F4u-4 and F8F

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

in addition, its in-game weapons are much more effective than the real life performance, and as you might guess, the AI are unaffected by the limitations of little things like a standard convergence.

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.

Originally Posted by horseback

If you're flying Japanese aircraft, you will find that in general they are more manageable to fly than the USN fighters; much less trimming, no nose dropping as speed increases, don't overheat as quickly and they will go exactly where you point them if you keep the 'ball' centered--and the instruments are wonderfully clear and correct

Strange. I find that the engines on the Zero overheat fairly quickly, although they also cool down fairly quickly, too.

Other than that, the A6M and Ki-43 series are a joy to fly. I assumed that was because both planes were noted for their crisp handling - at least at low speeds.

Originally Posted by horseback

IMHO, the Japanese FMs are almost all overoptimistic, period. Away from the carriers and major bases like Rabaul or Saipan, the maintenance was poor to non-existent

I can believe this, but do you have data to prove it?

I do know that once the U.S. started hitting the home islands in 1944-45, Japanese airframe and engine quality dropped badly. Likewise, fuel quality was poor. (At least per anecdotes in Saburo Sakai's autobiography)

Two of my big wishes for some future IL2 patch are:

a) The ability to specify 100 or 87 (or whatever) octane fuel for planes.

b) The ability for mission builders or server admins to degrade aircraft performance (maybe using a slider or percentage increment) to simulate battle damage, poor maintenance or overall wear.

[Fighterace]

It's a real crying shame that the "Dash 4" Corsair and Bearcats cant be added to IL-2

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I have to wonder if 0.30 caliber/5.62mm guns aren't overpowered in general in the game.

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by IceFire

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

Examples:
Every aircraft in IL2 1946.







.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

Perhaps it's related to gunnery accuracy, but many times I've been shot down (PK or engine fire) flying against planes equipped with single 0.30/5.62 mm flexible gun positions. Sometimes I've been stupid and have been making almost dead astern attacks without manuevering, but a few times I've gotten zapped while doing things properly and making head-on or high-side high deflection shots.

Also, it seems like light caliber guns are a bit too effective at getting control surface critical hits.

Of course, on the other hand, flying planes like the Ki-43 or Hurricane Mk I is a challenge due to their light armament. But, that's sort of realistic since it reflects a conscious armament decision by the planes' builders which didn't work out so well in reality.

Originally Posted by IceFire

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect.

Hmm. I thought that each bullet is modeled as an "arrow" which penetrates through the plane model, like in "arcade mode". If it intersects with a vital system, there's a chance for a "critical hit." If it hits armor, it gets slowed or blocked. That's about as realistic as you can get without modeling things like explosive shell/bullet bursts, bullet fragmentation, or deflection/ricochet effects.

Originally Posted by IceFire

Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

Isn't this a problem with individual planes (especially the older ones) rather than a systemic problem? Since I haven't looked at the DM for the various planes I don't know.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

Originally Posted by IceFire

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

Strange. You'd think that the US military would have collected this sort of information. They did pretty extensive testing of just about every weapon they captured.

Originally Posted by IceFire

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

Strange, since it's at least possible to get ballistic data for Japanese weapons.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Perhaps it's related to gunnery accuracy, but many times I've been shot down (PK or engine fire) flying against planes equipped with single 0.30/5.62 mm flexible gun positions. Sometimes I've been stupid and have been making almost dead astern attacks without manuevering, but a few times I've gotten zapped while doing things properly and making head-on or high-side high deflection shots.

Also, it seems like light caliber guns are a bit too effective at getting control surface critical hits.

Of course, on the other hand, flying planes like the Ki-43 or Hurricane Mk I is a challenge due to their light armament. But, that's sort of realistic since it reflects a conscious armament decision by the planes' builders which didn't work out so well in reality.



Hmm. I thought that each bullet is modeled as an "arrow" which penetrates through the plane model, like in "arcade mode". If it intersects with a vital system, there's a chance for a "critical hit." If it hits armor, it gets slowed or blocked. That's about as realistic as you can get without modeling things like explosive shell/bullet bursts, bullet fragmentation, or deflection/ricochet effects.



Isn't this a problem with individual planes (especially the older ones) rather than a systemic problem? Since I haven't looked at the DM for the various planes I don't know.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:



Strange. You'd think that the US military would have collected this sort of information. They did pretty extensive testing of just about every weapon they captured.



Strange, since it's at least possible to get ballistic data for Japanese weapons.

