Ki-27 too durable & strange behavior
 

The Ki-27 is more durable in game than it should be.
The Ki-27 Rookie A/I is also very good.

When landing and taxiing on runway (tested on concrete and grass) the tail bounces and continues to bounce when the plane has stopped.

And, after Ki-27 planes land on the ground - when hit during a ground attack (even before the attack), they will flip over on their backs or noseover but not have any visible damage.

Tested in 4.12 and 4.13

I noticed this problem several years ago and I'm surprised that this has not been fixed yet. :confused:

I can confirm what CzechTexan said. What up with that Sita? ;)

I did extensive testing of the DM for all the planes in the game last winter.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229446

The "bouncing" when a flyable plane is destroyed on the ground isn't unique to the Ki-27, and is a common bug on many of the earlier plane models.

I believe that the "hook" that destroys a particular part of the plane also gives that part - or the remaining portions of the plane - a "push" so that the breaking part or destroyed plane will spin or flutter realistically as it falls.

On the ground, those effects are unrealistic since they make broken parts seem to explode or fly around for no good reason.

I've also pointed out that the Ki-27 has some DM errors which prevent certain parts of the plane from breaking when they should.


As to the durability of the Ki-27, I'd argue that the airframe durability of most planes in the game is UNDERmodeled, especially for early war lightly built planes like the A5M and the A6M2.

Early war Japanese fighter and attack aircraft were lightly built, but they were still fully aerobatic warplanes, which means that they were probably stressed to about +6G positive, -3G negative, and had some capacity for control surfaces, wings, etc. to survive overspeed dives.

Currently, it just takes 3-4 .50 caliber bullets to break the wings on some Japanese planes.

Think about that. Just 3-4 1-inch (2.5 cm) wide holes in a metal structure that is square yards/meters in size and masses hundreds of kilos/pounds will cause the entire structure to fail. The premise is just ridiculous unless several of those 3-4 bullets hit the wing spar and the plane then subsequently pulls a sustained high-G maneuver.

Realistically, what should happen is that airframe damage won't cause a plane to fail outright, but will weaken the plane's ability to pull Gs. Straining a damaged airframe further weakens it, potentially creating a negative feedback loop.

In any case, the plane will break when damage to the plane pulls Gs beyond its current G capacity. It will fall apart in the air if damage is sufficient to reduce the plane's capacity to sustain Gs below 1 G and/or air pressure on the leading edges of the wings and stabilizers.

For fuel systems, I think that the game has it right for unarmored fuel tanks, although realistically the first bullet - unless it is an explosive - isn't going to start a fuel tank fire. (First bullet starts a leak, allowing gasoline to flow from the tank and start vaporizing in air. The next bullet which causes a spark or explosion will ignite the gasoline vapor, starting the fire.)

So, in that respect the Ki-27 is about right.


My guess is that Japanese planes had a reputation for falling apart in the air because they were lightly-built maneuver fighters. Severe damage to the wing would make the plane break the next time it pulled a high G turn.

Second, if you look at gun camera footage of Japanese planes, you'll notice that wings fall off when there's a fuel explosion in the wing tanks. It's also possible, at least for the A6M series, that a lucky hit into the ammo trays might ignite the 20mm cannon shells causing them to explode.

ah, good to see the testing has been done!

IMO I still think the Ki-27 is tougher than it should be.
Quoting you: "For example, the Ki-43 series is far more durable than the A6M series."

It's true the Ki-43 is tougher and I'd have to say that so is the Ki-27. They should be flaming easier.
And, if a plane's wingtanks are on fire, they should not keep flying forever.

Thanks for the testing, Pursuivant. We can only hope the models get fixed for better realism.

Sadly, reworking DM so that they match the high quality of the FM in the game would require a huge amount of effort, almost a new game. It's a shame that IL2 was so careful with its flight models, but its damage models are so mediocre and so error-ridden.

I think that the Ki-27, A6M2, and Ki-43-I, being roughly contemporary planes, mostly built to higher pre-war quality standards, from the same materials, should all be equally vulnerable in the fuselage, stabilizers or wings. But that it should be much tougher to break wings, stabilizers, or fuselages on any plane due to damage alone (vs. damage from G forces + battle damage). Planes are big machines which are built to take extreme forces; putting a few small holes in them usually isn't going to make them fall apart.

