SM.79 porked (or forgotten) damage model [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

MicroWave

10-05-2009, 09:34 AM

Well. The plane is in fact impossible to be shot down by any pre-1940 fighter. Even the 12 machinegun Hurri can't do the job, what about the rest of the fighters of its era, armed with 2 to 4 machine guns. I think this plane won't make it to any real online server because of this.
That is very sad...
We've been told that the patch would be made up to the Maddox quality, now we see a plane with a damage model which looks like a cheap MOD attempt...
Looks like that it has defined only the basic DM. i.e. strength of each part.
No specific spots to hit ot damage.
No fuel leaks, cut cables.
No pilot or gunners kills, neither fires.

I can create a MOD to fix tat in a day, but that is not the point.
The point is that we expected the final mod to unite the comminuty again. With such poor quality, it is reasonable that the majority will still stick with mods and previous versions....

Apart from the statement that SM.79 is a tough plane to bring down with small caliber weapons (to which I agree), everything else you said is complete bollocks.

JG52Uther

10-05-2009, 09:39 AM

Apart from the statement that SM.79 is a tough plane to bring down with small caliber weapons (to which I agree), everything else you said is complete bollocks.
Sig material! :)

mkubani

10-05-2009, 09:50 AM

A first post on this board and such a negative attitude. Ok, it's Monday...

I have just downed SM.79 in Hurricane Mk.I... So what is the problem again?

A history lesson for you:

In 1944, Bulgarian Avias B-534 attacked U.S. B-24s. They have used up all their ammo and no bomber was shot down.

Or do you think that 20-30mm canons have been introduced on fighters just because they were "cool"? :rolleyes:

Now take a Hurricane IIC and a Spitfire and let me know if you are not able to kill SM.79. And yes... try to attack from other positions than 6 o'clock.

Tipo_Man

10-05-2009, 10:21 AM

Would you please post a track here of downing a SM.79 with an I-16 type 6, Gladiator or whatever fighter of its era?

Please, post a track to prove I'm wrong...

What exactly makes this plane immune to pilot kills or fires?

Tipo_Man

10-05-2009, 10:24 AM

Now take a Hurricane IIC and a Spitfire and let me know if you are not able to kill SM.79. And yes... try to attack from other positions than 6 o'clock.

Well, you can also take a Me-262 to shoot it down.
So Italy could have simply conquered all of the world till 1941, when actually Hurricane IIC appeared...

28_Condor

10-05-2009, 05:10 PM

S!

Pal,

You can try with one more plane helping to shot down this tough plane:

I choiced one more hurri to helpme:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/hurrivssaviero1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/hurrivssaviero2.jpg

But be careful with bombers full load of bombs and fuel :)

SP!

Tipo_Man

10-05-2009, 05:40 PM

S!
Pal,
You can try with one more plane helping to shot down this tough plane:
I choiced one more hurri to helpme:

So what?
Do I need to repeat my contest setup again?
Take a fighter, which is a historical opponent for that plane - 1936.
I-16 type 5(6) - which it fought in Spain.
Gladiator - fought in Africa
Fokker - what-if
B-534 - what-if
or some other early war, non-cannon armed fighter. In fact 20mm cannons in all countries (except France) appeared after 1940...

And please, I've no responsibility if you brake your joystick in anger ;)

Fergal69

10-05-2009, 05:48 PM

Using a bf110, I got the engine to catch fire, before the wing broke off, but it took a fair amounts of hits before anything happened.

I used the Fokker DXXI against it & ran out of ammo, but the engine was leaking fuel.

The Sm.79 is a nice plane to fly & it handles well.

Wish we could have a ju2 to fly around in - that was another tough old tri motor bird......

JG52Uther

10-05-2009, 05:57 PM

Tipo bombers regularly made it home absolutely riddled with small calibre machine gun bullets.Thats why cannons were added to planes,because small calibre machine gun bullets were not able to destroy the planes easily,if at all.
But I have a feeling this is a useless argument,because surely you already know that!

robtek

10-05-2009, 07:14 PM

Did someone say "TROLL"????

150GCT_Diego

10-05-2009, 07:51 PM

Typo man, i've tried the SM79 just few hours ago, and i've been KILLED ( while operating the dorsal machine gun ) by an AI hurricane with 12 .303 machineguns.
It is not impossible, it's just exremely difficult to do with .303.
Try with 12.7 or with a couple of cannons, and you will see the result.
Then try to do the same with an he 111, and you will realize that it's the .303 that has some problems!

The SM79 was heavy armoured for it's time, and the .303 was a poor machinegun, for it's time.
Both the engine and the fuel tank of SM79 was armoured and can withstand shots from .303.

As you know, there were stories about he111 returning home with 200 bullet holes, and a fact about a couple of SM79 retuning home in addis abeba, one of whitch with 800 bullet holes, after been attacked by two hurricanes and two gladiator ( altought the gladiator was quickly left behind ).

The Fiat BR20 ( a light bomber, of the same period of the SM79 and somewhat less capable ) has something like 158 kg of armpur around the fuel tanks, and can withstand shots from machineguns up to 12.7 mm.

Cimicchi, an italian bomber pilot, wrote that seldom italian bombers was shot down by english fighters, even if they were hit and returned to base with wounded and death on board and with many holes.

