PDA

View Full Version : Super fast bombers. Are the rules broken?



vacca rabite
01-22-2011, 17:58
This evening we played a game pitting 2 bombers (gotha and "captured" HP 0/400) against 6 allied scout planes. The scouts made a pass through the bombers, but once they turned around, only the SE5a and the SPAD XIII could catch the "lumbering" bombers, but it took so long to happen that the bombers were off the table.

Were we doing something wrong? The bombers being so fast made them impossible to shoot down. The scouts should have been able to turn around and catch up easily, not fall further and further behind every turn.

Zach

The Cowman
01-23-2011, 00:00
This evening we played a game pitting 2 bombers (gotha and "captured" HP 0/400) against 6 allied scout planes. The scouts made a pass through the bombers, but once they turned around, only the SE5a and the SPAD XIII could catch the "lumbering" bombers, but it took so long to happen that the bombers were off the table.

Were we doing something wrong? The bombers being so fast made them impossible to shoot down. The scouts should have been able to turn around and catch up easily, not fall further and further behind every turn.

Zach

What were the other 4 scout planes? Have you seen this file? ( http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=464 (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=464) ) It is a Visual Maneuver Speed Deck Comparison of the A through R Decks. If one takes the XB and XD Decks and compares them relatively to this chart they "look" quite a bit slower than even the "green" decks... (green lines on the chart)

The Gotha Card is the same length as a standard scout card. The Handley Card is 1/2 inch longer than the standard scout card. I am assuming that if you used minis that the bases you made are the same dimensions as the relative cards for their planes.

The Handley when moving straight moves only 1/8" slower than an aircraft using a "green" deck. (This includes the 1/2 difference in card length) The Gotha moves only 1/4" slower than an aircraft using a "green" deck

This means that if the bombers are moving in a straight line, it takes 8 straight maneuvers for a "green" deck aircraft to gain one inch on the Handley, and 4 straight maneuvers to gain one inch on the Gotha.

Let's look at aircraft with the "Blue" Decks. The Handley when moving straight moves 7/8" slower than an aircraft using a "Blue" deck. (This includes the 1/2 difference in card length) The Gotha moves only 1" slower than an aircraft using a "green" deck. So in one turn a "Blue" deck aircraft should be able to gain 2 5/8" on the Handley, and 3" on the Gotha. That comes to about 4 turns to make up a 1 ft. difference.

Considering these stats and what you have stated, a lot is depending on how far behind your scouts got before they turned and started earnestly pursuing the bombers, which I can only assume were headed flat out toward their targets. I can see it being feasible that your scouts could have had a hard time catching up if the got too far back.

In the end, it is NOT supposed to be easy to take out a heavy bomber. Especially in aircraft that are not late war entries...

I would conclude that one would need to fly a lot more than just one mission before one decided that there was a game imbalance. I would assume that the Nexus folks play-tested these a bit... but that might not be a "solid" assumption to make. Perhaps it is a matter of rethinking your tactics when dealing with Heavy bombers...

This is all just my humble opinion, take it or leave it... ;) After all I am a cow nut... how reliable of a source can I really be??? :D :p

I would be interested in hearing LKGR's opinion on this one, since he came up with the speed comparison chart...

Flying Officer Kyte
01-23-2011, 00:27
If you look at the official stats, and the reports of the Home defence pilots, you will see that it was not easy to either catch or even find the giant bombers. Even when you did ,shooting them down was very rare. No Staaken was shot down over Britain, and most Gothas that were lost, had engine failure or crashed on landing back in Belgium. That said, to get a good game, try making the bombers return a cross the board after the bombing run, to emulate the Home defence aircraft that were scrambled finally attaining the altitude of the bombers. Don't forget the flack batteries. If the Giants have to veer to put these off aim it should slow them down a bit too.
Rob.

The Cowman
01-23-2011, 00:37
. The scouts should have been able to turn around and catch up easily, not fall further and further behind every turn.

