Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Aren't they? If I shoot B-17s, they rarely shed wings, and their tail section is pretty tough, too. Most of the B-17s going down have fires in the fuel tanks.

I'm thinking more of B-17 vs. Bf-109G. But, then, many marks of the Gustav were optimized for bomber killing and carried 20 mm or 30 mm cannons. So, I guess that I can't complain about realism if a B-17 attacked by an ace AI or good human player loses a wing due to 3-4 closely placed 30 mm shots in the wing root.

But, for something like Ki-84 (with 20mm cannons) vs. a B-29, it still seems unreasonable for stricken bombers to lose their wings.

I agree that fires in the fuel tanks is the way that I get most of my heavy bomber kills (other than the odd lucky shot to the cockpit with a head-on initial pass). With cannon fire, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. But, with HMG fire, it almost seems like they burn too easily.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I can hit with percentages that would make Marseille blush(and compared to others in this game I'm still a poor shot).
So basically I do not think the damage modeling in it self is the problem, we, and maybe the AI are. We hit too well.

Perhaps. Obviously, on-line players who have been flying every night for a decade have way more gunnery experience than any real WW2 pilot could have ever amassed. But, there are also a lot of average to crap occasional players - both on-line and off-line.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Another thing that works against the Jug is its size

Historically, this made the P-47 easier to see and easier to shoot, so that's perfectly accurate. I can't complain there, even if I'm flying one.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Hmm, early to mid war I find them at least decent, and considering armament on the early P-40s, the Italian planes, Gladiators -they are enough to do the job

Since I fall into the "average to crap" range, I have trouble hitting the sweet spots to take down bombers, especially when trying to get sufficient "concentration of fire" on a particular part. Even so, I find that Ju-87 and Ju-52 burn nicely. He-111 are a bit tougher. Ju-88 are very tough prey if you're hunting them using just .303 MG, but that is as it should be. After all, they were stressed for dive bombing!

I also wish that it was possible to set the convergence of different pairs of guns at slightly different ranges to get a broader "kill zone." It would help my accuracy not only with the early British fighters, but also the American fighters.

I can see why the Soviets and late-war Germans standardized on cannons - they're easier for an unskilled pilot to use!

[RegRag1977]

Originally Posted by JtD

So, even in the worst bomber vs. fighter encounters (from bomber perspective), it is about 2 bombers lost for every fighter lost. Why do you expect to take on 8 vs. 1 odds and end up killing everything without being harmed?

Well, i'd say this is a good remark.

I think it is a good thing to give good skills to AI even if it is not "historical". After all what we do when playing the sim is not historical (we can train without danger, reach hit rates from 7% to 30%, we don't even feel the pain when we are injured lol etc) we cannot let AI only with historical skill, otherwise it would not be challenging at all and then it is the combat situation that will not be historical, for there will be no danger.

The realism isn't sometimes in history, but it is in trying to reproduce the danger of a war situation.

I agree with most of what has been said by Horseback, however, historcally, nothing flying was easy meat for a WW2 pilot (unless he was a great ace), and this must be represented in game, with AI skill improving with years (BTW that's why i'm not really happy with fighter AI ace aiming in 4.12, it was so much better in the previous patch).

Bomber defensive fire during WW2 were as described by Horseback, but still the majority of fighter pilots weren't ace and did not even have a single kill.
We cannot pretend we are in WW2 when we run IL2. A sim, has to make us feel the danger of a combat situation: IL2 does this well and still we have the confortable choice to decide whether we take the risk or not.

Compared to the real WW2 combats, what we have in IL2 is immensely easier.