Yeah, the German MG/FF would be 3 and the MG/151 4. 20 mm cannons can vary a bit. The Brit Hispano Suiza's were mighty horrors apparently, easily 4's.

[bradk]

I've played two PBEM games with the reduced bomber gun ratings. Works OK. Nothing unrealitic observed.

[Capt. Harlock]

I've played two PBEM games with the reduced bomber gun ratings.

Under the new set-up, which Allied bomber is the best for penetrating defended airspace?

[bradk]

Still the heavies.

The difference doesn't show during the combat phase. It doesn't change the number of hits on IJ fighters but rather reduces how many of those hit are destroyed. After the turn, of those hit, more are available to be repaired.

There is another possible effect but this is far from certain. People have observed that in otherwise equal circumstances, heavy bombers receive fewer hits from IJ fighters than other types of bombers, and that there must be some mechanism in place that causes IJ fighers to be less aggressive against heavies. General view is that the classification of heavy is used as the mechanism. Observations of play indicate there's a possiblity that this protection is modified by the gun rating of the heavy bomber. I stress "may" because what I've observed could be cause by normal randomness.

[wga8888]

Germans fighter pilots considered attacking B17s as controlled suicide. I am not sure what the Japanese, with lower firepower and lower durability fighters, considered it.

[Capt. Harlock]

Germans fighter pilots considered attacking B17s as controlled suicide. I am not sure what the Japanese, with lower firepower and lower durability fighters, considered it.

From what I've read, the Germans adopted a head-on attack against the earlier version of the B-17, and thought it gave a fair chance of success. Until, of course, the chin turret was added in the later variants.

As for Japanese, Saburo Sakai at least considered attacking an American 4E reasonable unless he was out of 20mm ammunition. Then it was a pointless risk.