B-17 Burns Too Easily In Game?

[secretone]

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!

[Letum]

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.

[Untamo]

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

[Pursuivant]

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.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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





.

[Pursuivant]

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.