Simply, the .303 machinegun wasn't up to the task ( and that's because the hurricane, with a relative thick wing, rmounted 4 cannons quite easly, and the spitfire don't).
During the battle of britain, it was dicovered by the same britains that the 4 .303 wasn't as good as 2 cannons for taking down bombers.

That's the difference! Bombers are bigger and heavy armoured, fighters don't.
For dogfight, 2 12.7 machineguns wew almost as good as 8 .303 machineguns.
For Shooting down bombers, you need cannons ( that's why almost all late war fighters has cannons or, at least, 6 12.7 machineguns ).
By the way, there is still some debate about the 6 12.7 american style machineguns, as most expert says that that wasn't the best wapon choice ( some say that 4 12.7 and 1 20 mm was the best ).

These aren't my thoughts, but are the word of Michele M. Gaetani, writted on RID ( rivista italiana difesa ) of august 1996, with bibliography to support them.

As many before me has said to you, try to engage the sm79 from ahead, or try to shoot to the pilot, or the fuel tanks ( that, by the way, lose fuel when hit, even by .303, and i've seen it by myself ).
Or change weapons, as ALL the nation during ww2 has done.
For example, can you shoot down a B29 wit just machineguns? Or will you need some more firepower?
Not to mention the twin engine heavy fighter ...

Quote :"So Italy could have simply conquered all of the world till 1941, when actually Hurricane IIC appeared..."

That means, if i've understand correctly, that a plane very difficult to shoot down with a very inefficent weapon can bring a nation to victory regardless any other condition.

During the battle of britain in 1940, the need for a more powerful weapons has created the spitfire with 20 mm guns, that has entered in service in 1941.
Not the 1941 saw the entering in service of the cannon armed spitfire because someone has decided that 1941 it's the right year.
If the battle of britain was happened, for example, a year later, than the guns probably will be pushed in service one year later.
Every new weapon will be the best for only a limited amount of time, and after that, it will be surclassed by another weapon created just because of the first new weapon.

:D

P.S. : I'm sorry for my english. :D

28_Condor

10-05-2009, 08:50 PM

S!

or some other early war, non-cannon armed fighter.

Hurri Mk1 is a non-cannon fighter for me :)

In a close image, no cannons, only bullets ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/hurrivssaviero3.jpg

But, I will try these others...

I think that is a question of hit engines, without wasting amno in another parts of plane ;)

SP!

Warhound

10-05-2009, 09:44 PM

Ask and thou shalt recieve.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/ZW9BT0NkbTgrV3l4dnc9PQ

Yes it isn't a walk in the park but it's doable, plane used was the 1935 I-16 type 5.
Tried a few times... ran out of ammo sometimes(twice i think) ,but most failed attempts were due to losing the engine or dying.
Engine smoke and fuelleaks appeared each and every time.

Rammed in the first track in that .rar but the plane was seconds away from ditching, I just kept pressing on to prove a point.
2nd track sees fire and a wing coming off shortly after and then me shooting the air to see how much ammo was left over.

I'd suggest u improve your gunnery if u NEVER got it to leak fuel or smoke at all. ;)
(I'm a pretty bad pilot and certainly not over mediocre,so if I can do it...)

edit : Seemed to have shot the planes rudder cable once but died right after so it didn't count, another run saw top and downward gunners not firing anymore shortly after the start so I assume they died. Just a little extra to rebuke in your opening post
also note this part in the 4.09 guide : Shortly after, it was adapted to be used as a torpedo bomber, role to which it was very fit, thanks to its good manoeuvrability and its ruggedness and resistance to damage.

caprera

10-05-2009, 11:19 PM

The SM79 was heavy armoured for it's time

LOL :rolleyes: I don't think you even know what you're talkin'about...

The fuselage of the SM.79 was made of a welded tubular steel frame and covered with duralumin in the forward section, duralumin and plywood on the upper fuselage surface, and fabric on all other surfaces [2] The wings were of all-wood construction, with the trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats (Handley-Page type) to offset its relatively small size. The internal structure was made of three spars, linked with cantilevers and a skin of plywood.

Thanks to Wiki...

proton45

10-06-2009, 12:51 AM

This thread is an interesting twist on the "under-modeled 50 cals" topic we usually see...now we have "over-modeled" bombers (lol).

Bulgarian

10-06-2009, 01:41 AM

Tipo_Man,
карай я по-спокойно.Всичко е направено възможно най-точно.
Личен свидетел съм,че този самолет е може би най-добре моделираният бомбардировач в целия ИЛ-2.

П.П:Ако искаш да го свалиш,не атакувай от мъртво 6 часа,а от 6 високо.
Надявам се това да помогне.

hiro

10-06-2009, 02:29 AM

I used to get super mad, knocking down bombers is hard in ace AI, but then realized there are ways to stick it to them. I got upset b/c some historical tactics didn't work. But then I realized the game has so much good points . . . and it is game and there is away to bring them down.

Il-2 bombers are hard in general ESP if you put them in vet or ace mode. Even lower settings they will get that lucky one hit major damage blow more often then not.

The problem I've had with bomber gunners is they can one hit your plane, causing engine out, or PK, or the awesome elevator / aileron cable hit, torn off parts of the wing / tail etc. Even with .50 or .30's, doesn't matter. I shall call this one hit wonder.

