Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[The_WOZ]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Hi WOZ, do you happen to know the full list of these planes with the simplified damage model?

Someone here once posted an image of these damage boxes in a Zero, and the lack thereof in the P-39 (maybe it was you), but I couldn't track down the list of planes or the tool used to illustrate the damage boxes.

Thanks,

WokeUpDead

Yes it was me who posted that image on the SOV forum, I found about the missing internal damage models while investigating how to make new planes for IL-2. The tools are easy to find at the modding sites such as SAS.

I just did a quick search in a easier way now and here's a list of planes without proper internal damage models (or at least not used in the code):

C-47
Fi-156
Fw-189A2
G-11
IAR-80/81 series
Ju-52 series
Ju-87 series
Ju-88 Mistel
L2D
Li-2
MBR-2
P-39/P-400/P-63 series
Tu-2
U-2

[Jumoschwanz]

The Stuka I was flying was the D5, the newest one, which flies like a real POS compared to the B Stuka, it is not going to turn with any Spits, and from the feel of it there must be a hell of a lot of more armor added to it's weight than the early Stuka.

Again, if anyone has not read Hans Ulrich Rudels amazing account of living through 2500 Stuka missions and WWII they are missing out. Yes he was probably a Nazi, but there are a lot of other things to get out of the book than any bias or propaganda that may be injected. He must have been hit by hundreds of rounds from AA and aircraft guns and cannons and there is no account of him having serious problems with flaming tanks. He never bailed once, crash landed a few times. He was riddled by La5 and P39 and Rata fire to name a few stories that come to memory.

If the best simulation IL2 can do right now with the P47 is to have it's tail fall off with X number of 20mm hits, then that is okay, it is just funny how you can set yourself up in the qmb behind a bunch of Friendly p47s and go down the row and get the same result on one after the other, almost like you are breaking the tails off of frozen lobsters.

Of course in real life the location and number of hits from an enemy aircraft would be so random it would take a supercomputer to model the different effects of each, I am sure no two kills in WWII looked exactly the same the way they can be reproduced in IL2.

It is a great sim and TD has never done anything but things beyond the call of duty.

Jumo

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by JtD

Actually, the only single shot kill to the R-2800 is hitting the ignition, on top of the hub in the P-47. No armour or backup system there in real life, a clear one shot kill.

Virtually all aircraft piston engines have dual ignition systems. If one totally fails, the other will continue to run. You'd have to take out both mags or the entire ignition manifold (which also had extra thickness at the front of the ring) to destroy the ignition system in an R-2800. The mags were encased with some armor protection at the front, and also had some protection from the spinning propeller. Their small size also helped protect them. Many things will be hit and knocked out from the front before the ignition.

Though it's one of my top favorite aircraft of any era, I haven't touched Oleg's P-47 in years, due to it's unacceptably crappy cockpit, and it's "glass jaw" vulnerability. Now, I don't know if the latter issue was ever addressed in subsequent patches, but if the real-world P-47 was anywhere as near to being one-shot-killed from the front as it is in the game, then it would have earned an entirely different reputation than the one it enjoys now.

The game's F6F and F4U have the same engine but aren't nearly as brittle in the front quarter as the P-47.

[JtD]

Whatever the ignition component on top of the hub was, it's crucial for the engine and there's no backup system. I'm nowhere near my sources, so you'll have to look at the details yourself. One hit in the right spot, the component's dead, and the engine dies with it. You can also try in game and shoot the engine into other parts, you'll see it keeps working.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by JtD

Whatever the ignition component on top of the hub was, it's crucial for the engine and there's no backup system. I'm nowhere near my sources, so you'll have to look at the details yourself. One hit in the right spot, the component's dead, and the engine dies with it. You can also try in game and shoot the engine into other parts, you'll see it keeps working.

Of course the ignition is crucial to engine operation. Obviously. If the entire ignition system (both mags and the manifold) is rendered inoperative, then of course the engine dies. That is also obvious. One doesn't need "sources' to figure that out. Furthermore, the ignition system is redundant in that there are two systems. That redundancy counts as backup. Not sure why you're talking about it not having a backup.

At any rate, the kind of incoming fire that ruins an entire ignition system will ruin other systems as well, and will pretty much render the aircraft impotent anyway.

You're using the game's damage model to shape your thoughts on how vulnerable specific real-world auxiliary engine systems are, while showing no real-word knowledge on the actual engineering of these systems.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

Of course the ignition is crucial to engine operation. Obviously. If the entire ignition system (both mags and the manifold) is rendered inoperative, then of course the engine dies. That is also obvious. One doesn't need "sources' to figure that out. Furthermore, the ignition system is redundant in that there are two systems. That redundancy counts as backup. Not sure why you're talking about it not having a backup.

