Historical accounts said they were "sitting ducks" vs single seat fighters. Yet I seem to be having a hell of a time shooting down more than two with a full ammo load. Anyone else having problems? The rear gunners at least, seem fairly useless so I can just sit behind them and fire away but it seems very hard to do any decent damage. I have been trying to aim for the wing roots or cockpit from behind, with mixed results. Usually I down them by killing the pilot or destroying all control surfaces, very rarely will they catch on fire. I keep trying to come up from below, side, or above but it is just very hard to line up a shot that connects with high closure speed vs a slow target. I have the most luck when they decide to turn and present more surface area to be shot at. Flying straight and level I have emptied all my ammo into one many times without them going down. So, is the consensus that this is realistic and my gunnery just sucks, or are they a little too sturdy?

There was a big thread about this I wrote on the banana forum, in which many people reckoned the same. They are flying tanks in CoD, I too have sat behind them sometimes with unlimited ammo and emptied a frightening amount of lead into them...still they fly on. Not even a frikkin Jug could take that amount of punishment, it's wrong.

That said, there are occasions when they will light up quickly, but this is rare. Note this was done with 'stock' realistic spitfire ammo....not a fantasy AP/Incendiary terror mix lol...but testing should be done with what they really used anyway.

Yes, its bollocks. No 'Stuka Parties' in CoD, and we can't laugh at them anymore (as RAF pilots in real life actually did, they were such a Piece of p*ss to shoot down). Correct.

EDIT: And in case anyone thinks it's because I'm a 'sh*t shot' lol, I'm not actually that bad. Majority of the 109's are at ace level too.

It is kind of the opposite from a problem I remember with the early versions of European Air War, I remember HE-111s going down with about a 1 second burst. Boom, fire, dead, every time. Made one feel like a badass... but was a little too easy. I am having about as much trouble shootind down HE-111s in CloD as JU87s, but it makes more sense cause they are so much bigger and have two engines. Do17s and Ju88s go down pretty easily on the other hand.

2 in a sortie would have made an RAF pilot happy, sitting duck is a relative term. ~75 were lost from July to the end of the battle (including the sporadic attacks in late Summer/Fall after they were largely sidelined, opp losses, etc). On Aug 18th, the worst day for Stuka losses, of ~120, somewhere ~20 were lost, including several write-offs that made it back. One I/STG 77 suffered the worst with ~10 of 30 lost, and this was being intercepted by multiple squadrons with much of the fighting taking place before their escorts could react. For the RAF that was nearly as good as it gets situation wise, and even then it averaged out to maybe a quarter kill or less per interceptor.

Not saying there isn't a flaw in the damage modeling (I've only intercepted them a few times so far so couldn't say), only that flaming a half dozen each sortie is not a realistic expectation.

Weren't they considered more a sitting duck due to speed and defence...? Hit the right spot with .303's and you're laughing, but otherwise not a lot of damage is going to be dealt (apart from the demoaralising kind).

From what I have read a 2 second burst that hits should down anything. I always thought this was a weakness in any prop sim. Everything is just too bullet resistant. Yes yes I know that so and so once flew back with x number of bullet holes but the designers put 4 MG's on the English aircraft for a reason.

Hello Dick. Yes, agreed that expecting 6 flamers a sortie is very unrealistic, nobody is suggesting that should be the case. However, Goering issued a directive to withdraw them for a very good reason, they were actually suffering appalling casualties (especially in August as you point out); taking 'worst day' losses is not particularly useful, they must be taken as a whole and relative to number of sorties. If one bears in mind also that RAF gunnery training at that time was woeful at best (many pilots 'training' consisted of firing a few rounds into the drink) and the vast majority had no combat experience whatsoever, I would take this as a clear indication that they were anything but difficult to shoot down. The trick was said to be catching them pre and post dive, where they were most vulnerable.

I'm telling ye now man, its wrong. There is no way they could take some of the hammerings I've seen them take, in fact I stopped flying against them as I was laughing so much (mostly in disbelief and mild disgust lol). A great many agreed on the banana forum, we are not imagining it.

There ye have it anyway, I'm going to the pub lol. Laters.

The question is, did it take one english pilot to shoot two stuka or did it take two english pilots for one?

