Ok Im convinced: The IL-2 is WAY too over spec.

[mattmanB182]

It actually says, in the link I posted earlier, that the thickest part of the armor could only withstand DEFLECTING blows from a larger round, not DIRECT impact.

Wouldnt my 109's 20mm be considered large?

Perhaps you are a darn good pilot who knows the perfect angle to take planes out....most are average. It is very tough for the average pilot to take these things out.

And FYI, one of my team mates attacked from the side in his Spit while I came from the rear. IL-2 Did not go down in that sequence.

Just because YOU can take them down with regularity doesnt mean they are not over spec. It is a known fact that they were vulnerable to attack from fighters.

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by Lexandro

Was it the Spitfire picture, or was it my well reasoned and contructed argument that gave it away ? lol

So just because your from the UK, your opinions are superior to everyone elses? Shows a lot about your character.

[Lexandro]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

So just because your from the UK, your opinions are superior to everyone elses? Shows a lot about your character.

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

PS; Personal attacks wont get you very far, as you have simply confused me with someone who gives a ****.

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by Lexandro

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

I asked you a simple question. I am not stressed at all. I have provided sources to back my point and all you have provided is a little anecdote from your personal battles on this game.

I have every right to discuss faults in the game with the hope that they may be one day corrected. If you bothered to read all of the posts you would see that I am not the only person with this trouble.

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by Lexandro

You sir need to take some stress management classes and get a sense of humour. It was a JOKE, thats why I laughed at the end.

PS; Personal attacks wont get you very far, as you have simply confused me with someone who gives a ****.

You speak of personal attacks? Didnt you call me....a meme? I have not called you anything nor attacked you. If me asking you to clarify a statement that turned out to be a joke was a personal attack, then I suggest you get over your paranoia. And yourself for that matter.

As I said before I have proven my point with links to articles.

[Lexandro]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

I asked you a simple question. I am not stressed at all. I have provided sources to back my point and all you have provided is a little anecdote from your personal battles on this game.

I have every right to discuss faults in the game with the hope that they may be one day corrected. If you bothered to read all of the posts you would see that I am not the only person with this trouble.

You did not ask a simple question, you made a personal attack on my character because I made a quip. I have no problems with your intention of discussing aspects of the game.

All you have done is make a point about the real aircraft not having any rear gunner armouring. How is this actually relevant to your point that the aircraft is OP in BoP? Your stating that because someone you played was winning in the IL2 that somehow it was to good? Or that because in RL rear gunners had the life expectancy of a mayfly that in the game, the aircraft should stop shooting you?

You have done nothing yourself other than provide anecdotal evidence of an issue with the aircraft. And my point is that I find it completely contrary to what you describe. The simple fact is that no matter how good you are your not the best, neither am I. You simply got outplayed by a better gamer, pure and simple yet refuse to accept it and move on, and instead blame the aircraft for your failure.

[mattmanB182]

Its not about winning or losing. I was just frustrated because I got many hits on the aircraft and it did not go down. My team mates did also.

Why would facts about the actual aircraft not matter? Is this not a sim?

There are a few posters here having the same trouble as me, yet only you saying you have no trouble.

So just because You have no trouble with IL-2 in the game, it doesnt need to be fixed.

[Lexandro]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

Its not about winning or losing. I was just frustrated because I got many hits on the aircraft and it did not go down. My team mates did also.

Why would facts about the actual aircraft not matter? Is this not a sim?

There are a few posters here having the same trouble as me, yet only you saying you have no trouble.

So just because You have no trouble with IL-2 in the game, it doesnt need to be fixed.

No what Im suggesting is that people like yourself having the trouble are not targetting the IL2 in the correct fashion. Facts about the aircraft do matter but I rather think the devs would be more clued up on the IL series of aircraft than you are ( no offence), and therefor the flight and damage model would be as close to correct as physically possible in the game.

If your constantly sitting in an aircrafts 6 when it has a rear turret firing at you, then you deserve to loose its that simple. Anyone who plays the game in an IL can figure out its lines of attack and adjust accordingly.

The example I gave about BnZ attacks shows the correct way to target and take out these aircraft. You couple that with a wingman who flank attacks or hits it in the belly and its good night vienna.

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by Lexandro

No what Im suggesting is that people like yourself having the trouble are not targetting the IL2 in the correct fashion. Facts about the aircraft do matter but I rather think the devs would be more clued up on the IL series of aircraft than you are ( no offence), and therefor the flight and damage model would be as close to correct as physically possible in the game.

If your constantly sitting in an aircrafts 6 when it has a rear turret firing at you, then you deserve to loose its that simple. Anyone who plays the game in an IL can figure out its lines of attack and adjust accordingly.

The example I gave about BnZ attacks shows the correct way to target and take out these aircraft. You couple that with a wingman who flank attacks or hits it in the belly and its good night vienna.

I understand your point. And I do think your correct, but I still believe the plane has got to be fixed.

It can be taken down and you have proven that, but it still obsorbs way more damage then it should. Coupled with the fact that rear guns do not over-heat in the game, this plane dominates more often then not.

[Lexandro]

Originally Posted by mattmanB182

I understand your point. And I do think your correct, but I still believe the plane has got to be fixed.

It can be taken down and you have proven that, but it still obsorbs way more damage then it should. Coupled with the fact that rear guns do not over-heat in the game, this plane dominates more often then not.

NOW I believe you have hit the crux of the issue here, namely no overheat on turret guns. The planes damage model I believe is correct and fine, but this point that you now raise does indeed constitute an issue with the aircraft.

So the point is rather more simpler now, if these guns DID overheat wouldnt that be a much more balanced aspect of the combat? And would this alone alieviate the difficulty that some people have when fighting them?