Zach

While looking at your original post I payed more attention and caught this particular sentence. If your Scouts were falling further behind while trying to pursue and those scouts were flying nothing but straights toward the bombers, then they should NOT have been losing distance. they should have been gaining no matter what type of scout they were. So I can only conclude from this that something was amiss... perhaps the bases on your bomber minis were altered in size?

jbmacek
01-23-2011, 04:45
After I finish my cup of coffee I'm breaking out a ruler and those bomber cards.

jbmacek
01-23-2011, 05:09
I couldn't find a metric ruler (doh!), so instead I took a comparison pic, a Pfalz D.III, Handley Page, and SPAD XIII.

http://www.piratebrethren.com/gaming/movement%20comparison.JPG

The SPADs are obviously faster than the bomber, and the Pfalz slightly slower. In this particular scenario, I wonder, since the bomber bases weren't clear, if the amount of error introduced by guessing where to align the arrow could have accounted for our speedy withdrawal? Also, did you double check the image on your bases to make sure they were the right size?

Either way, the Allies under estimated our speed and that was the reason most of them couldn't catch us. If they had placed themselves facing in the same direction of movement as the bombers, I bet we'd be singing a different tune right now.

Oberst Hajj
01-23-2011, 06:22
I took a lone Camel against a Gotha this past week and was able to not only keep up (actually had trouble staying behind it), was able to bring it down. It had to fly down a 6' (2 meter) table, bomb two targets and come all the way back. I shot it down with the last two points of damage on the very last maneuver card before it left the table.

Aero825
01-23-2011, 06:52
Nice feat of pursuit Keith!

Aero825
01-23-2011, 06:59
The SPADs are obviously faster than the bomber, and the Pfalz slightly slower.

How can the Pfalz be slower? If you look it up, the Pfalz's max speed is 112 mph(180km/h), but the Handley is a mere 76mph(112km/h)!
How can this be!?!?

Oberst Hajj
01-23-2011, 07:10
Actually, if you look at the pic of the cards above, the Pfalz is faster. It starts out slightly behind the wing of the HP and ends up kind of even with it. Look at the trailing edge of both plane's wings.

I only managed to shoot him down because I killed his rear gunner early on!

vacca rabite
01-23-2011, 07:25
The images I made for the bomber base tops were done on a color copy machine. They should be exactly the same.
As the bases are not clear, there could have been fudging trying to get the card lined up proper. I may cut down the bases to the exact size of the card to help eliminate this issue.

The scene we played had 2 bombers returning from a raid and getting jumped by an allied patrol before their escort could pick them up. The set up was a roughly 5x3 foot table. The bombers set up on a short edge and had to make it to the opposing short edge. The fighters all set up on a random edge, but could not start more then 2 rulers from the bombers (if we do this again, I might change that to 1.5 rulers). On turn 2, german scouts (escorts) appear on a random board edge. A picture is worth 1000 words (the bombers enter at the bottom, the table edge with no dice roll indicated.)
8454

The six allied scouts rolled a 6 and started just to the left of the bombers for turn one, diving in against the Hadley Page and catching it on fire.

On turn 2, two german scouts showed up (rolling a 5) and came in right behind the allies. One of the escorts promptly crashed or exploded, I do not remember which. The other, a Fokker Dr1, had a grand time lining up kills on the allied fighters as they lined up to chase the bombers.

The allied scouts made thier first pass through the two bombers and started turning. But they got a little strung out doing so, and several turns were spent with them catching up. It was only the last one or two turns that they were able to get a bead on the bombers again, and by that time it was too late.

They were focusing on the HP. as it was worth 3 victory points if shot down, so the gotha escaped unharmed, I think. Even with the damage from being on fire, the HP only took 6 or 7 points of damage (many of the cards that I drew were "0").

The allied planes consisted of 2 SPAD 13s, 2 SE5a, and a camel.