They also do lesser damage hits (hole the wings, wound pilot, smoke engine, crater canopy, take out some instrument panels etc).

And the slower the more quickly they can hit you with one hit wonders. I notice usually 400 km/hr during passes usually they hit you, but its not the one hit wonder, its the lesser damage. Sometimes you can get away with 300 km/ hr but they nick you pretty good. This is if you are in their firing envelope.

Also I notice once you get .5 km, their one hit wonder blows increase alot.

I can't do the Luftwaffe special of head on passes because the nose gunner on the B-24 or 17 one shots me just as I come into .5 km range (my guns are set to 350 m convergence)

Cannons helps because you can set them 300 or 400 meters conv and they work at that range (Even the Emils slow 20mms vs B-24's) and allows you to BZ a bomber from a longer range.

I find with machine guns, I can only get them to work 200 meters convergence or less (I use 150 or 100 ) and strike just before collision is imminent.

With planes like US or Hurricane is they need to come super close to the bomber to get in 200 m range (for me) to open fire.

And given the uber gunners, if you come in that close, and say like dead six or into any firing envelope inside the .5 range of the bomber, they will rip you a new one unless you are going fast like 400 km / hr fast.

Given now, that the SM 79 is modelled like a tank. It still has the uber gunner if you put it on Vet or Ace.

The SM 79 is vulnerable to head on passes (aim for the engines) as recommended. However, it does have a single gun pointing forward. So it can knock you down before you get into 300 m to start opening fire (I say 300 since convergence is 200 or 150 m and I'm at that distance when I get around to pulling the trigger).

Then you have a hurricane.

And the hurricane is A) hard to get to 400 km/hr easily B) must be inside the .5 Km death cone range to shoot C) no cannons so you gotta rake it down pretty good.

With the Hurri, you're giving the SM 79 lots of opportunity to get shot down. engine out, PK, etc.

I think the OP is using what the screenshots are showing (even though its not the OP posting them) and coming in from the rear (most bombers have sniper ability on their six) and slowing down and raking away with MG's.

And then failing that, then the bright idea sets in to BZ from altitude advantage. Hence the "impossible to bring down with pre 1940 fighter" as faster fighters are in the post 1940 planes sets / and many have Cannon

But BnZ with a 150 meter convergence range and from the weakpoint of the SM 79 (high coming in to hit the front of the engines), leaves only a snapshot to fire upon it. Also you are using machines guns. Hence the "no specific spots cheap DM model etc " because snapshots aren't as effective as tracking shots. MG's just dont damage like cannon.

And then you need patience as you set up, get to altitude, then position for another pass since the best way is a diving head on pass . . . hence the frustration and "poor quality unite the community" .

I'm not a good pilot, but I notice if I take a A8 with 30mm's or KI84c or 109 with 30 nose cannon I can bring down a B-24 vet in one or a few passes. With a Emil 109 e4 or US 50 cal planes it takes many passes on B-24 set on vet. Well the P-47 I can sometimes do it in 3.

With the B-24 diving on top of it and using cannons to pick away the wings or engines . . .

SM-79 its harder since you have to do a diving head on pass.

I think Team D did a wonderful job. Like Oleg said " Pilots win dogfights. Not airplanes. If a pilot is not particularly good, regardless of a plane, he'll always have a sinking feeling that something somewhere is wrong... and not everyone is willing to admit that the fault lies within. "

And yes the OP might be mad, but he's spreading falsehood and gutter and the IL-2 community doesn't need this.

BadAim

10-06-2009, 02:45 AM

LOL! Didn't take long did it? Same as when I get a call to fix something...."it worked fine yesterday" I bet tipo man blames the guy who changed his tire when the engine fails. Fools amuse me. Thanks Mate. I'll check in later for the next laugh.

Voyager

10-06-2009, 04:17 AM

So what?
Do I need to repeat my contest setup again?
Take a fighter, which is a historical opponent for that plane - 1936.
I-16 type 5(6) - which it fought in Spain.
Gladiator - fought in Africa
Fokker - what-if
B-534 - what-if
or some other early war, non-cannon armed fighter. In fact 20mm cannons in all countries (except France) appeared after 1940...

And please, I've no responsibility if you brake your joystick in anger ;)

The I-16 lost to it in Spain. The Gladiator couldn't do anything to it in the MTO. Even the Fairey Fulmar did do much to stop it.

It operated with impunity until Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Wildcats showed up.

The was a period in the 1930's where bombers were so far outperforming fighters that it was believed that the day of the fighter was over, and that all airwars would be fought by who could drop bombs the fastest. Planes like the SM.79, and theirgeneraly resilience against the slow poorly armed fighters of the '30's are a very large reason why everyone was using 20mm cannon or heavy machine guns by 1938.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: I suspect part of what makes the SM.79 so painful is that it's guns are using 12.7mm rounds, rather than the 7.9mm most Axis bombers use. You're getting hit by 3-4 times the firepower that an He-111 can put out, and at least twice what the Ju-88 can manage.

150GCT_Diego

10-06-2009, 08:44 AM

For Caprera.

