Tailgunners don't like to fire

The ranges were reduced by gamemode though.

And the problem really existed only in SB to an extent that warranted drastic measures.

Also the changes were a direct result of the SB protest. SB was the only Community to stage a revolt.

It was the revolt that caused the change not forum complaints.

You need to fly slower

I can follow your logic - but most of the players are not even experienced enough to use simplified flight controls which allows then to dodge incoming fire whilst shooting at the same time - ofc with autopilot off.

I agree that the current ai gunners have major flaws, but these flaws have imo their roots with some settings:

  1. If you fly a multiple turret bomber and you aim manually for a target at your high six (like in a B-17) your other turrets which which have no firing angles should be controlled by an ai - allowing them to shot at incoming enemies from below and from the side. This would be helpful in those cases you lost situational awareness or the target at you high six is the bigger threat (like a 30mm cannon armed enemy high and a 0.50 cal armed enemy coming in low in a zoom climb).

  2. The duration of ai gunner bursts are too short and the intervals between bursts are too long. Best way to check this is to fly below and in front of an enemy ai plane (200-500) meters with a level 75 crew and ace plane, it takes say too long to kill these planes…

  3. Imho the ai gunner settings of some ai planes are way too op - you see every 3 or 4 matches own fighters dying to highly accurate fire of some ai planes like Il-2s or Bf 110s. Some of them can one shot you if you attack from below (outside their turret angle) and you shoot a wing of, they flip on their back due to one sided lost of drag and kill u in a split second.

  4. Some ai gunners are imho op - if you ever flew an aced P-61 you might agree - in case of overshooting all u have to do is to fly parallel and allow your top turret a firing solution - game over for your opponent. Same when you chase a low enemy and try to kill them with your 20mm - if he tries dolphin dodges your ai gunner kills him if he gets too high - at range around 500 meters.

Even with using manual gunners you might agree that:

  1. Gun convergence settings for gunners are a joke. Everybody who has ever flown stuff like a Bv 238 will agree. Even in a B-29 or a He 177 you see this when you aim and fire at targets coming in from 3 or 6 o’clock high, usually 1 of your top turrets is useless.

  2. I already mentioned the artificial spread - i doubt that i lost in a few days my ability to aim, even if i can’t prove my observations. But you find even in the new forum a few guys which noticed that too.

  3. If you check the thread “Custom ammo belts” you will see that turret belts have usually not accurate belts, some have too much useless bullets/shells, others way too much tracers which is also not accurate.

  • Imho this is a target conflict in itself - especially if you combine this with your mentioned dive bombers with a backseat gunner and your horizontal stabilizer denies you a firing solution if you get attacked in the gunner dead zone.

  • So flying in a straight line is in itself a recipe to get killed - your requested deterrence would require either an increase in range and/or accuracy - this is pointless in a 2-seater with just one horizontal stabilizer as long as the enemy stays in your dead zone.

  • With a plane with 2 horizontal stabilizers you can use your gunners manually. I don’t see your problem.

Regarding this point i like to share this post with you:

Do a testflight with this plane and check the firing angles - you might agree that they are covering all from 4 to 8 o’clock…

Imho your assumption would make sense if we would have a reason to believe that the number of threads would draw the attention of gaijin to this topic.

If i count the number of the threads regarding Team Killing, CAS, ODL, af or midfield aaa, etc and try to identify actions of gaijin (or even responses) the result is rather disappointing (in oder to avoid the word non-existing).

I might consider to change my mind if gaijin would continue the policy of the old forum to merge identical threads, but currently this looks rather out of question.

It took ages until the mods followed my recommendation to pin the team killing policy thread - if this topic is that kind of important for you - i encourage you trying the same for this topic; maybe a “bundled” thread will change something.

Read. The. Context.

There’s an innate issue here. Gunners should not need a plane to be inside the firing arc to begin firing. Bullets themselves act as deterrence as players don’t immediately know where the deadzone is.

Gunners should fire short bursts towards the enemy if they’re just inside the deadzone.

Mate this statement (together with your tail-gunners in your OP) for ai gunners makes zero sense.

  1. Starting shooting at enemies outside of actual firing angles is waste of ammo. Even with lev 75 crews in an aced plane the reload times of some defensive weapons are way too long. So if you come back to manual gunning you run out of available ammo way too quick.
  2. There is no deterrence if ai gunners try to shoot inside their firing angles but without having a chance to hit the enemy. Inaccurate return fire is rather encouraging to continue attack runs.
  3. Hoping that incoming enemies would be not aware of actual firing angles is contradicted by ai gunners spraying like you requested - the amout of (imho way too much) tracer rounds in gunner belts would allow even a noob attacker to get an idea of dead zones.
  4. Shooting barrage fire was irl proven as waste of ammo. You might want to check the video i posted in this thread - it explains besides the tracer topic how actual aerial gunnery worked.
  5. I see no convincing point in your whole argumentation that your requests can not be fulfilled with manual gunning.

I agree that ai gunners have weaknesses (like described in my previous post) but i have serious doubts that your requests are actually useful (but i agree to disagree) and gaijin would even think about them longer than 5 seconds.

In addition to my last posts - imho bombers with small caliber defensive guns have a serious disadvantage as their ammo de-renders way too early.