It of course could have gone very different if an explosion had been drawn by the bombers for damage, or if the allies had tried a slightly different tactic in setup as John had said. We could play it again and see if there are differences in outcome.

Was the game unbalanced on the design end? Should we have made it 8 scouts and no escort? Or was the ratio of attackers and defenders about right? it felt unbalanced to me (the scene designer) but we did only play it once...

Zach

jbmacek
01-23-2011, 07:29
Actually, if you look at the pic of the cards above, the Pfalz is faster. It starts out slightly behind the wing of the HP and ends up kind of even with it. Look at the trailing edge of both plane's wings.
Actually, yeah, you are right. My mistake. The final position arrowhead for the Pfalz is ahead of the arrowhead for the Handley Page in the photo above, meaning it is faster.

jbmacek
01-23-2011, 07:33
Though thinking about it more, the most accurate way should be to measure and compare center point distances between the two.

Diamondback
01-23-2011, 07:55
Or, "notch" the base's leading and trailing edge where cards go. A bigger bird requires a bigger support, but if you keep just the "Card Interface Area" at card-size the rest of the base shouldn't matter how much it grows to fit stability requirements.

vacca rabite
01-23-2011, 08:37
Or, "notch" the base's leading and trailing edge where cards go. A bigger bird requires a bigger support, but if you keep just the "Card Interface Area" at card-size the rest of the base shouldn't matter how much it grows to fit stability requirements.

This is something else I was considering. In fact, it was my original idea for the bases, but I ran out of time. It was a race against the clock to get those bombers built and painted and based in time for the game Sat. It is probable that this is how the current two bases will be "fixed."

Zach

Flying Officer Kyte
01-23-2011, 08:40
Was the game unbalanced on the design end? Should we have made it 8 scouts and no escort? Or was the ratio of attackers and defenders about right? it felt unbalanced to me (the scene designer) but we did only play it once...
Zach

The balance of the game is always a moot point. One time it can seem to be skewed toward one side, but if corrected and a different set of factors occur it may then seem to be unbalanced in the other direction. The only way to be sure is to trial it several times, and then decide.
Historically of course if the action takes place over Britain, there will be no fighter escort. If returning bombers are approaching the Belgian coast, there may be.German scouts could meet chasing British fighters near the end of their fuel, or R.N.A.S. patrols from France etc. Over Europe of course there is much more variety available. A raid on Paris, Venice, or German industrial towns could lead to a long end chase on a rolling terrain ending up over the trenches or beyond. Literally the sky's the limit, as long as your petrol holds out.
Rob.

tuladin
01-23-2011, 09:19
I took a lone Camel against a Gotha this past week and was able to not only keep up (actually had trouble staying behind it), was able to bring it down. It had to fly down a 6' (2 meter) table, bomb two targets and come all the way back. I shot it down with the last two points of damage on the very last maneuver card before it left the table.

I think this scenario has the answer. Having the bombers cross the entire board, turn around, and exit from the side they started on gives the fighters more chances to attack. And it may even be more historical - there may have been air cover around potential ground targets, but it would have been difficult to intercept incoming or returning bombers in transit in the days before radar (especially at night.)

Flying Officer Kyte
01-23-2011, 11:23
As I said in post 16, the two way journey that the Col and Larry suggest here may be the best answer to getting a result. I wouldn't fancy my chances against a trio of Gothas giving mutual covering fire however. The few instances of Gothas being shot down seem to be if they were detatched from their compatriots owing to engine problems or some such. Not that having to play a stall will make much difference with such a short straight card anyway.
Rob.

Aero825
01-23-2011, 16:35
Actually, if you look at the pic of the cards above, the Pfalz is faster. It starts out slightly behind the wing of the HP and ends up kind of even with it. Look at the trailing edge of both plane's wings.

The card maybe, but the sheer size of the Handley Page brings it forward to much.

Oberst Hajj
01-23-2011, 17:59
The arrow on the back is a full half inch behind the Pfalz though. I think they got the speed of Gotha just right.