So you're probably talking more about turret gunners which used to badly suffer from and still have some slight issues with being oddly accurate. These days TD has made them much less accurate to the point where its much more realistic... they still make the odd shot that you can either count as lucky or impossible. But this is a different story than normal gunnery as the bullet is hitting some of the vulnerable sections of the plane... the engine, the cockpit, etc. The heavy machine guns in particularly would be devastating and control damage is just the sort of thing that you might expect from bomber firing at you as you hover near their six.

I use the 109 as an example but yes this problem is pervasive with all planes. Some systems are modelled. Others are simply not. Every single bullet fired is calculated and tracked and when they hit an aircraft it is possible for them to hit a subsystem... absolutely. The DM system for IL-2 was, in its day, very good. The problem is that some systems don't exist in the model... the radiator systems for example. So even when you put a .50cal through that sub section you aren't doing all that much damage as there's nothing to hit.

The machine guns do structural damage too but not like the explosive rounds on the cannons. So IL-2's damage model is largely biased towards heavy cannons in my experience... this is something I'd consider general knowledge amongst the veterans in particular. It has gotten better... if you only started playing 2-3 years ago then you haven't seen what we used to have to deal with

If the US did collect information on Japanese weaponry its not easily recovered. I haven't been able to find it on any web resources anyways. The best I've found is a site with some of the individual shell details but not enough to reconstruct the guns accurately.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by IceFire

That's interesting... most people consider them to be chronically underpowered. Why would you think that?

The reason for the feeling of them being underpowered is due to the lack of a really complex damage modeling system so weapons that do a lot of structural damage are getting most of the benefit and other weapons that do internal systems damage are not getting as much of an effect. Example... radiator cooling systems are not fully modeled so you can shoot a 109 in the radiator with little real effect.

The problem with the Japanese guns is twofold:

1) Lack of sources of detailed information on weapons and correct belting

2) The in-game guns use close approximations of whatever the Japanese were using and often use the German equivalent.

The Type 99 20mm cannon in-game is a MG-FF/M benefitting from the German weapons slightly higher fire rate, much higher muzzle velocity (although still low), and is belted with the Mine round of which I doubt the Japanese were using. There were actually two Type 99 cannons used during the war and later model Zeros had the 99-2 fitted with an even lower fire rate but much higher muzzle velocity.

Sorry for the sidetrack

In my experience, any gun is going to be underpowered if I'm the one firing it...and if it is being fired at me, then it is undoubtedly overpowered.

I recently was re-reading Fire In the Sky, by Eric Bergerud. In it, he mentions that the Zero's cannon were originally license built MG-FFs. If they were slower firing than the German models, he doesn't say, but the LW moved exclusively to MG151/20s pretty quickly when it became possible. I seem to recall from possibly other sources that later 20mm cannon models the Japanese used were literally scaled up Browning designs, identical to the US M2, just bigger. I recall that the display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC certainly reflected this.

In any event, the Japanese had issues with their cannon having very different ballistics and trajectory from their light machine guns, and found that the cannon were less effective in their favored close-in maneuvering combat; it seems that the cannon rounds often went somewhere different from the MG rounds if you fired during high-G turns (they were slower firing and <probably> started firing a fraction of a second later than the MGs).

cheers

horseback

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by horseback

In my experience, any gun is going to be underpowered if I'm the one firing it...and if it is being fired at me, then it is undoubtedly overpowered.

I recently was re-reading Fire In the Sky, by Eric Bergerud. In it, he mentions that the Zero's cannon were originally license built MG-FFs. If they were slower firing than the German models, he doesn't say, but the LW moved exclusively to MG151/20s pretty quickly when it became possible. I seem to recall from possibly other sources that later 20mm cannon models the Japanese used were literally scaled up Browning designs, identical to the US M2, just bigger. I recall that the display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC certainly reflected this.

In any event, the Japanese had issues with their cannon having very different ballistics and trajectory from their light machine guns, and found that the cannon were less effective in their favored close-in maneuvering combat; it seems that the cannon rounds often went somewhere different from the MG rounds if you fired during high-G turns (they were slower firing and <probably> started firing a fraction of a second later than the MGs).

cheers

horseback

So you're actually talking about two weapons there

The Type 99 used by the Japanese Navy is derived from the Oerlikon FF of which the MG-FF is also derived. So they share a similar parentage but with some unique attributes of their own. The biggest difference here is that the Germans used the Mine shell ammunition whereas I don't think the Japanese did... using AP and HE rounds in some sort of combination.