The Ki-27, A6M2, and Ki-43-I are all desperately vulnerable to fuel tank hits, which is realistic, except for the fact that it should require a minimum of 2 bullets - one explosive or incendiary - to start any fuel fire. Also, since all three planes had wing fuel tanks right next to the wing spar, fuel fires or explosions should quickly cause wing failure, as well as injury to the pilot.

All three planes are also extremely vulnerable to crew hits, which is also realistic.

Fix the errors in the Ki-27's DM, and make all three planes approximately equal in ability to absorb engine, airframe, and control surface damage, and I'll be happy.

I confirm, the ki27 is bouncing, dancing on the tarmac!

yes we know that Ki27 is too strong plane ... don't want to promise any fix for it soon ..but who knows ...

I don't think that the airframe should be much weaker than it already is. All the Ki-27 needs is bug-fixing to make its DM correct.

If anything, all the planes in the game might benefit from making them harder to destroy. Currently, there are planes which literally lose their wings if you hit them with half a dozen .50 caliber bullets scattered across the wing. There are road signs tougher than that!

Well if you do fix it (please & thank-you).. I'll buy you a nice Canadian beer!

it worth it :D

The AVG talked about a few hits at the root it's blowing the wing right off a KI-27. So that's like 50cal x 2 + 30cal x 4 so 30-80 hits/sec I'm guessing. Combine that with KI-27 evasive maneuver and snap goes the wing.


you bet!

I also contributed this picture before.
Ki-27 became the topic of conversation, so I contributed again.
Ki-27 is airplane of IJA. Km is right.

Remember, the Ki-27 also had unarmored fuel tanks located right at the wing root. So, wing failure might have been the result of a fuel tank explosion rather than collapse of the wing spar.

I encourage folks to set up a mission where you can aim guns from a stationary bomber (I like the B-25 because of its tricycle landing gear and low height) at a stationary Ki-27 set at a known range.

You will discover that just 1-2 .50 caliber bullets are enough to knock off most control surfaces, and that 3-5 bullets are sufficient to break many other parts of the airframe. There are road signs which stand up better against bullets!

Pump a solid 1-2 second burst into him @ 150 yards. boom & zoom on his starboard side. He shoulda been a fiery stain on the ground.
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...80620786_o.jpg

100% agree. No need to weaken Ki-27, only bug fixes. There are other planes with far more serious problems. Like the Fw-190, which needs only a few .30 bullets to its wings to make it unflyable.

Actually, looking at my DM spreadsheet notes, I see that I recorded the Ki-27 as having fuel tanks where it was impossible to start a fuel leak, but incredibly easy to set on fire or explode. This includes the wing tanks.

Again, checking my DM notes, I was mistaken here. A problem with the Ki-27 is that you CAN'T knock off most of its control surfaces. Instead, it's easier to knock off the entire wing or stabilizer.

Also, it's impossible to break the rear fuselage using .50 caliber bullets, unlike for the Ki-43 or A6M2, and the damage modeling for the engine just seems "weird" - in some cases its easy to make the engine fail, in other cases, it's hard. This might be because there is some vital system just behind the engine that I wasn't able to detect by looking at cutaway drawings.

But, my point about the incredible in-game vulnerability of the early war Japanese planes to airframe damage still stands.

Yes, early war Japanese planes were very lightly built. But, a Japanese plane standing on the ground in-game will fall apart after a ridiculously small amount of damage scattered across a very large area.

For example, compare the number of .50 caliber bullet hits required to trigger damage textures or breaking parts in a plane like the Ki-27, Ki-43, A6M2, D3A2 or B5N1 - especially for large parts like the wings or fuselage - to a Google image search for "bullet holes in traffic signs". You'll notice that the traffic sign holds up much better!

In the case of the D3A1, the rear fuselage light damage textures actually show more bullet holes than it takes bullets to trigger them! And this for a Dive bomber presumably stressed to handle 6-9G encountered from pull-out from a steep dive!