"The fuselage of the SM.79 was made of a welded tubular steel frame and covered with duralumin in the forward section, duralumin and plywood on the upper fuselage surface, and fabric on all other surfaces"

That means that, if a shot didn't hit the steel frame, it won't cause excessive damage because:
- The tubular steel frame with fabric means that the surface isn't "working" to support the stress, and so, the facbric it's there just to give lift or for aerodinamic reason, not for structural integrity.
That's because the fabric, that resist to elongation, can't resist to compression.
So, a hole in the fabric it's just a loss in lift ( or an increase in drag, if it's on the fuselage ), NOT in structural integrity.
- The tubular steel frame with duraluminium it's more vulnerable, because the duraluminium is a working part of the fuselage ( semi monocoque fuselage, in these case ), but, again, it's the steel frame that support the "real" stress, the duraluminium just help ( even tought these help it's extremely important ).
- Same thing for the duraluminium and plywood, as before, but the plywood it's obviously less resistent to stress.

Simply, if the "cover" of the wing it's made of rigid material, it can withstand a lot of stress, because the spar, the skin and the ribs ( not sure abput these traslation, in tialian it's "centine" ) work togedet to create a closed box.
And a closed box can withstand a lot of stress more than an open box, or weight a lot less with a similar resistence.

"The wings were of all-wood construction, with the trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats (Handley-Page type) to offset its relatively small size. The internal structure was made of three spars, linked with cantilevers and a skin of plywood."

In addition, the wing of SM79 has three main spar, while normally aircraft has only two main spar, or even only one.
Having three main spar means that there isn't only one "wing box", but two, with the leading edge and the trailing edge as separate structure that can withstand torque.
That means that the wing of SM79 was extrmely strong for different reason:
- Because of the three spar arrangement.
- Because of the working skin of plywood ( the less resistent it's the skin, and the less important it is in structural integrity if it's lost).
- Because of the eavy armour carried for the engine and the fuel tanks.

So you have to hit ( and hit hard ) at least two main spar to create some serious damage, and not only the skin ( qute like the ww1 plane ... ).

These kind of structure with three main spar, was used only in italy, and only by the "Marchetti" industries.

Again, i'm sorry for my english. If something it's not clear, feel free to ask for explanation.
:D

Lucas_From_Hell

10-06-2009, 08:57 AM

Well, I've just recorded 3 tracks of me shooting down the S.M.79 in a single pass, all with the Hurricane (one with Mk.IIa, other with Mk.I).

And I've killed crewmembers, pilots, flamed engines, stopped them... If you want, I can put these on youtube...

But about the gunner, well... There's that tiny slow biplane, the S-328, that's giving me creeps. It just can't miss! I do B&Z on it with a P-51 and it (surprisingly) hits me AFTER the pass, when I'm already high and climbing, and in front of it. It does it in every single skill level. I was a little bit shocked after my P-40 was holed to death by a rookie-skilled biplane. I dive, shoot, set some holes on it, and when I'm climbing for the next one, he threshed my radiator, holed my fuel-tanks, destroyed my wing and jammed some guns. Next pass: same result.

I tested it lots of times, all with the same result. I can't fly near it anymore, I'm too scared...

mkubani

10-06-2009, 09:27 AM

Thank you guys for providing an evidence that it is possible to shoot down SM.79 with machine guns even though it is a difficult task. We appreciate it.

Lucas, yes please put it on youtube, so we can also show to other forums if people have similar claims against SM.79.

As for Letov, yes it is very deadly. I have even put it as a remark in the 4.09 PDF Guide. It's due to high (historical) rate of fire of the MGs + their flexible mount which covers most of the rear, side and even part of the upper front of the plane. Personally, I found the past tactic to use against Letov either by killing the gunner from 6 o'clock from far distance (with a plane with MGs and good convergency) first or doing head on passes from 12 o'clock high with a plane with canons. It's a slow plane, so it's not too difficult to get to the good firing position in a fighter.

Since we did not change the accurate AI gunners from 4.08, Letov became a deadly opponent. It is an area we plan to take a much closer and detail look in the future. That's why we have released Letov with this limitation for now.

Azimech

10-06-2009, 11:14 AM

I have no problem destroying a SM79 with a nice frontal or semi-frontal attack with pre war planes. The engines are quite vulnerable and catch fire easily, besides the front is not defended. Only the tediousness of flying past and making another pass is a bit annoying with the slow pre-war birds.

But yes, it's a flying tank. Nice test I used in QMB: put 16 Ace I16's against the SM79 and after that the HE111. Big difference in time, the crew in the HE111 gets slaughtered while every crewmember in the SM79 seems to have Borg-like nanoprobe armor!

Lucas_From_Hell

10-06-2009, 04:56 PM

As requested, here it is: the tracks of machine-gun armed 1940 (and pre-1940) aircraft shooting down the mighty S.M.79, compiled on a tutorial:

"S.M.79 killing for dummies" :-P

I hope it help you guys beating this undestructable flying tank. :rolleyes:

Link to YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvWwm1TqGk

Enjoy :cool:.

EDIT 2: Nevermind, audio is alright now... Bizarre.

Arrow

10-06-2009, 05:20 PM

Pwned !!! Fantastic and funny video with some nice flying and shooting, good job Lucas!!

Lucas_From_Hell

10-06-2009, 06:06 PM

Thanks, Arrow.

But nice flying and shooting? Hmm... I'm not so sure :-P

Thanks, anyway.