The Browning .50cal scaled up into a cannon is the Japanese Army Ho-5 20mm cannon which was probably the best of the Japanese cannons used in the war. This cannon is actually modelled in IL-2. How well I'm not sure... but it is present in the game files. You'll find it on the Ki-84 and Ki-100.

The Japanese Army and Navy were highly independent structures sharing very little in the way of aircraft and aircraft armaments so there is a huge long list of machine guns and cannons... of which very few are represented in any capacity in IL-2 1946. There is even a variety of different guns used in IL-2 1946 that were chosen to represent the missing guns... the same gun is represented by the MG17 in the nose of the Zero and the Vickers K in the nose of the D3A Val and the Browning .30 in the nose of the Ki-27 and Ki-43. It's a mess!

[Laurwin]

Ouch just had a bad game vs those late war Japanese monster planes (including infamous heavy cannon 30mm ki84).

What could i have done differently in corsair-d?

Well we were using " kinda " bnz tactics. More like vertical aand horizontal turnfighting to be honest.

I got couple kills and couple share-kills.

Then i died making a pass at a betty bomber g4m. I should have dropped to his low six to avoid rear gunner I think, it doesnt have a botton gunner rite?

But even those kills against japanese monster ac could still be made with bnz, and keeping energy high. Also perhaps, corsair might have advatage at higher alt? (we were low-med alt)

Gunnery is more difficult.imo, with CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT. I mean you can hardly see thru it, where the.bandit actually is flying to. I always liked p-47-d-27 gunsite more.

So mainly enemy acs were ki84 30mm, and j2m raiden. I could have taken p38 L but ive heard that its quite bad vs those ki84s (i remember bigsilverhotdog made video he said p38 is outclassed - defensive choices video)

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

Ouch just had a bad game vs those late war Japanese monster planes (including infamous heavy cannon 30mm ki84).

What could i have done differently in corsair-d?

Well we were using " kinda " bnz tactics. More like vertical aand horizontal turnfighting to be honest.

I got couple kills and couple share-kills.

Then i died making a pass at a betty bomber g4m. I should have dropped to his low six to avoid rear gunner I think, it doesnt have a botton gunner rite?

But even those kills against japanese monster ac could still be made with bnz, and keeping energy high. Also perhaps, corsair might have advatage at higher alt? (we were low-med alt)

Gunnery is more difficult.imo, with CONGESTED NAVY GUNSIGHT. I mean you can hardly see thru it, where the.bandit actually is flying to. I always liked p-47-d-27 gunsite more.

So mainly enemy acs were ki84 30mm, and j2m raiden. I could have taken p38 L but ive heard that its quite bad vs those ki84s (i remember bigsilverhotdog made video he said p38 is outclassed - defensive choices video)

The Ki-84, particularly given the modelling that it has in IL-2, holds all of the cards against the Corsair except for durability and by the amount of firepower it can carry around. The Ki-84 as modelled assumes best operating condition and so it has a higher top speed, better climb rate, better turn rate, similar roll rate, etc. The J2M3 is the same and basically holds all of the same advantages.

The Corsair can soak up a lot more damage than both of these and it can carry a hell of a lot more weaponry for ground attack but as far as fighter vs fighter it is outclassed. If the Ki-84 had an additional version modelled assuming frontline conditions the performance difference would be much less... but the Ki-84 is an exceptional fighter.

Note the Ki-84-Ic with 30mm cannons may have never even seen combat so this isn't a purely historical match either. With the 30mm cannons he goes from owning the battle to domination in a 1 v 1 situation.

Your best bet is to take additional time to climb to a position of advantage and use sweeping attacks in a coordinated fashion. With energy advantage you can force him to evade and with team tactics you can ensure that no matter what way he breaks there will always be a Corsair in firing position. One or two glancing hits near the wing roots and his fuel tanks will light on fire. The J2M3 is a smaller target and a little bit tougher but no less vulnerable so exploit their weakness in toughness and make sure you can get some rounds on target.

Also the F4U-1C is probably your best option Corsair wise against these top level Japanese fighters. The four 20mm cannons will explode them rapidly.

Also the P-38L Late with the extra boost on the engines is actually a decent option. It'll be faster than both at most or all altitudes... it suffers by being a big target and somewhat less agile but if you're very good with the P-38 then you can manage your energy well and out perform them. The P-51 would be a more solid match here as well.