I think that the fragility of these planes, and the relative fragility of all planes in the game to airframe damage, is an unrealistic simplification.

Realistically, it's airframe damage + stress which breaks an airframe. Each hole you make in the airframe, especially if you keep on making holes in one place, reduces the airframe's ability to avoid fatally flexing or collapsing when the plane pulls Gs or encounters wind resistance.

Current damage models don't seem to model this.

At the very least, planes sitting on the ground should be more resistant to airframe damage.

Pursui...
One of hte biggest asset Oleg made at BOB when still in charge, was that there was a far better damage model in BOB that the best thing they can do on IL-2.
Damage boxes on il2 are BIG.
Normally they react under a given number of colliding bullets.
This is just a big compromise. On some planes results are better than others.
They can tweak them a bit, but they will be always far from perfect.

Really, at this point it would be nicce to see how the damage boxes were placed on the mos common models.

Maybe it is a bad idea that will make all of us dissapointed.

There's nothing wrong with a simple "hit point" model for a given aircraft part to model airframe damage. I'd just like to see it standardized based on some sort of engineering or physics calculations. (One simple way to do it would be to calculate (mass - engine, fuel, oil, and armor)/volume) to get "density" and calculate Hit Points based on "density x cm of surface area" for a given part.)

I suspect that the only "problem" for more realistic modeling of airframe damage would be that all aircraft become much less vulnerable to airframe damage on its own.

If Damage Modeling, "hooks," and programming are done right, IL2 actually does a good job with critical hits. But, I'm not sure that all aircraft have things like wing main spars modeled, which is important. Even a very tough plane could lose its wing if there was sufficient damage to the wing spar.

I'll accept that vital systems like electrics, hydraulics, oxygen, communications, pumps, superchargers/turbochargers, and various oil/fuel lines aren't aren't modeled.

IL2 also seems to do a good job with having aircraft fall apart due to overspeed, and in the last release, planes allegedly take damage from excessive G maneuvers (although I've never broken a plane yet due to high Gs).

I'm not sure if airframe damage will lower a plane's ability to survive high G maneuvers or high speeds, however. But, that could be modeled easily enough.

It's also clear that fires only consume fuel and trigger some risk of explosion (which doesn't seem to be consistent from plane to plane).
They don't do damage to surrounding parts of the aircraft, which should be a big deal for wood and/or canvas planes, or for fuel tanks next to an engine or wing spar. But, fires adjacent to crew compartments will injure or kill crew, so it should be possible to model effects of cumulative fire damage to other parts of the plane using a variant of the fire damage to crew model.

Then TD may publish this boxes, and the triggers asociated with them, and we may reach some agreement on what will be better.
Things are much more civil around here nowadays.

A quick look at Ki-27's model shows a wing spar.

He was talking about a wing spar hit box, not the wing spar representation itself.

The Ki-27 bounces its tail skid on the ground under takeoff power when stationary - propellor wash on elevator? Maybe the fuselage damage model was made tough too prevent this snapping apart on ground. But the Ki-27 certainly can't take much damage in il2 air battles!

What confuses me more is that the Ki-27 is a super-stable gun platform? Almost laser gun like!

Good. I lack the tools to view DM, hook placement, etc. so I have to guess about a number of things.

My experience is that actual physical models, including the model which includes "critical hit" areas, are OK for the planes included in Pacific Fighters, but that they sometimes suffer from errors in hook placement, and inconsistent or incorrect assumptions about engine and airframe durability. The planes which have the worst DM are the planes from the earliest games in the series, and the earliest fan-produced models. The Me-232 and Me-231, Ar-196, and PZL P.11 are probably the worst offenders, but there are problems with other planes.

My testing revealed a lot of cases where "hooks" (i.e., placement for origin point for things like smoke, fire, fuel leak effects) were improperly placed, were reversed, or were missing. In a few cases, it looks like coding errors "moved" vital systems within the plane so hits to what should be "empty" areas of the airplane result in damage.

