4.12.2 de-bugging

[Janosch]

Based on a test firing, QMB stats, wikipedia and calculations, I say that the ShKAS rate of fire is modeled correctly, at least on paper. But I would have to fire and hit with every round to be sure...

Gladiators may well feel overly strong, being able to fly while looking like Swiss cheese, but it's possible that nothing vital was hit. But it's actually like breakfast cheddar. You poke it and you get cheese on your fingers: firing from behind, you don't have the option to aim precisely at a weak spot. I thought I was aiming well with Cr.42, and shot at the fuselage, seemingly wasting tons of ammo, but a lucky close range short burst from a different angle took out the Gladiator's wing.

Wing mounted ShKAS are tricky weapons, especially with a plane that has poor gunsights, high instability and no elevator trim. The key is to set weapon convergence to much less than 150m and fire at close range. With a bit of luck and an angle that just exposes e.g. the target's engine, even a short burst does the job.
The problem is that even AI may start evading properly once you get to an effective range. And that imho is what makes early 109 sauerkraut guns (e.g. if the cannon is damaged) sometimes feel underpowered, too.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Janosch

Gladiators may well feel overly strong, being able to fly while looking like Swiss cheese, but it's possible that nothing vital was hit. But it's actually like breakfast cheddar.

Something that IL2 doesn't model, or model well, is the fact that many 1930s era planes which had fabric over wood or metal frame construction were actually quite resistant to gunfire.

Many bullets would just punch through or shred the fabric without hitting any part of the frame. Additionally, explosive rounds might not be triggered if they just hit fabric. Or, if they do explode, they just blow away the surrounding fabric with little actual damage to the airframe (since there is very little solid structure to contain the blast and increase its intensity).

So, it's realistic for planes like the Cr.42, Gladiator or Hurricane to still be able to (sort of) fly if their fabric is shredded.

Obviously, any hit of that sort will cause increased drag, though. Also, hits to the wings can easily cause strips of fabric to tear away due to slipstream effects, causing bigger problems in maintaining lift than the same damage to a monocoque or metal-skinned plane.

[sniperton]

Yep, but what about the Wellington? They do fly with 1/3 (or even more) of their wing surface gone due to MG hits. They are not like cheese, they're like flying skeletons.

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by sniperton

Yep, but what about the Wellington? They do fly with 1/3 (or even more) of their wing surface gone due to MG hits. They are not like cheese, they're like flying skeletons.

Keep in mind that those are graphical representations of damage, and don't necessarily correlate to actual damage. For example, maybe you hit the Wellington's wing with one bullet just enough to do some damage, and the graphical representation of that damage looks like you hit it with dozens of bullets. The 109's wing's damage is another good example of this: you hit it hard with a single machine gun bullet and you might get those two basketball-sized holes to appear that look like they could have only been caused by cannon shells.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Keep in mind that those are graphical representations of damage, and don't necessarily correlate to actual damage.

That's one of my points. 'Cause it means that the graphical representation is disproportional to the actual damage. My other point is that the Wellington is nearly invulnerable to structural damage. I've never ever succeeded in bringing down a Wellington other way than by flaming its engines, no matter whether I used HMGs or cannons. Dunno whether it's realistic, hence my question.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by sniperton

That's one of my points. 'Cause it means that the graphical representation is disproportional to the actual damage. My other point is that the Wellington is nearly invulnerable to structural damage. I've never ever succeeded in bringing down a Wellington other way than by flaming its engines, no matter whether I used HMGs or cannons. Dunno whether it's realistic, hence my question.

Wellington's were known for their battle toughness...

The Wellington used a geodesic construction method, which had been devised by Barnes Wallis inspired by his work on airships, and had previously been used to build the single-engined Wellesley light bomber. The fuselage was built up from 1650 elements, consisting of aluminium alloy (duralumin) W-beams that were formed into a large framework. Wooden battens were screwed onto the aluminium, and these were covered with Irish linen, which, once treated with many layers of dope, formed the outer skin of the aircraft. The metal lattice gave the structure tremendous strength, because any one of the stringers could support some of the weight from even the opposite side of the aircraft. Blowing out one side's beams would still leave the aircraft as a whole intact; as a result, Wellingtons with huge areas of framework missing continued to return home when other types would not have survived; the dramatic effect was enhanced by the doped fabric skin burning off, leaving the naked frames exposed (see photo).

In one incident, a German Bf 110 night-fighter attacked a Wellington returning from an attack on Münster, Germany, causing a fire at the rear of the starboard engine. Co-pilot Sergeant James Allen Ward climbed out of the fuselage in flight, kicked holes in the doped fabric of the wing for foot and hand holds to reach the starboard engine and smothered the burning upper wing covering. He and the aircraft returned home safely, and Ward was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Wellington

The graphical representations work like this. There are 3 states of damage: 1) Undamaged 2) Light damage 3) Heavy damage

All of these states are done by the visual artist for the model. If the artist overdoes it a bit on any one of these it may make it look worse than it actually is. The damage states give you a clue as to how much damage you've done but not the full picture.

As always, it's best to do damage to vulnerable areas. Particularly on bombers you aim for fuel tanks, engines and the cockpit. You avoid firing on the structural elements as many bombers are fairly tough and aircraft like the B-29, Wellington, B-17 and others were well known for being able to absorb incredible punishment and still staying aloft.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

All of these states are done by the visual artist for the model. If the artist overdoes it a bit on any one of these it may make it look worse than it actually is.

This is also the reason that destroyed planes sometimes seem to have damage that should allow the plane to still fly. For example, many planes could still fly (sort of) with the outer third or quarter of one wing removed, but in IL2 they cannot.

Originally Posted by IceFire

As always, it's best to do damage to vulnerable areas. Particularly on bombers you aim for fuel tanks, engines and the cockpit.

And, if possible, try to attack a bit from above, below or to the side so you maximize target area and have a better chance of hitting vulnerable areas, rather than just chewing up the plane's tail or the trailing edge of its wing.

The exception is for head-on attacks where you want to try to align yourself perfectly with the oncoming enemy plane so you don't have to correct for deflection in the very limited time you have to shoot. Otherwise, when making a head-on, try to attack from slightly above and to the target plane's left side, so you have the best chance of hitting the pilot and the port side engines and fuel tanks.

If you go online, you can sometimes find field manuals which show a certain plane's weak spots. If that information isn't available, it's generally a good strategy to aim at the wing roots, since there will usually be a fuel tank there. Also, if you miss slightly, there will usually be a fuel tank or bomb bay in the plane's fuselage, right where the fuselage and the wings cross (typically, that's the plane's Center of Gravity).

Finally, give yourself a bit more lead than you expect when making high deflection shots against bombers. Most of the really vulnerable stuff (cockpit, engines, fuel tanks) is up front.

Hits to the rear fuselage are mostly a waste of ammo. About the only thing that's a really good target in the rear of the plane are the rear gunners. Take out the tail gunner or top gunner and if you choose your angle right you can get in close to deliver the coup de grace without getting zapped by the bomber's other guns.