New WW II Bombers firing arcs

[Marechallannes]

I have a bad feeling about the firing arcs of the new WW II Bombers.

I'm afraid, there is a balance problem between the damages you deal out with your fighter and the damage you get in return from the bomber.

Especially whenn you pass the bomber or fly a curve/Immlemann to attack again.

Will the fighters get a bonus for shooting at a bigger target?

Maybe an additional "A"-damage.

Are some bomber guns limited to altitude levels, or will I recieve fire from all positions/firing arcs?

Example: Attack the B25 with a Zero on the same altitude from behind, or attack the He 111 with a Yak on the same altitude

How to simulate, that a single fighter was a real danger for a medium bomber?

[bigk57]

So are you saying that fighters would get an automatic "aim" bonus effect on bombers because of their size? I could possibly see this for heads-on and six o’clock attacks, however on sides of oblique angles I would say no bonus. Besides any damage doled out by bombers versus fighters should be lethal for defense as a deterrent. That’s why there should be packs of fighters versus the bombers. One of the scenarios I will be testing with my groups is taking one B-17G and a P-47 versus 3 BF109s. I would like to see how the dynamics work out in the game.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I have a bad feeling about the firing arcs of the new WW II Bombers.

Will the fighters get a bonus for shooting at a bigger target?

Sven,

Don't forget the bomber have a bigger (wider) base, which means that the fighter does not have to get as close to make an attack, measuring from the centre post of the fighter to the edge of the bomber's base. If you pick the right angle you can minimise return fire, which is what fighters have always had to do in actual combat.

[Thomatchef]

So are you saying that fighters would get an automatic "aim" bonus effect on bombers because of their size? I could possibly see this for heads-on and six o’clock attacks, however on sides of oblique angles I would say no bonus. Besides any damage doled out by bombers versus fighters should be lethal for defense as a deterrent. That’s why there should be packs of fighters versus the bombers. One of the scenarios I will be testing with my groups is taking one B-17G and a P-47 versus 3 BF109s. I would like to see how the dynamics work out in the game.

I've have played one B17G against 2 Bf109's in a solo mission. The after action report is here. I played it several times now and you can never tell who is going to win but most of all it's has always been a close call for the winner. I tried it once with one Bf109 but it hardly made a scratch on the B17 as al the return fire was focused on it. After my second run it was already destroyed. Playing with at least two fighters allows for the fire to be divided over the two.

Sven,

Don't forget the bomber have a bigger (wider) base, which means that the fighter does not have to get as close to make an attack, measuring from the centre post of the fighter to the edge of the bomber's base. If you pick the right angle you can minimise return fire, which is what fighters have always had to do in actual combat.

Definitely if you play with altitude you can find those spots. On the pic below you see a Bf109 which is one level higher than the B17G. Therefore it has to be at close range to make a long range shot. The ruler just touches the base of the bomber while none of the guns can reach the Bf109 at close range.

[Marechallannes]

Find the spot is ok, but the Fighter moves and the bomber moves, too.

Maybe the chances are better it the bombers follow a straight route, but if they start to maneuver with curves, etc. it's impossible to bring your fighter in a good position.

Think we need better versions of Me109 with gunpods and rockets to fight the bombers more effective.

By the way: Nice picture Tomatchef!

Will check your AAR now. Somehow I missed it.

[Kugelblitz]

Does 3 Me-109 vs 1 B17G offer a radially different result? B17s are pretty tough aircraft. Are you using the basic set Me-109e3?
By the time the 17G came along wasn't the G model and later planes available to the Luftwaffe? Perhaps an earlier B17 would be more suitable, historically.

Odd, now I want to have some Fairey Battles. I mean for early war heroics you just cannot avoid having them. Hell, even Belgium had them!

[trumpetman52]

Something to take into consideration is when you are figuring out the hits to destroy an aircraft. Instead of allowing a fighter extra damage cards against a larger aircraft, simply reduce the amount of damage points needed to destroy the larger aircraft. Another thing I take into consideration is that Too Many Cooks Spoil The Broth or too many rules make the game no longer fun to play.
trumpetman52

[Lord_Ninja]

My friends and I play with the "Shoot at the real thing" rule with every game. This shifts a large advantage towards the fighter as now the fighter can now target wings and other aspects of the bomber while (with some tricky maneuvering) staying out of reach of most of the bomber's guns. Also sometimes too much maneuvering can be bad on the fighter. While a bomber may have close to 20 machine guns on it and a fighter 4-8 guns of different calibers, the bomber normally only has 1-4 pointed in any direction at once. A kite like the Fw-190 armed with 4 cannons could decimate a bomber when "parked" right behind the bomber. At that angle the standard Allied bomber would probably only have 2 .50s to compete with the cannons.

[csadn]

While a bomber may have close to 20 machine guns on it and a fighter 4-8 guns of different calibers, the bomber normally only has 1-4 pointed in any direction at once. A kite like the Fw-190 armed with 4 cannons could decimate a bomber when "parked" right behind the bomber. At that angle the standard Allied bomber would probably only have 2 .50s to compete with the cannons.

I was about to point this out myself: In any given direction, the late-model B-17 has at most 4x 0.50s available, and most other bombers had considerably less. Meanwhile the fighter is bringing a couple heavy cannon (Axis), or a bucketload of MGs (Allied) to bear. *Here* is where something like that Ki-61 with the quad-30mms comes into its own -- shredding big, barely-mobile targets; against something which can dodge, its combat power should be severely curtailed.