Much more commonly, there are inconsistent or incorrect assumptions about how much damage a particular system can take. For example, the F4U, F6F and P-47 all used the same engine, but there are variations in how much damage it take to destroy each plane's engine. (I forget which plane is the most vulnerable in the group, I think it's the F6F.) As another example, the "fatal damage" textures for the TBF's wing show the wing missing less wing surface area than the plane was historically able to survive!

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/a...129573.jpg?v=1

That seems unlikely. I don't think that IL2 models prop-wash effects on control surfaces (or following planes)

I'm guessing that the FM has the engine generating enough thrust and torque at full power that it starts to lift the plane's tail.

The idea that the Ki-27 "didn't want to sit still" if the engine was run up to full power while it was stationary might just make sense since you've got a somewhat lightly built plane with a reasonably powerful engine.

I bet that the plane won't "buck" if you use bind a key to use the "place wheel chocks" command before running the engine up.

IL2 doesn't simulate that sort of fuselage damage. I've never seen a plane in IL2 "break its spine" due to a hard three-point landing, even after suffering heavy fuselage damage. Such behavior would be very realistic, however, especially for planes like the FW-200, the B-24 (if ditched in water), and many carrier-based planes.

I've got no problem with the Ki-27 being a stable gun platform. Soviet tests of captured examples, described it as being light on the controls, and possessing exceptional stability. But, IL2 doesn't model random turbulence which can affect even the most stable aircraft in flight (you see it on gun cameras where the shooting plane sometimes bounces around as it flies). Also, the Ki-27 vibrated constantly in flight, especially at high speeds as the wings started to get stressed. That would also affect accuracy. (Ditto for the P-39 which was also noted for vibrating during flight.)

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/G...esky_of_vi.htm

"One well-preserved trophy Type 97 tested at the NII VVS, yielded very favorable flight evaluations. The fighter combined good speed with magnificent maneuverability, it had outstanding stability, and its flying characteristics were extraordinarily straightforward."

"Together with its strong side there were also deficiencies: The decreased weight led to complications in operation and transportation (the wing became detached), and most important, led to a decrease in durability and survivability. The aircraft lacked armor plating, the fuel tanks were unprotected, and were not filled with neutral gas, due to an absence of motor shock absorbers, the airplane vibrated continually in flight. Inadequate durability limiting the duration of a dive to about 500 to 700 m, was another deficiency of the Ki 27. Captured Japanese pilots testified that during a dive the wings began to vibrate, particularly the outer panels (on occasion resulting in their failure), and the motor quickly super.-cooled and might even stop."

"The greatest virtue of the Japanese fighter appeared to be its stability and ease of flying, which gave the pilot confidence, simplified the conduct of battle and gave a definite advantage. Thanks to its stability, the Ki 27 was able under all regimes of flight, with two machineguns, with the usual rate of fire of 1800 rounds a minute, bring sufficiently accurate and effective fire in battle . . . Another great virtue of the Ki-27 was the provision of a radio; there was a receiver on all aircraft, and on the machines of the flight commanders and higher a transmitter."

Some evidence that perhaps the Ki-27 wasn't as fragile as the game makes it out to be:

http://img.imagesia.com/fichiers/d6/...d6am_large.jpg

Those Soviet VVS tests suggest that the il2 Ki-27 is pretty accurate in its flight and gunnery model. Although it probably should have vibrations starting from lower speeds, not just ~380kph+ like in game. Perhaps its such a good gun platform because the mg's are underneath the engine making the recoil forces balance out better.

It is the most fun plane to fly in il2, needing continuous pilot attention, incredible abilities but as many dangerous flaws! (against Buffalos and Hurricanes).

I think Ki-27 don't have to make weaker, too.
When behavior of AI and cockpit speedometer, and some others are improved, Ki-27 be more better plane in this game.

-

This picture's plane is not Ki-27. It's navy Type 96 Carrier based Fighter, "Mitsubishi A5M".
Pilot is IJN 1st class flight sergeant Kashimura.
In china front, he collided with P-36 during a battle.
But he learned extraordinary flight technique, and he landed at his base with this plane.

Thanks for the correction. Identification of the A5M and Ki-27 can be difficult from certain angles!