IIRC the RAF found the Stukas vunerable when pulling out of their dives and that was when they prefered to attack as it was slow and rear gunner had trouble bringing his guns to bear. Later on the eastern front it proved effective as most of the fighting took place at lower altitudes.

Bit OT, but this always amazed me, shows how desperate/tough these blokes were, from wiki.


Hans-Ulrich Rudel (2 July 1916 – 18 December 1982) was a Stuka dive-bomber pilot during World War II.
"On 8 February 1945, a 40 mm shell hit his aircraft. He was badly wounded in the right foot and crash landed inside German lines. His life was saved by his observer Ernst Gadermann who stemmed the bleeding, but Rudel's leg was amputated below the knee. He returned to operations on 25 March 1945"

reminds me of the Monty Python black knight skit.

Hi all

Just thought I would chip in (for the first time) because I was reading about this just the other day.

The '2 second burst' theory only applies if the target is stationary and absorbs 100% of the ammo load at the same point in the airframe. That was the fault in the calculation by British armourers - 8 .303s did not allow for most moving targets to be hit with bullets either dispersed because the target is moving or not at optimal convergence. That's why eventually all designs moved to incorporate cannon.

Anyway, I'll go back to lurking now!

Yeah I suppose I shouldn't be too incredibly disappointed if I shoot down 2 stukas in a mission, but I'd really like to able to get three Not saying I don't like a challenge, and I am still working on figuring out optimal convergence settings. Still I think maybe the Stukas are about 10-15% too sturdy. None of us really truly know though what is realistic unless we were in WW2. There does some to be some random luck factors thrown in that make the damage model fun. I know at least once I fired a 2 second burst that connected and saw s Stuka go down in flames... lucky shot. I spent a lot of time shooting them last night and was getting more effective getting REAL close up,, like almost in formation, then using my rudder to get some deflection on the fuselage and rake the sides and cockpit best I could. Getting closer to shooting down 2 on average instead of 0-1 before Winchester.

I've got no problems taking down Stukas. Come in from the side slightly above, strafe the cockpit and watch it's death spiral.
This ain't sex - shooting from behind ain't better.

One should expect an airframe stressed for dive bombing a bit more trouble to destroy via structural failure.

Amen to that. I put 500 rounds into a JU 88 once. Only just went down.....

Right chaps, did further testing last night and may well have to recant....I also should have mentioned that the 'indestructible' Stuka's were encountered late March early April (CoD UK release time), so my bad. I stopped flying against them entirely after that. Lo and behold, they are not the same animal at all, in fact I had no trouble downing them (full switch limited ammo) so it appears this is no longer the case. Perhaps it was even an AI issue in which it could somehow still be flown (stranger things have happened in the FUBAR world of CoD to date, for sure. ) There had been no mention in patch fixes that I'm aware of (lots of what I thought were just cosmetic DM fixes), but then other things have been fixed that were not mentioned either.

Anyhoo, I can now LOL heartily at Stuka's again....Praise be, for God knows that's the way it should be.

@Wyn, a fair point and good method, but in reality the majority of successful attacks would have been from astern, and gun cam footage confirms this. There was success with head ons too. Aces like 'Sailor' Malan would in fact instruct beginners to minimise deflection shooting, saying there was little chance of success above 5degs deflection and advocating getting in close and 'letting them have it'. That's real life of course, different kettle of fish to computer world in which people with 1000's of hours of gunnery practice (and probably no lives lol) can pull of some insane snipes. The typical BoB pilot would not even contemplate trying crazy speculative shots, and were ordered against it to conserve valuable ammo.

"We learned tactics pretty quickly, but there wasn’t much time during the Battle. We learned to spread the vics. One chap was put in as ‘weaver’ — arse-end Charlie — weaving about behind our formation, keeping look-out. They were often shot down, weaving behind and never seen again.

Sailor Malan was the best pilot of the war, a good tactician; above average pilot and an excellent shot. In the end it comes down to being able to shoot. I was an above average pilot, but not a good shot, so the only way I could succeed was to get closer than the next chap. This wasn’t easy Johnny Johnson was a pretty good, average pilot, but an excellent shot.

The answer was that there were was no really successful shooting parameter above 5 degree deflection. Most kills were from behind, coming down on the enemy, or head-on, or in 5 degrees deflection.