At any rate, the kind of incoming fire that ruins an entire ignition system will ruin other systems as well, and will pretty much render the aircraft impotent anyway.

You're using the game's damage model to shape your thoughts on how vulnerable specific real-world auxiliary engine systems are, while showing no real-word knowledge on the actual engineering of these systems.

Can you please try to understand what other posters are saying before making insulting assumptions about them?

I've wondered about how it's possible to kill the engine with one shot, went to a museum, looked at the components around the engine and found that there was one crucial component that had no backup. Books I acquired later confirm it. However, all this was many years ago and you'll have to forgive me that I do not remember the details from the top of my head. I don't understand why you prefer to insult me instead of looking into your sources to post the details yourself.

Fortunately, other posters are more constructive - The_WOZ has by now posted the details - thank you. Single magnetos, dual distribution. Hit the magnetos and the R-2800 is dead. One shot, rifle calibre. Magnetos gone, ignition dies, engine dies, the impossible made possible.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by JtD

Can you please try to understand what other posters are saying before making insulting assumptions about them?

I've wondered about how it's possible to kill the engine with one shot, went to a museum, looked at the components around the engine and found that there was one crucial component that had no backup. Books I acquired later confirm it. However, all this was many years ago and you'll have to forgive me that I do not remember the details from the top of my head. I don't understand why you prefer to insult me instead of looking into your sources to post the details yourself.

Fortunately, other posters are more constructive - The_WOZ has by now posted the details - thank you. Single magnetos, dual distribution. Hit the magnetos and the R-2800 is dead. One shot, rifle calibre. Magnetos gone, ignition dies, engine dies, the impossible made possible.

I never said, nor did I imply, that it was impossible.

And what part of "two mags" don't you understand? Take out one, the other still operates. They each have their own circuit. Either of the mags by themselves can still run the engine, albeit at reduced capability, but under normal conditions they both operate at the same time. That is the backup system you keep saying is not there. If you get a single shot that makes it past the propeller arc and still manages to take out both mags, then that shot would have had to be a rather large caliber one (direct hit from an 25mm or greater, etc.), and as I pointed out earlier, that kind of hit would hurt the aircraft anyway, no matter where it hit.

In other words, that "one shot rifle caliber" that you keep referring to that makes a direct hit on one of the mags will not disable the ignition system, because there is still another magneto running! You'd have to make a direct hit with a second shot at the second mag to disable the system. Get it now?

I wasn't insulting you, and I'm sorry if you took it that way, but frankly you were getting some details quite wrong.

[Treetop64]

Mitsubishi Stuka.

Kinda reminds me of the Nakajima 190:

[Mustang]

Edited:

The reasons why an engine dies
It is mainly due to loss of water and oil or Fuel
Caused by .30 or 23mm its close to the same " virtually "
Fire stops if the fuel pump cut ... maybe..

I just remember online Play

I was behind 4 Ju 88 at 150 to 250 mts shooting at the six.. for one minute or more in a Hellcat.

I get full hits of 4 Ju 88 For one minute ! I only lose aleiron controls and maybe some engine power..

Maybe in 4.10 or 4.11..

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

Cannot tell you if the Stuka DM is porked—oops, excuse me, I meant ‘off’. The ridiculous ai rear gunners have kept me from doing any serious damage to them for years. Still, given the sheer size of the beast, if it were even a bit fragile in real life, it couldn’t have been as effective in combat conditions for most of the war as it obviously was.

There's nothing about the Stuka's service record which indicates that it was a particularly tough aircraft, other than the fact that it was stressed to handle dive bombing.

Remember, part of the Stuka's reputation rested on the fact that the Germans were able to achieve massive air superiority in 1939-41. Without fighter escort, the Stuka was quite vulnerable, as evidenced by its less than stellar performance during the Battle of Britain.

Dora model Stukas might have been tougher than Bertha models, but they were still based on a mid-1930s design with all its limitations.

Originally Posted by horseback

However, most Jug (and Corsair and Hellcat) fans would have to wonder where you’ve been all these years; the Il-2 Sturmovik ’46 version of the P-47D DM is obviously the creation of a truly dedicated bunch of debunkers.

To paraphrase a common saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by poor modeling." (Other than that, I agree with you. Debunking is just a method of generating controversy, which drums up trade for documentary producers, writers and academics.)

Remember that both the Corsair and Hellcat are products of the deeply flawed Pacific Fighters expansion, and there might be legal reasons why 1c/TD can't fix them. The Pacific Theater and carrier ops were obviously areas that 1c had less experience with, fewer local resources to work with, and less personal incentive to recreate, and it shows.