But, my point stands that early war Japanese planes perhaps aren't as fragile as IL2 "thinks" they are. Obviously, Sgt. Kashimura was the lucky exception the law of averages, but the picture proves that a plane like the Ki-27 (and, obviously, the A5M) can still fly with significant wing damage.

but I think it is rather a general IL2 problem than plane specific. IRL planes with missing wing sections were often still controllable e.g.:
http://www.sas1946.com/images/images...xfordcrash.jpg
or
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8e32bbf5.jpg

I agree. But, it's not necessarily the fault of the damage model.

Remember that in IL2 damage to the plane triggers a set of "damage textures, which overlay the base skin and make missing parts of the plane vanish. There are 3 levels: D0 (undamaged), D1 (light damage), D2 and (heavy damage).

When a part breaks, there's also an "end cap" model which appears.

Damage textures are made by artists, rather than flight modeler, so there is a great deal of "artistic license" in what sort of damage the D1, D2 represents. This artistry often isn't realistic.

Modelling errors come in when the plane breaks. The folks making 3D models (again, not necessarily that knowledgeable about how airplanes work) have to set the places on the model where parts break. If you set these break points incorrectly, you can get some very strange effects.

Artists' errors for "end cap" models (the graphic which appears after a part breaks off) can also make damage appear unrealistic.

If you wanted greater realism, someone would have to dig into each plane's flight model and figure the minimum wing surface area required for a damaged plane to fly. You then revise wing damage textures so that the D2 and endcap damage models are historically accurate.

Another angle photo of Sgt.Kashimura's A5M.
The distinction isn't even easy from this angle.

Yes, Sgt.Kashimura's single wing flight was very rare case.
Maybe even his singular ability would be difficult.
But I don't think the Japanese planes durability was which paper as same, either.

I'm thinking most airplanes of IL-2 has low durability overall.
Many of WWII pilots thought they killed enemy planes.
But almost airplanes are returned to their base actually.
If airplanes of IL-2 have begun to smoke once, can't return to a base certainly mostly.

Comparing the durability of modern jets to WW2 aircraft isn't far.

First, they're much bigger aircraft. Seriously - the F-15 is almost as big as a B-17.

Second, construction methods and materials have improved dramatically in the last 70+ years.

Third, the power-to-mass ratios of a modern fighter is just incredible compared to WW2 planes. As long as you have some degree of directional stability and fuel to keep them running, those engines will pretty much keep you in the air.

So, it's no surprise that a modern jet can come home safely with half of one wing missing.

For WW2 fighters, my guess is that the better ones could lose about 1/3 of a wing surface and still be able to fly. For underpowered planes, perhaps about 20%, maybe less.

Given the A5M's high power to mass ratio, it doesn't surprise me that it could survive with 1/3 or more of its wing missing (although notice that it lost its aileron on the damaged wing at some point).

In general, I think that all aircraft in the game are too vulnerable to airframe damage from small caliber bullets. Unless you get a "golden BB" scenario where a small amount of damage causes an increasingly severe chain of failures, all you're doing is punching a hole the diameter of one of your fingers through a tough skin of aircraft aluminum or plywood. For a .50 caliber/12.7mm bullet, you're just punching a hole the diameter of your thumb.

It takes a lot of holes of those sizes to tear apart something as big as an airplane on their own. To help the failure along, you need the forces of gravity and air resistance.

To really start tearing an airplane apart, you need something that will make a big hole, like a 20mm HE cannon shell which will blast a hole the diameter of a man's fist, or a 30mm HE cannon shell which will blast a hold the diameter of a man's head.

.303 caliber

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...982c3fd093.jpg

.50 caliber/12.7mm

http://www.118ahc.org/Resources/Newsome50cal-65.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...tz/spinner.jpg

20mm & .303 caliber

http://i.imgur.com/EAwcYfz.jpg

(Notice that the He-111 in this picture took dozens of small caliber bullet hits - look at the fuselage.)

