Are Gunners too deadly?

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Guys, I've pondering this for years. Since SFP1 actually.

 

Don't you think the gunners are too deadly? I mean, they are like sharpshooters and I have seen crazy things.

Actually, when it comes to a gun fight, the attackers are always badly mauled.
I've seen flights of you-name-the-plane mauled by Il-18, badgers or Bears. I've seen my flight of 8 Tunnan destroyed by Tu-4 without scoring a single hit. 

Isn't this too much unrealistic?

[jeanba 1,920]

I noticed the same thing but saw 2 problems :

1- gunners are too deadly, but a player can somewhat handle this

2- AI is suicidal against gunners

[MigBuster 2,884]

No the AI fly in straight line behind the bombers - thus rightly get blown out of the sky 1 by 1 - and the same will happen to you if you line yourself up behind a bomber - TK would need to write better tactics for them. 

 

I really cant remember the last time i was hit by tracer fire - you should be attacking from angles and moving - same applies to any sim - also fly straight over an AAA site the same thing happens (although the AI is far better at anti AAA tactics).

 

Yes a head tracker really helps give you a 3D perspective on things.

[+Gunrunner 314]

Another vote for "No, wingmen are dumb and suicidal", the AI is decent in BVR and dogfight now (if somewhat too tenacious at times, taking too long to decide to switch to boom and zoom, and still prone to maneuvering kills during low altitude dogfights), but for interception it's still pretty stupid, it's routine being "Getting into the bomber's six, getting closer and closer without maneuvering much and dropping speed to match the bomber's", it's a sure fire way to be shot down if they only have guns.

[+Spillone104 553]

Somehow if you try to play as a bomber and even in a massive formation you can have a bad surprise. I've played a lot with the Tu-16 of all kind of versions. and most of the time my entire flight have been decimated by the guns of the fighters. Yeah, guns because most of the missiles were ineffective due to massive jamming and contermeasures on board of the planes (see mixed formations). Well, the gunners rarely scratched one of the attackers.

Somehow the dumb AI gets even dumbier if you fly red side.
Basically the Jedi turn into a Stormtrooper

[macelena 1,070]

Historically speaking, there are not too many precedents to this particular era. B-52s had two kills in Vietnam and none were shot down, IIRC, by VPAF fighters within their guns range. However, i think Il-28s against the IAF Mirages weren´t as succesful. I think some Tu-16s were shot down, but there were doubts about them being shot down with Shafrirs or AAA. 

 

Game wise, i think it is OK. This, together with the fact that sometimes they are hard to catch up with (interceptors usually having to climb and maneuver into weapon parameters) makes for fun intercept missions

[warthog64 92]

I'd also say no, I think it's pretty accurate and fair.

 

Gunners of WWII bombers like the B-17 are very lethal. I was shot down many times in a FW-190 when attacking B-17s in my early days of playing SF1. When you have guns shooting every direction and 13 or more of them from each bomber you need lots of help from other aircraft as well as experience and training to survive. It was rare for a single fighter pilot in WWII to claim more than 2 or 3 bombers at a time.

 

So the game is pretty accurate when comparing it to the real thing. In WWII it took swarms of fighters to bring down large numbers of bombers and several enemy fighters were always lost in the process to gunners. It was a numerical advantage in those times that enabled fighters to defeat bombers in large numbers. Even Egon Meyer only shot down two B-17s at the most each time and three on only one occasion. WWII gunners and guns were incredibly lethal!

 

However when attacking a Tu-16, Tu-95, or B-52 I've always attacked from the front or side to avoid the rear gunners and only face the one or two side and top turret gunners in a Tu-16/95. I usually prevail using this tactic as I'm only facing one or two guns. Also catching a B-52 in a Mig-21 is tough to do because you must climb and drain all your airspeed to even get within missile range. Catching a Tu-16 or Tu-95 in an F-4 or Mirage III is not that difficult, but you can use missiles instead of guns first. Catching a Tu-16 in a Super Mystere is tricky though, and of course you don't have missiles to use.

 

As mentioned by macelena, the Mig-21 was not successful in catching and shooting down B-52's in Vietnam. Even when they got within range, they were always trailing the bombers due to losing their speed in the climb and therefore were vulnerable to B-52 gunners. They learned to avoid this soon after losing two 21's to gunners of course, and all B-52's were lost to SAM's.

 

But I still prefer to attack a Badger or Bear with a missile from an F-4 or Mirage III to avoid gunners. ECM and Chaff/Flares are the only issue there.

Edited May 5, 2014 by warthog64

[warthog64 92]

An Il-28 is easy meat though, they're slow and low flying and the rear gunners are easy to avoid.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

You guys should try to attack a bomber in il2... thats deadly... SF2 is a kind of kindergarden!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yeap, iL2 gunners were the best.

 

Don't know about iL3.