The Spitfires guns were harmonized to about 450 yards, but this was spread too far across. Sailor Malan trimmed his own guns down to 200-250 yards, and we all followed suit.

At the end of the day, you had to have luck, and I had my share. Once I had my watch shot off my wrist. It was my own watch, and the Air Ministry wouldn’t pay me back for it! Another had a bullet hit his headphones. His ear was a bit of a mess, but at least he was alive.”

Air Commodore Alan Deere CBE. DSO. DFC. ex 54 Sqn, 602 Sqn and 611 Sqn RAF

I use 200 myself and have done for years in IL-2....works for me.

@Nodak, agreed of course....the expectation was definitely not the sawing off of wings etc...that would not happen. To give props to the CoD DM in general, in 350+ 109's I've shot down for example, I've only ever seen a wing 'sawn off' in its entirety maybe 5 times if that, approximately. Good stuff.

So, no worries my end now. Quite happy.

Well, THAT'S certainly not how it should be. In the BoB, the LW gunners were generally excellent, and shot down or badly damaged many fighters. Peter Bungay's 'Most Dangerous Enemy' IIRC makes some reference to this.

If you'd prefer the word of contemporary aircrew to a management consultant's analysis, Peter Townsend's "Duel of Eagles" is a pretty good source. I may be mixing up my Battle of Britain books, but I think it's there that in one description of an early RAF scrap with Stukas, where several of the dive-bombers were shot down, he nevertheless reports that "The [attacking] squadron was taught a sharp lesson by the accurate shooting of the rear gunners", referring to several fighters badly shot up and the squadron switching to beam attacks.

In another account, which is definitely in 'Duel of Eagles', describing the experiences of Stuka pilot Rudolph Braun, 85 Sqdn BoB pilot Townsend says "'Then [this was after the dive, when the Stukas were split up, separated from their escort and at low level] there was a Spitfire on Rudolph's tail. As it closed in the Stuka's gunner shouted, 'Now!', and Rudolph jerked his Ju87 round in a steep turn - it could turn on a postage stamp. He fired a quick burst for luck, then cleared off quickly - the air was unhealthy for Stukas.'

Townsend himself was lucky to survive after being shot down over the North Sea by Do17 rear gunner Werner Borner who, interviewed for his book, recorded that 'our brave Do17M Y5 GM - Gustav Marie for short, had got us home, despite 220 hits in the engines, fuel tanks and other vital parts' [and some wounded crew, and an undercart jammed up and having to belly-land]

While mileage will have varied, on the whole, the German aircrew of 1940 were la creme de la creme. There were several accounts from the Battle of France of single Do17s caught by Hurricanes on lone recces actually dogfighting with their attackers, demonstrating both considerable skill and amazing aggression.

I said a 2 second burst that hits, one can fire 18 seconds but your not bringing down anything if your not getting the hits.
The designers knew that 2 seconds was the longest one could hold a target in the gunsite, so that burst was lethal

I've heard different reports about rear gunners, even from Stephen Bungay. In his book he reports that most fighter pilots treat enemy rear gunners as a 'nuisance' he did also state that the LW gunners were very good and had lots of training and some were quite successful in inflicting damage.

In other books on the Eastern Front, e.g. Helmut Lipfert's Diary, he also seems to treat rear gunners as a nuisance and just ignores them. One of the main reasons is that you have an engine and an armoured windshield to hide behind whereas the rear gunner has very little protection. He has one or two rifle calibre machine guns and you have 8 MGs or 2 MG with 2 Cannon.

Imagine 8 machine guns pointed at you and just a bit of aluminium skin and some airframe 'protecting' you. It must be absolutely terrifying. I feel bad when I kill rear gunners in the game, pilots at least have a hand in their fate, but the rear gunner is a sitting duck.

I read a TBM Avenger story and the pilot was flying rock steady to provide the tail gunner smooth platform to fire from. The tail gunner thought the pilot was dead because he was not taking evasive action that he thought would have been more effective then his weapon.

In other news. I saw a demo of just one 30 cal. MG firing in 2 second bursts and it was tearing that target up. I can only imagine the power of 8 working together

Well I dont recall what AI difficulty level I had it at at the time, but it was probably average. And I do usually try to stay below the ju87s RG field of fire.. he cant shoot below through the tail. Sometimes they get a lucky shot though. Seems fairly balanced in that regard.