Baron

10-06-2009, 06:22 PM

Well, as far as i can remember, there where never ever any talk about headon passes in the orginal post, but from 6. ;)

C6_Krasno

10-06-2009, 06:49 PM

I have yet to find the mention of the 6 in the first post of this thread.

JG52Uther

10-06-2009, 06:59 PM

Brilliant Lucas,I wonder if Tipo man will be back in the thread? Perhaps not lol
Now I also know what to do when a fughter is on a head on with my SM79! ;)

Lucas_From_Hell

10-06-2009, 07:11 PM

Well, thanks mate.

Unfortunately YouTube decided to cut the soundtrack (and, together with it, the engine and bullet sounds...) I never got this issue with the videos anyway... Is my flight simulation video so important to them to cause the complete removal of the sounds?

Try to imagine it: Ride of the Valkyries starts right after the title, and when it ends, Eye of the Tiger starts. :-P

EDIT: Maybe I'll try uploading it on Vimeo. As far as I know, they aren't that irritating about STs as YouTube is.

Bulgarian

10-06-2009, 08:46 PM

Unfortunately YouTube decided to cut the soundtrack

Hello Lucas,follow the instructions in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0HIW82r5_c

YouTube is known of this issue quite well already,because most of the time the sound is cutted this way not by the YouTube staff,but a program.
After you're done with doing everything as shown in this video,your video's sound will be back.

PS:Good tutorial on attacking the SM.79.
PPS:The method shown in this video is 100% legal,if anyone is concerned.

Fearfactor

10-06-2009, 09:15 PM

If you can get that top gunner, that bird is toast, easy meat on the table. I spent a bunch of time as a top gunner in the SM.79 against I-16 5 and 6 and there were plenty of times they shot down my bomber or others in my flight. Sometimes they go down fast too, not always slowly by crippling engines and wings. Sure, it's touger to down than many bombers but it ain't impossilble like you ( topic starter ) say it is.

Lucas_From_Hell

10-06-2009, 09:32 PM

Thanks for the link, Bulgarian. But unfortunately, it's not back yet. Is this instantaneous? Maybe it's because my YouTube is in portuguese instead of english, so I added, before the brief explanation, that "the following text is written in english"... Anyway, I hope it gets solved soon.

Bulgarian

10-06-2009, 10:49 PM

Sometimes it is instantaneous,sometimes it isn't.Maybe depends on the YouTube server load.

Anyway,mission accomplished-Sound is back in your video. :)

Letum

10-06-2009, 10:49 PM

it's touger to down than many bombers

Can you qualify that?
The TB3, Ju88 andHe111 are just as hard/easy to down as the SM.79 with .303s for me.

Tipo_Man

10-07-2009, 04:23 AM

Well, looks like you had a hard time guys, don't you?

Lucas, would you post your TRACKS please? There is something... strange.

So here it is, the impervious pilot of the SM.79.
As you see, shooting from the dorsal machine gun of a He-111 from a point black range has no effect on the pilot...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/cabbin_hits1.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/dorsal.jpg

I knew the italians are tough guys.... but still.... :D

Also could somebody explain me what exactly stops the bullets here from killing the gunner and the pilots?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/gunner.jpg

Hmmm.. some thin wood stops a MG bullet?!
Hey Lucas, will you stay behind such a shield, if I shoot at you with a machine gun... :D

And here is a cutaway drawing of SM.79.

http://dida.fauser.edu/dispro/ProgettoAER/images/SM79.gif

No 52, 53, 139 are fuel tanks...
What actually protects them from getting exploded?
As you see, I put quite an amount of bullets into them... ;)

And Lucas, do your test with I-16, or something with 2-4 MGs, as I wrote... You have a whole day to make attempts. I'm sure till midnight you'll come with another smashing video. But this time, with tracks, please ;)

28_Condor

10-07-2009, 06:32 AM

S!

And Lucas, do your test with I-16, or something with 2-4 MGs, as I wrote...

SM.79 has fame of "invulnerability" during Civil War in Spain, this is hitorically correct.

"The first recorded interception of a SM.79 formation took place on 11 October 1937 when three aircraft were attacked by 12 Polikarpov I-16s (known as the ''Rata'' (Rat) to the Spanish Nationalists). One of SM.79s was damaged by repeated attacks made by the slightly faster ''Ratas'', but its defences prevented the attackers from pressing close-in attacks. All the bombers returned to base, although one had been hit by 27 bullets, many hitting the fuel tanks. A few other examples of similar interceptions occurred in this conflict, without any SM.79s being lost.
Combat experiences revealed some deficiencies in the SM.79: the lack of oxygen at high altitudes, instability, vibrations experienced at speeds over 400 km/h and other problems were encountered and sometimes solved. Gen. Valle, in an attempt to answer some of the criticisms about the ability of the aircraft to operate at night (because its wingload and other characteristics were controversial) took off from Guidonia and bombed Barcelona, a journey of six hours and 15 minutes. On this occasion the aircraft proved it had a useful range (around 1,000 km with eight 100 kg bombs, for a total gross weight of around 1,000 kg). Normally SM.79s operated from the Balearic Islands and later from mainland Spain. Hundreds of missions were performed in a wide range of different roles against Republican targets. No Fiat CR.32s were needed to escort the SM.79s, partly because the biplane fighters were too slow."

