SM.79 porked (or forgotten) damage model

[JG52Uther]

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]

Did someone say "TROLL"????

[150GCT_Diego]

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.





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

[28_Condor]

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



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]

Ask and thou shalt recieve.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/Z...bTgrV3l4dnc9PQ

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]

Originally Posted by 150GCT_Diego

The SM79 was heavy armoured for it's time

LOL 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]

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

[Bulgarian]

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]

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]

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.