[Stratodog]

I had a question about that, does anyone know if headon bomber attacks were mainly done by the luftwaffe, or was it a widespread tactic?

I've read somewhere of at least one RAF squadron that employed the head on tactic during the Battle of Britain, against bomber formations, which although very effective in breaking up the formations, was soon dropped because of the incidents of RAF planes being lost in collisions.

Hawkers

It was

[Fincuan]

Excellent work certificate!

Finally an AI-mod that can work and actually works, and damn well for that matter. Except for the odd test at QMB I used to play exclusively online, but thanks to your mod will probably start an offline campaign, my first in a looong time.

S!

[Stratodog]

About AI doing head-on attacks. I remember Oleg once said that AI won't do head-on attacks below certain skill level. Set it on ACE and it will do head-ons.

I tried this and couldn't get it to work. (2 X Ace Fw190s vs. 3 X B-17G) The Fw190s always pulled up and flew over the '17s before rolling over and diving in from 6 o'clock. I tried several altitudes and start positions, but always a head-on aspect with plenty of run-in time.

[StarGazer]

About AI doing head-on attacks. I remember Oleg once said that AI won't do head-on attacks below certain skill level. Set it on ACE and it will do head-ons.

I had a question about that, does anyone know if headon bomber attacks were mainly done by the luftwaffe, or was it a widespread tactic?

Hi Certificate,
My understanding from reading historical books was that the initial head-on between fighters and bombers was a standard tactic. Best chance of doing a lot of damage for the least chance of being hit oneself. Note: it was the initial intercept that was set up as a head on if possible as it required manoeuvering into that position or unless you were on a direct intercept course. After that, high side running parallel just out of defensive fire range and diving across the flank while firing and then out the other side climbing high and parallel then repeating crossing back again to the other. High stern attacks were more dangerous but usually involved a half roll just before shooting and firing inverted so you could pull G's and break away in a semi split S and repeat. The split S was to prevent passing under the bomber and coming into gun range of the other bombers in the box as you passed under.

Re: your question about my report on midair collisions previously - the skill level was set at Veteran.

While on the subject of intercepts I thought I would pass on a thought on figher vs fighter. In general terms, it is desireable for a TnB aircraft to try and open up the separation between a BnZ aircraft on the head on. For example, if in a Spit vs a FW it is better for the Spit pilot to not go nose to nose through the entire merge but rather shortly after the nose to nose angle off to the side about 40 degrees or so giving the FW a bit of your flank. Then with the right timing and pending what the FW will do - break into the FW. This puts the Spit at a huge advantage for getting on the FW tail very fast - not to mention getting out of the way of those big FW cannons on the head on.

If on the other hand if you are in the FW - it is best to keep the Spit on your nose to prevent it from turning onto your flank and tail. If the TnB fighter opens up the separation by moving about 40 degrees off nose, the BnZ fighter must try to keep nose on thus preventing the Spit from gaining the separation necessary for the turn.

So to summarize - TnB open separation just prior to the merge. BnZ maintain nose on at the merge.

Without getting too specific and hopefully not getting into a long thread of tactics debate 8) - as there are many more tactics - in general terms these are fundamental approaches to dissimilar aircraft at a merge.

S!

[Stratodog]

StarGazer: An excellent summary, particularly the fighter vs. fighter comments, my own two-cents on bomber attacks; USN/USMC pilots were trained to avoid stern attacks like the plague and favored side attacks. From head-on they used the overhead (vertical dive) approach if they had an altitude advantage on the bomber.

[ivo]

Ciao OberstDanjeje, Thanks.

[Silverback]

Excellent MOD, the AI is much more of a challenge now and more real.

[Fincuan]

USN/USMC pilots were trained to avoid stern attacks like the plague and favored side attacks. From head-on they used the overhead (vertical dive) approach if they had an altitude advantage on the bomber.

That's good advice against any bomber, but especially against the G4M Betties US pilots often encountered. The 20 mm stinger in its tail REALLY hurts when it hits, so tail-attack is especially no-no against it.

[walter_solito]

Hi!

I have tryed the mod with AI flights (I'm not so good to try in first person!) and I see a more ample kind of manouvers , the vertical fight is more in evidence than before when I fell the fight too on orizontal plane (Before I'm thinking that it's true due the less thrust of propeller A/C like said in Shaw books but now I have changed idea)

Soon I try to make carrier operation by FMB to verify the conflict with that mod.