Goering Ace
01-23-2011, 18:15
I think this scenario has the answer. Having the bombers cross the entire board, turn around, and exit from the side they started on gives the fighters more chances to attack. And it may even be more historical - there may have been air cover around potential ground targets, but it would have been difficult to intercept incoming or returning bombers in transit in the days before radar (especially at night.)

I agree. All our bomber missions require the bomber to return to it's starting side.

Also, try to come in at a sharp angle or from the side on your initial attacks. That way you can turn to follow quicker and easily keep up for additional attacks.

Oberst Hajj
01-23-2011, 18:23
Also, try to come in at a sharp angle or from the side on your initial attacks. That way you can turn to follow quicker and easily keep up for additional attacks.

Just be mindful that you CAN get hit by both front and rear guns when coming in from the side... the Gotha can do this even at short range.... and it HURTS! lol

Doug
01-24-2011, 02:49
I have a Skytrex AEG III which I have mounted on a surplus WoW Rolland Cll base, using a reduced "D" deck. In the games we play the bomber has to make it to the target and back. Most time I make it, with the main factor that saves me is the large number (24) of damage points.

csadn
01-25-2011, 16:53
This thread hits on an issue of the period -- namely, the infamous "the bomber will always get through" meme.

Short form: Ramsay MacDonald first used it as a means of trying to convince people to reject war. However, *at the time* he had a point -- in 1932, Fighters were still biplanes armed with 2 0.30-cal. MGs, with top speeds in the sub-200MPH range; Bombers, OTOH, had seen a design renaissance -- this was the era of the Martin B-10 and Boeing B-9, both cantilever monoplanes with retractable landing gear, and top speeds well above those of contemporary Fighters. Thus, the notion that Bombers could outperform, and thus "get through" defending fighters, was not wrong *at the time*. Note emphasis -- at about the time Macdonald said this, civilian-designed and -built monoplanes were in the process of humiliating military-spec designs in the air races of the period. The military designers took notice, and began designing and building Fighters as cantilever monoplanes, thus taking away the Bombers' design advantage, and making Macdonald's remarks untrue... later.

Now, how does this relate to this thread? Simple: The speed difference between a fighter and a bomber in this period was minimal -- the 0/400 or Gotha could hit 100 MPH, while most fighters could reach maybe 110. So, once a fighter got behind a bomber, well, "a stern chase is a long chase". Couple this to the bombers having as many, or more, guns, and the fighters had best be attacking in packs, or it's gonna be a bad day at work today.

Linz
03-16-2011, 12:22
Maybe we need to look at what we see as a victory. Rather than downed aircraft how about part victory for amount of damage inflicted on the bomber. Just as the bomber has part victory with a near miss on a target. Linz

David Manley
03-16-2011, 12:31
Also, try to come in at a sharp angle or from the side on your initial attacks. That way you can turn to follow quicker and easily keep up for additional attacks.

Quite right. In just about any "head to head" encounter you want to achieve some lateral separation, and then turn just as you pass to give you a "head start" in the turning engagement.

Doug
03-16-2011, 20:43
I think the idea of claiming for damaged aircraft is not so unrealistic, may be even just an inhouse rule. Who does the damage plane go to? the last aircraft to inflict damage points even after other aircraft shoots at the bomber but does not score a hits.

Desaix
03-16-2011, 21:22
My opinion is that Fligth of Giants was poorly designed and not tested enough
It is too far off both gameplay wise and historicaly...

jbmacek
03-17-2011, 04:05
Fwiw, we replayed that scenario this past Saturday. Vacca Rabite modified the bomber's bases so we could see the arrowheads and the maneuver cards, and it really did make a difference. Even though they were able to escape again, the bombers didn't outrun the pursuing fighters this time around, and both took at least half damage. If it wasn't for the presence of the escorts, I believe we would have been able to bring at least one of those bombers down.