20mm AP

http://i.imgur.com/lQYtUdR.jpg

20mm HEI
https://www.upload.ee/image/4123820/20mmHEcardoor.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...R8c4krw6pv6QpA

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...R8c4krw6pv6QpA

Test of 30mm (L) and 20mm Minengeschoss ammo:
http://i.imgur.com/0A6e0J2l.png

https://youtu.be/ZoLLDi-M3fk

In an enclosed space, the 30mm cannon could do a lot more damage:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/4...e07050e0_o.jpg

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

37 mm
http://i44.tinypic.com/6z30k8.gif

Video of .50 caliber vs. modern aluminum plate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZXuSIOjeU

Remember also we are talking about multiple hits. My 50 cal guns are sighted too 300ft (100 meters +/-) good grouping, all wing root hits on ki-27, wing should blow off,
it does not.. ever. Ki-43 no problem.

Not just multiple hits, but multiple hits in the same vital location.

Scattered hits which turn an airplane into a sieve slow it down (more wind resistance), make the plane less maneuverable, and reduce capacity to resist stresses from G forces and air resistance by some amount, but the plane keeps flying.

Concentrated hits have more of a chance of creating a serious weak point in the plane's structure which will buckle under normal strain - making the plane fall apart in the air.

It seems to me that what we have is more like the former than the latter. Lots of random hits do more damage than concentrated fire. I think the hit boxes are to big and too few.

I agree the small guns do too much damage relative to the big ones. I think the Lancaster is going to be a total fighter pilots nightmare, it has many more small guns than anything not four engined and british, the Sunderland may be even more effective, though it did actually have a reputation for being a dangerous target.

My perception is the exact opposite, especially when flying planes with less powerful armament against tough foes (e. g. Hurricane vs. SM79 ) you got to hit one spot hard, and you get results, else you get an enemy plane in mint condition with a few scratches dents and holes. And when you hit with a P-47 in one spot at full convergence it is incredibly destructive, spray and pray and even eight 0.50 cals will only give you lucky kills.

The problem is that to give small guns some power their incendiary capabilities are exaggerated IMHO Also players are too good shots, the better ones aim for cockpits/other valuables and make those shots on a basis that might even exceed the best shots of WWII - and it just does not matter if you hit the pilot with 7,62 or 37mm, only with 7,62 you got an incredible fire rate.
At first I thought of the Wellingtons armament as puny, and made the mistake to approach from the rear, with expected results. Now I either hit them with excess speed from above or in a head on, usually ME 1 Wellington 0. The Lanc will fare no much better when unescorted.

This is my perception as well.

I also think that IL2 does a good job with getting the size of "critical hit" systems (fuel, oil, coolant, engine, guns, crew) more or less correct. The 3D damage models I've seen look pretty good.

I'd like to see the way certain critical hits handled a bit differently (e.g., hits to ammo runs shouldn't cause instant jams, hits to self-sealing fuel tanks by shrapnel and small caliber bullets should seal within a few seconds if they leak at all).

Errors in DM come from coding errors, misplaced "hooks", or unrealistic assumptions about airframe durability.


Agreed. I think that IL2 does an excellent job with exterior ballistics (i.e., how a bullet flies) and a pretty good job with terminal ballistics (i.e., how much damage it inflicts when it hits) - with the exception that non-explosive, small caliber rounds seem to do a bit too much airframe damage.

In some cases, it's also a bit too easy to start fires. Realistically, the first bullet to hit a fuel tank isn't going to start a fire - it's going to start a leak (assuming the self-sealing tank doesn't close sufficiently fast).

The next bullets might start a fire if they are incendiary or HE, or if they happen to generate sparks, and there happens to be enough vaporized fuel to serve as fuel.

Of course, for non-self-sealing fuel tanks, if there is oxygen mixed with gasoline vapor in the tank, then all bets are off. One bullet that sparks as it penetrates the fuel tank could effectively create a fuel-air explosion.

There's nothing that can be done about some players having vastly better gunnery skills than your average WW2 pilot. If the guys who actually fought the war had the chance to spend hundreds of hours practicing their gunnery skills in a reasonably realistic simulator, they'd be just as good as we are - if not better.

Since the Wellington was my AI plane of choice for trying to figure out vulnerability of aircraft to front end damage, I have to agree!

Before I started doing DM testing using aircraft standing on the ground, I used to set up a QMB mission with a bunch of Ace Wellingtons and fly my test aircraft straight and level up their rear. It was like running into a buzz saw.

