Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-08-2012, 05:30 PM
secretone's Avatar
secretone secretone is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Not Far From Miami, Florida
Posts: 87
Default B-17 Burns Too Easily In Game?

Hi All,

Yes, I know this is subjective, but it seems to me that the b-17 model wings burn quite easily in game. I wonder if IRL it wasn't a little more durable than that? It did have self-sealing tanks after all. Now the b-24 on the other hand, that may be a different story... The b-17 is well known to have been able to absorb an awful lot of damage and keep on flying.

I guess I have nothing better to do today than play IL-2 and ask silly questions like this!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-08-2012, 09:49 PM
Letum Letum is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 308
Default

The topic of how easy it is to set various fuel tanks alight with various different ammo types is a can of worms.
In past topics, attempts at abstract science and finding old data has not been much more successful than guess work in my opinion.

I don't think you will ever get an answer that is better than your hunch.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-12-2012, 05:25 AM
Untamo's Avatar
Untamo Untamo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 329
Default

S!

Well.. In case of a cannon round hitting the tank, it would severely rupture the rubber(or whatever) sealing, causing a heavy leak. And German planes had plenty of cannon
__________________
AMD 1055T Hexacore@3,4GHz - 2x4GB 1600MHz DDR3 - ATI 6950 2GB, flashed to 6970 shaders - Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit - 30" LG W3000H (2560x1600) - TM Warthog Stick + Cougar Throttle - wooden DIY pedals with Hall sensor - FreeTrack
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Keep in mind that the way that bombers are flown in the game is unrealistic, and the way in which most players engage them is much more effective. If used properly, a 20-30mm cannon could and should make short work of any WW2-era plane.

That said, it might be worth looking at the accuracy and effectiveness of heavy flak at high altitudes. By 1944, the number of U.S. heavy bombers lost to German heavy flak was very low (something ridiculous, like 1 plane lost per 1000 sorties), despite the Luftwaffe having some of the best AA gunners in the world, and huge numbers of heavy flak guns.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-12-2012, 06:08 PM
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
Keep in mind that the way that bombers are flown in the game is unrealistic, and the way in which most players engage them is much more effective. If used properly, a 20-30mm cannon could and should make short work of any WW2-era plane.

That said, it might be worth looking at the accuracy and effectiveness of heavy flak at high altitudes. By 1944, the number of U.S. heavy bombers lost to German heavy flak was very low (something ridiculous, like 1 plane lost per 1000 sorties), despite the Luftwaffe having some of the best AA gunners in the world, and huge numbers of heavy flak guns.



The 8th AF alone lost around 4000 bombers in approximately 10,000 missions over Germany.

Here's an XL spread sheet of all 8th AF losses through out the war by date.

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8thaf-missions.xls





.

Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 06-12-2012 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-12-2012, 09:41 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Wow! What a great resource. I hope there are mission builders out there who will take advantage of this great spreadsheet.

My point about flak wasn't that it couldn't be devastating, but that by the end of the war, the U.S. had partially learned to counter it.

Not to be disrespectful of the men who flew the later missions, but the earlier war experiences of the 8th and 15th air forces in 1943, and the late war experiences, in late 1944, are almost two entire worlds.

In 1943 you had lots of skilled German fighters, limited escorts, and relatively inexperienced American crews. Not surprisingly, the U.S. heavy bombers got massacred. By Autumn of 1944, the skilled German pilots were dead, most of their planes lacked fuel, allied fighters ruled the skies over Germany, and the U.S. bomber crews had lots of experience.

The real measure is how tough it was was how many missions the Air Force required for each "tour of duty" - in 1943 it was 25, in early 1944 it went to 30, by late 1944 it went to 35. In the Mediterranean, crews flew 50 missions, but got double credit for certain missions.

Anyhow, not to hijack the thread, but I think that it's not so much vulnerability to bombers that's wrong, it's how they're used and behave in the game - no evasive action to avoid heavy flak or fighters, too-low altitudes, improper formations, and, to some extent, lack of coordinated gunnery.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2012, 11:24 PM
secretone's Avatar
secretone secretone is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Not Far From Miami, Florida
Posts: 87
Default

Yes, well... again to be subjective, I would be extremely surprised if ANY wwii plane presented a "harder" target than the b-17. It first flew in 1935, a design far ahead of its time, and they had years to strengthen and toughen it making the F and especially the G versions reliable, heavily armed and durable. I doubt that even the newer and "sexier" b-29, rushed into service under the tightest deadlines, would have been as survivable over German skies and I am curious if those computer aimed remote control turrets were even half as effective in the real world as the dedicated manned guns on the b-17.

Last edited by secretone; 06-20-2012 at 05:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-20-2012, 12:04 AM
panzer1b panzer1b is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 36
Default

i dont believe this can be ever answered or made 100% accurate.

relying on historic data or pilot accounts is a bad idea as the number of people let alone ai which fly in a manner close to or even based upon history is very rare. especially in th eonline environment i rarely see anything like what would be described in mission reports or pilot accounts.

also relying on scientific data is not easy as we would have to actually get us some b17s or mock b17s and do live fire tests while the plane is at a realistic altitude and moving at b17 average speeds.

So unless someone has the money, resources, time, and somewhat of nothing better to do, then i cant say it will ever be possible to make a plane behave 100% realistically. Just get your crate in the air and shoot down some planes, instead of theorize about a neverending problem....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-20-2012, 03:01 AM
Shardur Shardur is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 38
Default

Most digital pilots shoot better than real life pilots did (maybe because they aren't afraid for their lives?). While the average pilot in RL hit with about 2% of his bullets, digital pilots routinely hit with 10-20% of their bullets.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-20-2012, 03:02 AM
Shardur Shardur is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 38
Default

Most digital pilots shoot better than real life pilots did (maybe because they aren't afraid for their lives?). While the average pilot in RL hit with about 2% of his bullets, digital pilots routinely hit with 10-20% of their bullets.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.