Linz
03-17-2011, 04:35
Sounds fairly realistic to me from what I have read there where a lot of forced down or forced out aircraft than there where shot down. So guys returning damaged and not able to continue the dogfight were very common. Linz

vacca rabite
03-17-2011, 10:48
John, you beat me to it.

We did have events happen early that skewed the slant of the game, one attacking fighter drew the only B deck explosion the first time he took fire (turn 1) and another caught fire very early (turn 1 or 2). Also the fighters tended to spread fire between the bombers instead of concentrating on one of them. At the end of the game, enough damage had been done to have destroyed the Gotha, and the HP would have only had a few point left. It was a good lesson on the importance of concentration of fire.

Once thing we did notice was that while the "captured" 0400 uses a much smaller move card, over the course of the game it left the gotha in the dust, escaping the board a full turn faster.

It was closer, but without an explosion card getting played VS the bombers I think that the scenerio is slanted towards the bombers and not the fighters. Its is probably accurate history wise, but that does not make for the most balanced game.

Next time it would be fun to pair the G4 with the 0/400 and have them make a bombing run (out and back). The 0/400 would have to work in stalls to stay in formation with the G4, but I bet it would be a lot of fun to do.

Zach

jbmacek
03-17-2011, 17:17
In that case, I'll just suggest we play one of the bomber scenarios from Flight of the Giants. Shoot, I may even buy a Gotha or two by the next time we have a big game.

PRS
03-17-2011, 17:57
Looking at the AAR, you only had 5 scouts attacking 2 bombers with 2 escorts for the bombers showing up on turn 2 (I think). That just seems way lopsided in the bombers favor if all they have to do is escape. I think you need to up the number of attackers and/or drop the escorts.

jbmacek
03-17-2011, 18:24
Yep. I personally believe that scenario is way balanced in favor of the bombers. I'd even go so far as to suggest that, even though they didn't shoot down either of the bombers, the escorts actually won that last one.

sparty
03-17-2011, 19:52
I think any time you're adding in a bomber or some other mechanic that falls outside the scope of the standard dogfight you're playing an entirely different game when it comes to scenario balance/design.

Dogfight scenario designers are asking these (definitely more, but for brevity's sake) questions:

1 - What kind of force imbalance will keep this challenging without tipping the scales consistently in one side's favor? (i.e. What's a challenge, but still winnable?)

2 - What era's planes would create either an historical setup or create a unique what-if?

3 - What are the environmental factors? (Table size, deployment, etc.)

When you add something like a bomber into the mix you're also looking at some more abstract concepts:

1 - What is the total firepower brought to the table by a bomber and what if the players choose to substitute mechanics for gunners?

2 - How many turns of straight line flight does it take to reach the objective or complete the bombing mission?

3 - What kind of force has sufficient maneuverability within the given table size and sufficient speed to bring enough firepower forward to knock down the bomber?

In some cases, repeated playings make this more apparent. Tactics, and often the ones you take in the first turn or two, make the biggest difference. As you saw, you can let things get so out of hand that there's no winnable solution. That said, if you played the game again, would the tactics from the start have been different knowing the previous outcome? I suspect they would.

Further confusing the point about play balance is relative familiarity with the rules, plane capabilities, and comfort with the maneuver decks. These things let you know and guess where the bullets need to be and how to best get there.

Interesting thread, I'm curious to know how other people are approaching bombers and planning scenarios or campaigns with them?

vacca rabite
03-18-2011, 06:57
Looking at the AAR, you only had 5 scouts attacking 2 bombers with 2 escorts for the bombers showing up on turn 2 (I think). That just seems way lopsided in the bombers favor if all they have to do is escape. I think you need to up the number of attackers and/or drop the escorts.

I was playing both bombers, so there were 6 fighters and 2 escorts. Though it became 5 fighters after Mike exploded.

