ORIGINAL: Yaab
ORIGINAL: towtow59
I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down P-40s before, and even B-17s(Rarely).
Actually , I tested Nates vs B-17 this April. Used Coral Sea scenario and DDB-C. Nate pilots were 80 experience, 70 air skill.
Ran 15 combats, watched all 15 combat animations.
Most hits suffered by one aircraft (displayed as "*" sign during combat animation)
Max * per one B-17: ****
Max * per one Nate: ****
Not a single B-17 was destroyed by Nates in air combat.
Quit testing after 15 combats.
That is really not sufficient as you are talking about one of the weakest armed fighters in the game trying to shoot down an armored bomber with one of the highest durability in the game. I wonder if there is any record of a Nate shooting down a B17 in real life. They were hard enough for zeros to shoot down. If you want to back up the common knowledge statement then you will really have to do a lot of testing. To be honest, I don't watch combat replays much any more so you may be correct. But without any sort of testing to back it up. Well....
As for B17s, the Japanese fighter arm was totally unprepared to deal with large bombers. Their training did not emphasize the tight formation tactics needed to shoot down well protected heavy aircraft. Part of the problem was the general lack of radios-a key element in successful group tactics. The Japanese relied on hand signals and once engaged, hand signals pretty much were useless. The Germans learned on the run and got pretty good at it. But they had better aircraft, more firepower and good radios. Yet, it was a very dangerous proposition for them. A flight of Nates attacking a bomber in random attacks would be like a bunch of horseflies trying to take down an elephant. The Nate was unarmored and using 30 cal MGs while the bomber was armored and using 50 caliber guns. That math just don't work.