[Marechallannes]

Maybe, but B17s are another caliber, that need calibers like the KI-61 cannon version.

What do you think about the B 25 and He 111 vs. the actual Me 109 and the Yak?

[CappyTom]

Maybe, but B17s are another caliber, that need calibers like the KI-61 cannon version.

What do you think about the B 25 and He 111 vs. the actual Me 109 and the Yak?

Well looking at the bases of the He 111


and the B-25 Mitchell

it looks like the He 111 will be dishing out more damage than the B-25. You could say if the bomber is smoking then the rear gunner can't shoot. Also you can put back in the damage cup all wounded pilot tokens and write down the damage to keep the chits in circulation.
Just some thoughts.

Thomas

[Kaiser]

And veen then: Even a bucket load of A damage takes some time to slowly nibble your fighter do death.

Attacking from the side (B.25)or from side-front (He.111) should minimize the amount of damage. That is real WWII tactic the RAF used against the German bombers during the BoB.
If the He.111 would have the historically correct firing arc of the dorsal gun, then attacking from front-side would be damage-free.

[Lord_Ninja]

The B-25s arc covers everything but the rear. I don't know if that is because of some real life blind spot when flying without the tail guns or what but the B-25 has a huge disadvantage from the rear. It is true that any fighter can get whittled down in damage from just taking A's but if you compare the A's to the multiple B's, C's, and sometimes D's that fighters can carry you can see that the fighter's low health is a minor setback. And failing that, there is always the KaiD to fly.

[richard m schwab]

All my bomber games i have used Max`s custom cards. I try to balance the fighters against bombers.
I will be doing a series of Guadalcanal scenarios in August. They will consist of such match up as. Zeros vs any of the following SBD`s , Catalina's, B-17D, Dauntless and Avengers! Wildcats, P-400 and P-39`s vs Kate`s, Val`s, Betty`s and Emily`s.
In late war Europe bombing missions the B-17`s , B-24`s, B-25`s and B-26`s have faced ME-109G`s and FW-190D`s and a ME-262 or two.

I have done many bomber missions from early to late war. There is one trick, and that is to balance the game. two or three bombers with two defending fighters and three or four attackers.

Always use the explosion chip in the mix, some bombers have the luck of pulling only "0`s". In one game two HE-111`s were going after the same target. Mine was downed after repeated attacks. The other HE was brought down in the first pass by two Spitfires, the bog one!

The ball turret on the B-17 should cover low attacks. I only allow one attack from each bomber gun position per turn.


Rich

[csadn]

The B-25s arc covers everything but the rear. I don't know if that is because of some real life blind spot when flying without the tail guns or what but the B-25 has a huge disadvantage from the rear.

The tail assembly gets in the way for any target level-with or lower-than the -25 (not to mention the tail gunner will be Miffed if the turret gunner aims too low :) ).

[Lord_Ninja]

The tail assembly gets in the way for any target level-with or lower-than the -25 (not to mention the tail gunner will be Miffed if the turret gunner aims too low ).

But the B-25 model doesn't even get a tail gunner. There is no tail gunner to miff! You thing they would allow the turret to work 360 degrees with standard Blind Spot rules.

[csadn]

But the B-25 model doesn't even get a tail gunner. There is no tail gunner to miff! You thing they would allow the turret to work 360 degrees with standard Blind Spot rules.

Given how the "blind spot" rules work: That still means the -25 can't fire out it's aft arc.

[AlgyLacey]

Seems a it off to negate the twin tail guns of the Mitchell.

I rather think that the ball turret would not be obstructed by the lower portion of the tail fin much if at all



Admittedly this would be a pig to attack with less than three or four well flown fighters but what do the geeky ones call it? NERFed?

[richard m schwab]

The B-25B did not have a tail gun position! There were only 120 built, 20 of these were used by Doolittle and his men in the Tokyo Raid. They had fake wood guns back there! The B-25 should have rear protection from the Tail , Dorsal and waist positions!


Rich

[Lord_Ninja]

Given how the "blind spot" rules work: That still means the -25 can't fire out it's aft arc.

The Blind spot rule states that you can fire in the rear arc but only at long range. Also the blind spot is only taken in account with targets at the same altitude. Any target at a higher altitude can be shot at.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Does 3 Me-109 vs 1 B17G offer a radially different result? B17s are pretty tough aircraft. Are you using the basic set Me-109e3?
By the time the 17G came along wasn't the G model and later planes available to the Luftwaffe? Perhaps an earlier B17 would be more suitable, historically.

Odd, now I want to have some Fairey Battles. I mean for early war heroics you just cannot avoid having them. Hell, even Belgium had them!

Here you go Dave, I have a flight of three 1/200 Fairey Battles of 12 Squadron RAF involved in attacking the Maastricht Bridges on 12 May 1940. Next time I run this scenario I'll post an AAR. The flak is a killer.

They are metal Helmet Historical Aircraft models I bought back in 2010 for GBP10 each, but you can get resin Battles now from http://www.armamentsinminiature.com/ for US$4 each.



Cheers,

Carl.

[Kugelblitz]

Terrific Carl ! Thanks for the link!