Thinking about balance, I am not sure where the right mix would be. 8 fighters vs 2 unescorted bombers would probably be a turkey shoot for the fighters, unless the table length was made shorter. Maybe 7 fighters and only one escort? I don't know. At 6 and 2, the bias is clearly with the bombers. I'd be willing to try 8 and no escorts and see how it washes, but my guess is that it would be a slaughter for the bombers unless the fighters took early losses. I like the idea behind the scene, and would like to get the mix right so that it is an exciting game, with either side being evenly matched to win. Maybe give the 0/400 A guns instead of B - there were armed as such for some missions.

Zach

vacca rabite
03-18-2011, 07:01
Now that I am thinking about it, if we did the game with altitude rules, that might make it even with 8 fighters vs 2 bombers, as the bombers could start shooting directly behind them.

Zach

Flying Officer Kyte
03-18-2011, 07:33
The reason that I am painting up Home defense Night Fighters, is because that way the bombers don't get any fighter cover.
Rob.

Dom S
03-18-2011, 07:41
Good thought - that said, even by day bombers usually operated beyond the range of fighters anyway; they usually only got cover as far as the lines if at all....

sparty
03-18-2011, 09:56
You just gave me a good idea.... 6' x 3' play area... Bomber & 2 escorts start at one end and 3 interceptors start at the other end. At the middle of the table the escorts have to peel away or draw a card at the end of every turn. If they pull a red rudder damage or explosion card then they fall out of the sky due to lack of fuel. Then there's variable length to how far they can push it with the bomber. All downed planes give VPs to the other side.

Baldrick62
03-18-2011, 15:19
This thread hits on an issue of the period -- namely, the infamous "the bomber will always get through" meme.

Short form: Ramsay MacDonald first used it as a means of trying to convince people to reject war...

Now, how does this relate to this thread? Simple: The speed difference between a fighter and a bomber in this period was minimal -- the 0/400 or Gotha could hit 100 MPH, while most fighters could reach maybe 110. So, once a fighter got behind a bomber, well, "a stern chase is a long chase". Couple this to the bombers having as many, or more, guns, and the fighters had best be attacking in packs, or it's gonna be a bad day at work today.

More generalisations and pseudo-history.:rolleyes:

Actually, "the bomber will always get through" was a phrase used by Stanley Baldwin in 1932, in the speech "A Fear for the Future" to the British Parliament. The argument was that, regardless of air defences, sufficient raiders will survive to rain destruction on cities. Source: Mr Baldwin on Aerial Warfare - A Fear For The Future. The Times newspaper, 11 November 1932.

From the Kenneth Munson books, maximum speeds at sea level:
Bombers
Staaken R.VI - 80 mph
Gotha G.IV - 87mph
Caproni Ca.5 - 94mph
HP 0/400 - 97mph
Fighters
Sopwith Pup - 111mph
Nieuport 28C.1 - 115mph
Albatros D.II - 108mph
Fokker D.VI - 121mph

Without going into the exact maths to compare each aircraft individually, that's still about a 20% speed advantage for the fighters.

While starting a fight from a stern chase is 'a long chase', a stern conversion from an offset cutoff gets you quickly onto a bomber's tail, particularly of you use a reasonably low Line Of Positioning angle (90-110 degrees). By attacking from astern, a fighter can a/ get into the bomber's blind spot under the tail (even with a 'Gotha tunnel'), b/ has zero deflection angle and c/ gives a relatively slow closure rate allowing for adjustment of aim and long target exposure.

Not sure how that all translates into game mechanics for WOW, but until the advent of 'tail-end Charlie', it worked, and continues to work, in the real world.

petitbilbo
03-18-2011, 16:15
The arrow on the back is a full half inch behind the Pfalz though. I think they got the speed of Gotha just right.

If you simply look at the bottom of the cards, you'll see that the Pfals is indeed quicker than the giant.
They are well aligned at the beginning but, at the end, the Pfalz, as well as the Spad, is way beyond the giant's card bottom.