Persue SM.79 with I-16 5-6 or 10 (not in game) is non-sense

http://tripatlas.com/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79

Tipo_Man

10-07-2009, 08:10 AM

Wow 27 hits and still alive! So this amount was considered significant even by its pilots!
I think the one I've posted had suffered several times more... ;)
Maybe 27 are the hits only in the fuel tank...

Nice information, thanks for sharing it.
But...

I'm still waiting for an explanation what exactly makes SM.79 impervious to light MG fire, compared to other bombers of the era:
SB
DB-3
Blenheim
He-111

They all share common feature, like unprotected fuel tanks, except He-111 ( in the wing root).
No pilot armour.
There is nothing to stop a bullet, if it doesn't hit a spar.
And these bombers do burn and get shot down...

In fact during BoB Germany lost most of its bombers to the "obsolete" light MG's of british fighter. And He-111 and especially Ju-88 were more advanced and well protected aircrafts than SM.79.
They both have self-sealing fuel tanks for example...

I'm still waiting for the tracks from xxx_from_Hell.
It is quite interesting for me how one can kill the pilot from dead 6, since I can't do it even with a .50 cal bullet. Oh, in fact I can, just a simple change in the appropriate place is needed ;)
And cutting the wing with a short burst... Very interesting...
Could the rest of you do it ? ;)

Lucas_From_Hell

10-07-2009, 08:14 AM

As you wish, mate.

Here they are:

http://www.4shared.com/file/138199860/9df3f5b7/SM79_sdown.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/138199852/58d0c758/SM79_-_sdown_2.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/138199872/6ae6a5da/SM79_sdown_3_-_PK.html

Now, if you don't believe, then I don't know what else to do...

Oh, and about cutting the wing with a short burst, I didn't. The engine exploded, ripping the wing off ;).

proton45

10-07-2009, 08:39 AM

Well, looks like you had a hard time guys, don't you?

Lucas, would you post your TRACKS please? There is something... strange.

So here it is, the impervious pilot of the SM.79.
As you see, shooting from the dorsal machine gun of a He-111 from a point black range has no effect on the pilot...

I knew the italians are tough guys.... but still.... :D

Also could somebody explain me what exactly stops the bullets here from killing the gunner and the pilots?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/gunner.jpg

Hmmm.. some thin wood stops a MG bullet?!
Hey Lucas, will you stay behind such a shield, if I shoot at you with a machine gun... :D

And Lucas, do your test with I-16, or something with 2-4 MGs, as I wrote... You have a whole day to make attempts. I'm sure till midnight you'll come with another smashing video. But this time, with tracks, please ;)

Hello, Tipo_Man...
Do you have "TRACKS" for the pictures you posted? I'd love to check them out...

Tipo_Man

10-07-2009, 08:44 AM

Hello, Tipo_Man...
Do you have "TRACKS" for the pictures you posted? I'd love to check them out...

Unfortunately, till Friday, won't be able to post them.
But it won't be a problem to recreate that picture.
In conf.ini set:
Arcade=1
and start shooting...

KG26_Alpha

10-07-2009, 10:06 AM

Hmm

I've never been one for posting screen shots and tracks of how to shoot things down, but this threads typical of one seen many times over and over, the years.
Stukas suffered the worst years ago due to whining from DF servers trying to recreate BoB maps on Crimea using the Stuka B-2 Eastern front as a BoB Stuka, consequentially its DM was weakened so Hurris could set them on fire and kill them in their droves, I hope the SM 79 DM doesn't go the same way.

I have no problem downing this aircraft with any Mg's

Poor tactics will always lead to pilots moaning about plane being too tough.

Here's a screen shot of a head on pass using a I53 M-62 Arming 4 x 7.62mm mg

Settings are the usual realistic gunnery on etce etc

After a single headon pass slightly to the left of the SM79 with rudder applied, SM 79 drops payload and is out of the mission it eventually spirals down and crashes, by which time you would have moved on to the next target.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/Headonpass.jpg

Track below

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YM2NBP82

Lucas_From_Hell

10-07-2009, 10:50 AM

110% agreed, Alpha.

I just can't understand why some IL-2 fans love to whine that much... Unless you hacked some government computers, there's little chance of you having access to more (and more reliable) information than the developers. Doing a game or an official add-on is way different of making those ugly franken-planes with bizarre flight and damage models some still claim to be better than the originals...

Why to whine? "Man, the damage model is horrible! I can't kill it!" Be a man and go train some gunnery or find a way around the "porked" damage model of the planes that only fails with you because they hate you so much that they made you download a different version than the rest of the world, so that you would die trying to shoot down the S.M.79. Need examples? I sent you the tracks you asked for, and you didn't answered me so far. I also put the video on YouTube, for easy viewing, but of course, when something is different than you expected, it's always cheating or video editing...

Please, if you can't shoot a 1936 bomber down, hang yourself, or improve your gunnery, or go fly those boilers of Flight Simulator. We have prooved you it can be done, so stop the whining and, please, admit you were wrong. It's better for everyone.

By the way, it's funny how people sometimes get irritated about jokes :grin: Please don't take me badly, mate. The vid was just a way of having fun ;)

Tree_UK

10-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Nice Track Alpha, I know we all want realism but surely that is down to how the pilot fly's, maybe an inexperienced pilot would attack a bomber from behind and then just stay there hoping to get a kill, but in doing so taking hits himself. From most books I have read most pilots would make a pass on an aircraft hoping to get critical damage and then break off and find another target very much like Alpha has done here, obviously attacking in a position that would be least likely for you to sustain damage would be prefered.