Of course, it helps that those .303 caliber MG effectively have their muzzle velocity increased by 50% because you're flying into the bullets at 500 kph.

Yeah that and the fact that in a rel life war there is no refly button. And I bet there are only a select few if any virtual pilots that didn't die virtually even once.

More to the point, actual WW2 aircrew got relatively little gunnery training, and what they did get was often proven to be ineffective.

In 1943-44, the 8th Air Force had to run remedial training schools for gunners arriving in-theater. This despite the fact that US gunners probably got some of the best training available.

Gunners in many other air forces didn't even get training.

The same goes for pilots. If you were a British fighter pilot fresh from training in August 1940, or a Soviet pilot in 1942, or a German or Japanese pilot in 1944, you barely knew how to fly, much less how to shoot. The assumption was that you'd learn all that stuff once you reached your unit.

Realistically, of course, it was organized murder to send inadequately trained men into action. The only good all those badly trained "nuggets" did was distract the enemy long enough to allow the more skilled pilots to survive. The lucky few managed to survive long enough to gain experience.

Some 'green' German pilots in 1944 would bail if they seen a P-47/51 on there tail. 'Plane can be replaced, pilot could not'.

Anyways today I followed a burning Ki-43Ic for 5 mins before it exploded.

For many Soviet young pilots it was the same in 1941 as well. Fighter pilots programs were considerably reduced in 1940-1941 - simultaneously with increase of recruiting. Quantity instead of quality.
There were improvements from 1942 and on, of course, but even in 1943-1944 there were too many boys coming in with inadequate training. They were lucky if squadron/wing leaders were human enough to help them and/or their operational area was already cleared of LW opponents.

I've read reports of this as well. But, the situations where the pilot would bail out immediately rather than defending himself were rare. It should only occur over land, over friendly territory, and in situations where planes can easily be replaced.

FWIW, it was possible to tell Luftwaffe parachutes from allied parachutes because they were "yellow". I don't know if that means that they were a beige or cream color, or actual bright yellow.

By contrast, US aircrew parachutes were white.

The difference was important because, by 1944, German civilians would often beat or kill downed Allied airmen unless prevented from doing so by the military or police.

After 5 minutes, it seems more likely that the plane should fall apart rather than explode. Presumably, the pilot was long gone - dead or bailed out.

Surprisingly not as rare as you think.. especially in mid 44 onwards. Germans had lots of kites, not to many pilots to fly them though.

As far as the Jap pilot, when I seen the canopy jettisoned, I knew the plane would blow soon. Tells me there's a timing issue with destruction.

1941-42 Soviet pilots also had an additional problem - lethal levels of political correctness. Stalin's purges of the military forced military pilots to obey orders without question and take no initiative whatsoever. Basically, the opposite of what you want in a fighter pilot!

Combined with the lack of radios on many Soviet aircraft, that set up a tragic situation. Formations of Soviet aircraft would blindly follow their leader, not even maneuvering under fire.

So, you might have pilots who were technically quite good - plenty of flight hours and decent gunnery training - but who functionally had no "Situational Awareness" due to faulty air combat doctrine.

Some Japanese early war formations were similar. Junior pilots were expected to obey orders without hesitation, and do nothing without being ordered to do so. As an example of this mindset, most Japanese fighters were equipped with just radio receivers. That is, they could receive information, but not send it.

By 1943-44, Soviet pilot training got better, but there were variations. If something went wrong, sometimes certain types of training got cut short or eliminated.

Something that IL2 doesn't simulate, but which was critical for real life pilots, was IFR and navigation training.

Every US pilot, no matter how bad things got, was IFR trained and had a few hours of aerial navigation training. With very few exceptions (e.g., mid-1940) RAF and Commonwealth pilots were also instrument-rated and had some aerial navigation training.

Every halfway decent pre-war air force training program also offered some IFR and aerial navigation training. The only exception might have been the Chinese AF.

But, once the stresses of war started to hit, IFR and navigation training went out the window, which meant that not only were pilots barely able to fly their planes, but they were in deep trouble if they ran into weather, or had to fly at night.