Especially the 7.7 -8 mm guns are harmless at around 1.2-1.5 km. At least in theory the quad tail guns in British bombers should be effective up to 1.5 (effective firing range) to 1.8 km (if you consider an incoming enemy chasing the bomber is flying towards the bullets).

1 Like

I am not worried about the 3000 rounds of turret ammo running out.

Yes hence this thread advocating for accuracy increase I don’t understand why you’re repeating this point.

You can already do that with the current system as the gunners will stop firing.

This is just an ignorant statement.

Manual gunning is better, it is not what the purpose of a tail gunner was for. The tail gunner is meant to defend the plane while it’s bombing and in bombing action. If it can’t fulfill that purpose then why is it even modeled ingame?

This is nonsense - gunners in general are added to plane classes which are based on their designated purpose slower than pure fighters - in order to defend themselves. This has nothing to do with defending whilst bombing.

If you get caught in bombardier view by enemy aircraft you simply messed up your target approach or lost situational awareness at the most important time.

Dude - u played 3 hours in bombers in realistic battles.

All your points are showing that you have little to zero experience how to fly a bomber and how to use gunners - it is pointless to repeat your povs over and over again if you deny basic weaknesses in your logic.

I mean it’s a free world, so feel free to post whatever you want - but if you post such views in a public forum, you have to be prepared for feedback - even if you don’t appreciate it.

1 Like


Your feedback is “use manual gunners”.

This is antithetical to the post’s topic and reason for being created.

AI gunners should be able to kill enemy players without player input if the enemy plane flies in a straight line.

You require that the game plays for you - instead you play the game.

That was clear from the beginning, but thx for confirmation. The main purpose of this game is PvP action - wt is basically a plain shooter - and flying around with the option to kill players without manual input is exactly the opposite of PvP interaction.

Some time ago a guy with similar mindset asked that ai gunners in bombers strafe ground units. Another asked that his tank commander will fire automatically at enemy planes…i mean just ask for a mode which gives you without any interaction 20k SL and 3k RP just by pressing the button “to battle” and wait 8 minutes (crew lock) to press it again…

1 Like

As you stated I’m well aware of what the actual focus of the game is. If bombers had functional ai gunners maybe they would be capable of their job, bombing ground targets.

Instead the only efficient way to play them is to fly to the stratosphere or to die and get to the next match.

If you wish for the game’s systems to remain what they are advocate so. Stop making convoluted statements that try to wriggle around what you’re trying to say.

You want manual aiming to be required. I do not.

Naval has auto targeting of Air and Naval with your secondary guns. It’s understood that controlling all functions of a multi crewed vehicle would be asinine.

1 Like

You are the one requesting a buff of ai gunners - but not based on actual experience (which would give your request at least some kind of credibility), no, just for your personal convenience.

And if you shift goal posts or invent such things like distraction fire or jump from tail gunner to back seat gunner and back to tail gunner - you are the one producing one nonsense statement after another.

Therefore i kindly ask you to stop quoting me - there is a reason why i do not talk about stuff i have no clue about - use this as an example and stay within your area of expertise - and this is neither aerial warfare nor bomber / gunner game play.

1 Like

I do think there should be some sort of buff, though not back to historic levels. However, given that Gaijin, by the Skills Bonus award, has made it clear that only Kills really count for anything, I don’t expect to see any change. That’s pretty poor given that the game is marketed and sold on the premise that it has thousands of historic vehicles but customers aren’t told that many if them are almost useless. As has already been pointed out in this thread, Crew Points for additional gunners is now almost a complete waste.

Using bombers as gunships with AI gunners is unrealistic. Expecting the pilot to fly the aircraft while manning all of the gun stations is also unrealistic. AI gunners are therefore required, it’s just trying to find a more equitable balance that seems to be the problem. Of course, some folk will be against any sort of buff as they see the bombers as some sort of free pinata to ease their grind and up their K:D ratio.

At the very least, Turret Convergence (the merged aiming point of several turrets/stations) needs to be separated from Gun Convergence (the merged aiming point of one turrets guns). That would help those folk who do actually take charge of manual aiming.


Players were abusing the AI gunners’ range and accuracy in sim.

1 Like

Your main thought is that manual input should be required to have defensive fire work.

Rather than whinging about my choice not to waste time grinding a gameplay style that isn’t rewarded in War Thunder to discover the “hidden truth” of manual aiming something that is not what I’m advocating for, why don’t you defend your actual position?

Why should manual aiming be required for bomber gunner AI to be functional?

Is there no middle ground where they don’t become flying flak towers versus the current system where they are completely non-functional?

Positions like this:

and this:

simply show that you are as lazy as these kids crying to gaijin like:
“Plz do this” or “plz do that” - just pathetic.

I have zero clue what was unclear with this:

This was the polite form of:

  1. I am not interested in your nonsense.
  2. If you need somebody to talk - buy a pet.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Edit: Flagged as off topic when the main message is clear: Players want to adjust game mechanics as they are unable or unwilling to gain the necessary skill set. Therefore clearly not off-topic.

Then please don’t post in this thread further.

We’re here to have a discussion on the efficacy of tail gunners not hear you whine about someone not wanting to have to manually aim them.