Fearfactor

10-07-2009, 12:34 PM

S!

SM.79 has fame of "invulnerability" during Civil War in Spain, this is hitorically correct.

"The first recorded interception of a SM.79 formation took place on 11 October 1937 when three aircraft were attacked by 12 Polikarpov I-16s (known as the ''Rata'' (Rat) to the Spanish Nationalists). One of SM.79s was damaged by repeated attacks made by the slightly faster ''Ratas'', but its defences prevented the attackers from pressing close-in attacks. All the bombers returned to base, although one had been hit by 27 bullets, many hitting the fuel tanks. A few other examples of similar interceptions occurred in this conflict, without any SM.79s being lost.
Combat experiences revealed some deficiencies in the SM.79: the lack of oxygen at high altitudes, instability, vibrations experienced at speeds over 400 km/h and other problems were encountered and sometimes solved. Gen. Valle, in an attempt to answer some of the criticisms about the ability of the aircraft to operate at night (because its wingload and other characteristics were controversial) took off from Guidonia and bombed Barcelona, a journey of six hours and 15 minutes. On this occasion the aircraft proved it had a useful range (around 1,000 km with eight 100 kg bombs, for a total gross weight of around 1,000 kg). Normally SM.79s operated from the Balearic Islands and later from mainland Spain. Hundreds of missions were performed in a wide range of different roles against Republican targets. No Fiat CR.32s were needed to escort the SM.79s, partly because the biplane fighters were too slow."

Persue SM.79 with I-16 5-6 or 10 (not in game) is non-sense

http://tripatlas.com/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79I'm not on the side of the "too tough" whiners but this historical excerpt your are quoting proves nothing except possibly that the I-16 pilots were cowardly or did not know how to properly press an attack against a bomber. They certainly seem a bit skittish and lacking in determination and aggressiveness. The fact that only 27 bullets were landed drives home this point. That's typically only three seconds of fire time for a machine gune with an average rate of fire. And possilby only two seconds for a Russian mg, which had faster rates of fire than average mg's. Also, lack of experience on the part of the I-16 pilots might have factored in. Also one must remember that there was little if any participation by either the Spanish or Russians in W.W.I, especially in the realm of aviation.

At this time in history, little was known yet or developed yet as far as properly attacking heavy gunner defended bombers. Some knowledge was gained in W.W.I but this was apparently lost information or the tactics were simply not studied by the I-16 pilots in question.

And considering that virtual pilots playing this game are likely to be far braver since their lives are not actually in jeopardy in a game, it should be likely that they'd have a much better chance of success than the real life pilots in the Spanish civil war. So did the SM.79 have such "invulnerability" or was there a lack of something on the part of the enemy fighter pilots? Maybe they just wanted to go home to their wives and kids and were not heavily into what they were fighting for? That account indicates the fighter pilots stood off very badly. Unwarranted fear of attacking the Marchetti might have persisted throughout that war so the supposed invulnerability of this bomber might have been wildly exaggerated. If a bomber is never attacked like it should be attacked, how could one properly gauge the real strength of the bomber in question?

satan

10-07-2009, 12:57 PM

I owe an apology.

I believed that when i collided several times (rammed) wing to wing with my fighter ( hurricane destroyed) it was that the sm79 was too strong.

I now believe that to be incorrect.

I have been doing testing with tracks i assume that what had happened was the top gunner had critically wounded my plane at point blank range and i mistook this for my aircraft hitting the sm79's wings.

That rear top gun is a real killer (see attached track)

It's a 12.7mm correct???

regards
Satan

Letum

10-07-2009, 01:42 PM

Anyone noticed how easy it is to down with 20mm rounds? (Very!)

150GCT_Diego

10-07-2009, 02:33 PM

Typo man, i'm sorry, but it's all your fault.

Either you don't know how to shoot or you have a bugged version of the game, in whitch Your weapon didn't work OR the SM79 it's invulnerable.

Really, i have tried to kill the pilot with ONLY the ventral gunner of another SM79, and i did it twice, with another kill with a side gunner, and here is the record ( the firs plane is already diving for the ground, but you can clearly see the pilot still inside and the parachute of the other crewmembers in the background.
The second plane just exploded ( but again, you can clearly see that the pilot's hatch is not ejected), and the third one is a clear pilot ( and second pilot too if i remember correct ) kill.
You can still see him in his seat.
I don't know how to post it on youtube, but i authorize anyone who know how to do, it to post it, to show everyone that even a novice pilot ( me ), entered in a fighting group from less than 3 months ( and with only a dozen of lessons ) and with very few flying skills and gunnery skills can shoot down an SM79 with ONLY ONE 12.7 machinegun.
Obviously i set the plane for be my wingman, so i can easly shoot to them from the front, carefully aiming for the pilot.
I did that to check the damage model ( and because, as i said before, i am not a great pilot ).

But you are right in one of your older post, 27 shots taken it's not that much, and nearly not as much as the 200 holes with whitch th he111 came back from London's raid.
Probably 300 or 400 may build a little legend of a sturdy airplane, and 500 or 600 could build a normal legend.
But sadly, SM79 can't show such kind of record.