I think people simply get fooled by the sheer size of the giants.

sparty
03-18-2011, 19:14
More generalisations and pseudo-history.:rolleyes:

Actually, "the bomber will always get through" was a phrase used by Stanley Baldwin in 1932, in the speech "A Fear for the Future" to the British Parliament. The argument was that, regardless of air defences, sufficient raiders will survive to rain destruction on cities. Source: Mr Baldwin on Aerial Warfare - A Fear For The Future. The Times newspaper, 11 November 1932.


Thank god THAT never happened ;)

Seriously though, I find it interesting that there's a 20% speed difference and yet the cards don't reflect a 20% speed difference. I'm curious about what happened in playtesting or if this difference was ever even considered to be included in the game. It certainly raises more questions than answers. The comparison figure does not reflect 20%.

tuladin
03-18-2011, 20:42
The FOTG bombers move 89mm -95mm when they play a straight card, while the 'second speed bracket" scouts, like the Camel and the D.VII, move 115mm. That seems close enough to the ratios above.

Oberst Hajj
03-18-2011, 21:31
We always need to keep in mind that this is a game and not a simulation as well. I've personally brought a Gotha down with a lone Camel, I know Flying Officer Kyte has brought one or two down with a lone Biff. It seems to me that they got them pretty well figured out in game terms.

Linz
03-18-2011, 23:01
I've taken out an HP0/400 with a lone Seimens Stuckett DIV and when Flying my Zeppelin Staarken took out 3 fighters. Thats what makes this game so good the luck of the draw and good solid tactics.
Linz

Baldrick62
03-19-2011, 16:36
good solid tactics.
Linz

Too true!

Captain Knowitall
04-27-2011, 07:52
The allied scouts made their[edited] first pass through the two bombers and started turning. But they got a little strung out doing so, and several turns were spent with them catching up. It was only the last one or two turns that they were able to get a bead on the bombers again, and by that time it was too late. Zach

Question: Why didn't the attacking scouts just do an Immelmann or Split 'S' to get turned back around onto the bombers? (or did they do that, but were still lagging behind?) I don't understand how they could not have caught up with the bombers much sooner.

Heck, if it was me, and I was at the same altitude as the bombers as I pass by, I would do a split 'S' and come back around on the one I want to target, get under neath it, and attack from below. (negates the rear gunner) Use the same tactic with two seaters.

Captain Knowitall
04-27-2011, 08:05
Just be mindful that you CAN get hit by both front and rear guns when coming in from the side... the Gotha can do this even at short range.... and it HURTS! lol

That's why you come in from below and attack the bomber. Below and behind, Behind/below and at an oblique angle. Or if you happen to be approaching the bombers head on, then drop in below them, then do a climbing attack. Cut to the right or left, perform and Immelmann or Split 'S' to get you back into position again and then hit it from below again. This way you aren't trying to "Chase" them off of the table. If you have good wingmen then they can help keep the enemy fighters off of you so you can do your attack.

Oberst Hajj
04-27-2011, 08:22
Keep in mind the Gotha can shoot at your from the rear when you are below them with no blind spot.

Flying Officer Kyte
04-27-2011, 08:46
Keep in mind the Gotha can shoot at your from the rear when you are below them with no blind spot.

Right on Col. That tunnel in the belly catches no end of pilots out. Once anyway.
Rob.

jbmacek
04-28-2011, 11:15
Question: Why didn't the attacking scouts just do an Immelmann or Split 'S' to get turned back around onto the bombers? (or did they do that, but were still lagging behind?) I don't understand how they could not have caught up with the bombers much sooner.

Heck, if it was me, and I was at the same altitude as the bombers as I pass by, I would do a split 'S' and come back around on the one I want to target, get under neath it, and attack from below. (negates the rear gunner) Use the same tactic with two seaters.

Imho, you really needed to read further. Take a look at these follow-up threads.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?3440-quot-Speeds-quot-in-millimeters-from-center-point-to-center-point

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?4046-Saturday-Shootout-Redux!

I believe those answered Zach's question in the original post.