About the AI 3.04_mod , there is some news about the post below here?????

The problem in IL246 4.09 is that AI (even at ace level, in IL246) sits behind a turning target and fires continuously behind, without trying to increse the deflection.

rollnloop, until 2 days ago i would have agreed 100% with that. Since i installed this mod - i watched an F4F-3 trying to turn in behind a Zero, and he was continually firing little short bursts at the Zero every time he thought he might hit! None of that incessant firing - it was great to see!!
I've never seen an AI plane doing that, and i'm pretty sure that was because of this mod! Still testing, but so far, it deserves that gold medal, IMHO... 8)

i saw such shooting with AI 3.04_mod even before installing this one, now i use them both - AI 3.04+AImodV12. I see big variety of defensive maneuvers from bots - tight turns, dives, scissors, split s etc . it seems there is no conflict between these 2 mods.

walter

[Dietz]

Granted I've only flown twice with this MOD, but it doesn't seem to have made a great deal of difference.... hock:

[Dietz]

My bad ...nevermind...it had loaded in the wrong spot...will try again.

[Viikate]

Hey Cert! Have you considered making AI blind to attack coming from sun? It should be relatively easy to make in detectable. Get vectors to sun and to enemy (actor). Normalize vectors and if the x,y & z are same or close == hun in the sun. Of course you'll need some basic checks that is the sun below horizon etc. but basically this should work. And if later reduced AI visibility in dark is implemented, this could be used so that AI can spot the enemy's silhuet easier against moon.

Of course the killer feature would be able to cast a ray from own AI's plane to enemy and see if it intersects with clouds. Hiding in the clouds would rule

[ringilldun]

Thanks a lot for this excellent mod! Now the rookies are really rookies and I can finally shoot someone down!

But seriously, it really simulates poorly trained pilots for the Soviets in the beginning of the war and for the Germans at the end of the war. Brilliant!

/Magnus

[Davew]

Hey Certificate, thanks for this.
D/l the mod last night, and it makes a big change. 2 Spits v 3 190s was pretty hard work, lots of fun Great to see the different tactics in use as well.

On the note re attacking the bombers
It was standard German policy to attack from head on, as that was the direction with the least defensive fire. It's the reason the B-17G got the chin turret. As I understand it, they then gained height, and came round again, attacking from the front or front three quarters. Never the rear and above, the lack of closing speed would have made them sitting ducks for defensive fire.
The Germans also tried bombing the bomber formations with 50kg bombs, lobbing mortars into the formations, and of course attacking from below with the angled cannons. (can't immediately remember the name...) But when it came to the fixed cannon and machine guns, just about all the reports talk about attacking head on. The Rammjaeger (sp?) were also designed to go head on.

The exception was the Me 262. The closing speed was just too high in those aircraft, so I understand that they tended to make slashing attacks from the side after firing the R4M rockets from the rear. IIRC that created a problem for the turrets on the bombers, as the traverse rate wasn't high enough to keep up with the jet's speed.

The Brits, certainly in the early war period, did tend to come in from above and behind, though given the relatively weak defensive fire of the He111, Do17 and Ju88 this was probably less of an issue than it would have been for the B-17 and B-24. It did also make the bombers significantly easier to hit as well, which may have been a consideration for the very low time pilots in the BoB.

Don't know if that can be modelled in an AI patch though with the different styles of attack for different aircraft, but just a thought. May also be off on this, can't check reference material at work. Feel free to correct me.

[certificate]

Hey Cert! Have you considered making AI blind to attack coming from sun? It should be relatively easy to make in detectable. Get vectors to sun and to enemy (actor). Normalize vectors and if the x,y & z are same or close == hun in the sun. Of course you'll need some basic checks that is the sun below horizon etc. but basically this should work. And if later reduced AI visibility in dark is implemented, this could be used so that AI can spot the enemy's silhuet easier against moon.

Of course the killer feature would be able to cast a ray from own AI's plane to enemy and see if it intersects with clouds. Hiding in the clouds would rule

This is a great idea, the implementation might be a bit tricky though, because if the player was already detected, you don't want the AI to simply forget the player is there and carry on back to whatever task they were doing. I'll give it some thought, thanks for the ideas.