It can only show a plane returning in Addis Abeba With 800 holes after been attacked by 2 .303 armed hurricanes and 2 gladiator.
In defence of the english plane, i have to say that there were 2 SM 79, and hat the two gladiators were quikly left behind.
And that's just one of the stories about SM79.

As i have said a couple of pages before.

So, we started with an invulnerabile plane that can't be shoot down non damaged or it's crew killed, proceeded up to a plane that is possible to damage ( black smoke from the engine, fuel leak and wounded or dead crewmembers ) with relative ease, but the pilot it's still invulnerable, and then ended to a "normal" plane, just a little fast and well armed, and with a pilot thath can't be killed shooting from dead six ( in these last case i can't say anything, beacause i don't know how to check it by myself or try to do it by myself [remember: i'm not that great pilot] ).

By the way, from the initial
"No specific spots to hit ot damage.
No fuel leaks, cut cables.
No pilot or gunners kills, neither fires."
i think that'sa good progress.

P.S. :
The ZIP file contain the track for il2, i hope it work correctly.
And again, i'm sorry for my english

Tipo_Man

10-07-2009, 03:25 PM

150GCT_Diego

10-07-2009, 04:13 PM

Yes i can.

In one of the tracks, the central engine of SM79 catches fire after less than 1 second of fire from the ventral machinegun of an HE111 H2.

In the last two tracks, the pilot or the secodn pilot are killed after not so mutch shooting.
You can clearly see the pilot not jumping away when the plane start diving.

But why missing track? The .Zip file was corrupted or has it not loaded?

28_Condor

10-07-2009, 06:44 PM

S!

I'm not on the side of the "too tough" whiners but this historical excerpt your are quoting proves nothing except possibly that the I-16 pilots were cowardly or did not know how to properly press an attack against a bomber.

You need good speed, you need speed to exceed the bomberr and to be able to catch it. The I-16 had not this speed.

The republican pilots were not lacking courage: they were fighting against more advanced and more numerous aeroplanes. Resources were lacking, including bullets and fuel.

SP!

Warhound

10-07-2009, 09:16 PM

And Lucas, do your test with I-16, or something with 2-4 MGs, as I wrote...

Conveniently happened to read over my post and tracks I assume?
I'll relink it just so u can't miss them this time.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=108469&postcount=15

JG52Uther

10-07-2009, 09:40 PM

Stop wasting your time with him,he's not listening,just laughing at you all tieing yourselves in knots with proof and tracks!

28_Condor

10-08-2009, 04:46 AM

S!

Well, Gladiator rules at last!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/GladiatorVsSM79-01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/GladiatorVsSM79-02.jpg

I heard about Gladiator shot down SM79 over Malta but I didint believe!

Now I believe :!::!::!:

i.e., the plane is not "invencible", just have a very accurate and historically DM!

Thanks very MUch Team Daidalos!

Cheers!

Fearfactor

10-10-2009, 02:46 AM

S!

You need good speed, you need speed to exceed the bomber and to be able to catch it. The I-16 had not this speed.

The republican pilots were not lacking courage: they were fighting against more advanced and more numerous aeroplanes. Resources were lacking, including bullets and fuel.

SP!So are you saying then that the speeds of either the I-16, the SM.79 or both are wrong in the game?? Because if the real life I-16 could not catch the SM.79 then why does the I-16 in game catch it easily? All of them from the I-16 type 5 to the type 24 will zip up the the butt of the SM.79 in no time without even trying in the game. Heck, look at the pics the dude posted showing the Gladiator catching the SM.79, which is far slower than any I-16!!

So is this wrong? Should the SM.79 be faster or the I-16 slower? So far nothing you say speaks much except that you are a SM.79 fanboi and are biased.

But yes, I agree with the general consensus that the damage model of the SM.79 as it is currently, is acceptable and not too tough. So I will agree with you on that level.

ElAurens

10-10-2009, 05:39 AM

The P 39 D2 will dispatch the SM 79 quite easily.

As will the P38.

The Beaufighter tears it to pieces.

Voyager

10-10-2009, 07:46 AM

So are you saying then that the speeds of either the I-16, the SM.79 or both are wrong in the game?? Because if the real life I-16 could not catch the SM.79 then why does the I-16 in game catch it easily? All of them from the I-16 type 5 to the type 24 will zip up the the butt of the SM.79 in no time without even trying in the game. Heck, look at the pics the dude posted showing the Gladiator catching the SM.79, which is far slower than any I-16!!

So is this wrong? Should the SM.79 be faster or the I-16 slower? So far nothing you say speaks much except that you are a SM.79 fanboi and are biased.

But yes, I agree with the general consensus that the damage model of the SM.79 as it is currently, is acceptable and not too tough. So I will agree with you on that level.

From the 4.09 patch notes: Max speed listed of the SM.79 is 430km/h at 4000m
From Il-2 Compare, Max Speed of the Gladiator is ~ 410km/h at ~4000m
From the 4.09 patch notes, Max speed of the I-16 5 is 445km/h at 2500m

My guess is the AI SM.79 is just flying in default bomber mode: cruise at 300km/h, and turn occasionally. I suspect if you tried to fly against them in a scramble type mission, you'd have a bad time catching them.