As for the P-47, I think that 1c's original work was influenced heavily by contemporary Soviet assessments of the P-47C, which were influenced by the relative lack of need for a high-altitude, long-range escort and the Soviet preference for cannons rather than heavy machine guns as fighter aircraft armament. The Soviets didn't know what to make of it and wrote it off. I also have to wonder if Soviet assessments suffered from some of the same shock that British and U.S. 56 FG pilots suffered when transitioning from the Spitfire to the Jug. After all, Soviet fighter pilots were more familiar with small, nimble fighters like the I-16 and Yak series, so the P-47 must have seemed clumsy by comparison.

TD has gone to great lengths to fix things, so I don't want to fault them, but it's possible that there is more work to be done.

Originally Posted by horseback

P-47s and F6F Hellcats were the two safest fighters to fly in combat in WWII, and they were both powered by the mighty R-2800.

While I think that your points about the R-2800 (and, by extension many of the other late war U.S. radial engines modeled in the game) are valid, to play devil's advocate, part of the reputation of the late war U.S. fighters was made by the fact that after 1943, U.S. pilots usually had air superiority (at least locally) and were usually facing inferior opponents.

What I'd like is if just about every plane in the game were harder to break into pieces or set on fire, except those noted for their light construction and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks. I think that TD has got it about right for crew injury and kills, but it's a too easy to blow parts off or set planes on fire.

In particular, I think that it's unrealistic for any heavy or medium bomber to lose a wing, stabilizer or entire engine to MG fire, or anything other than sustained 20mm cannon fire, and extremely unrealistic for the fuselage to break up.

I particularly dislike the ease with which you can blow off entire wings of planes like the B-17 using just heavy machine guns or a few 20mm cannon hits. If you look at gun camera footage of actual heavy bomber kills, kills are mostly achieved by setting the plane on fire, while archival films of heavy bomber shoot-downs shows that major parts come off the plane only as a result of severe fires (which melt, burn and weaken aluminum), direct hits by heavy flak (i.e., a direct hit by a 75mm or greater explosive round) or G-stresses on the plane as it falls out of control (possibly due to pilot kills or destruction of control linkages).

Likewise, it's possibly unrealistic for the heavier single- and twin-engined planes in the game (e.g. IL-2, P-38, P-47, F4U, F6F) to lose wings, engines or entire control surfaces due to MG fire, or anything more than sustained 20mm cannon fire, much less break up. There's plenty of evidence showing that smaller planes like the Bf-109, FW-190 or various Japanese fighters can lose wings due to heavy MG or 20mm fire, however.

After all, it's the nature of explosive rounds to blow up on the aircraft's surface, blowing big holes in the plane's skin, while much of the blast is dissipated in the empty space within the fuselage or wing, while most AP rounds will punch a smallish hole in the skin and pass through the plane to the other side. Obviously, if there's something under the skin things are very different, but you see lots of pictures of planes with massive surface damage which are able to keep on flying - at least for a while.

And, even for critical parts, most parts of a military aircraft are designed to be redundant, so that one hit to a particular part doesn't kill the plane. Obviously, there are exceptions like cooling systems or crew, but just one hit to a wing root or engine mount isn't going to blow that part off.

I'd like to see slightly more complex damage modeling, where there is a minimum damage requirement to blow off certain parts of certain planes (as opposed to just setting them on fire or make them stop working). Not just "hit points" or a random chance of critical damage, but an actual threshold to do any significant damage at all.

As an ignorant rough estimate:

Heavy or medium bomber fuselage or wing - 75 mm explosive.
Heavy or medium bomber stabilizer or engine mount - 30 mm explosive.
Heavy or medium bomber control surface - 20 mm explosive.

Light twin-engined bomber or heavy attack, fighter or transport fuselage - 75 mm explosive.
Light twin-engined bomber or heavy attack, fighter or transport wing or engine mount - 30 mm explosive.
Light twin-engined bomber or heavy attack, fighter or transport stabilizer - 20 mm explosive.
Light twin-engined bomber or heavy attack, fighter or transport control surface - Heavy MG (e.g., .50 caliber or 12.7mm) HE, AP or ball.

Light attack, recce or fighter or transport fuselage or engine mount - 30 mm explosive.
Light attack, recce or fighter or transport wing or stabilizer - Heavy MG HE, AP or ball.
Light attack, recce or fighter or transport control surface - Light MG (e.g., 0.30 caliber or 7.62 mm) AP or ball.

Very light aircraft fuselage, wing or engine mount - 20 mm explosive or AP.
Very light aircraft stabilizer - Heavy MG HE, AP or ball.
Very light aircraft control surface - Light MG AP or ball.