Ki-27 too durable & strange behavior

[major.kudo]

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.

[major.kudo]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8e32bbf5.jpg

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1473474254

[Pursuivant]

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).

[Pursuivant]

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:

[Ice_Eagle]

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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

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.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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

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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

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.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

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.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

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.