Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[The_WOZ]

As most planes in the game, both the P-47 and the Fw-190 have complete internal collision boxes modelled. This is, individual models for each internal system with a rough shape and size.

This means that if the ignition system is shot out, is because a bullet indeed hit that small part of the engine.

Now, there's another group of planes, which includes the Stuka and the P-39/P-63, that do not have any internal collision boxes at all.
In these planes the damage to internal systems is determined procedurally every time a bullet hits the airframe.
For the Stuka there's around a 60% chance for a incendiary bullet shot to the wing root to set the wing tanks on fire.

I have once hit a P-47 with 80 20mm rounds (from a J2M) and it flew away. Other times a few hits from a 109 on the wing root will bring it down.
Even on planes with complete damage models there's some randomness thrown in to make things more interesting and realistic.
For example, back to the ignition system in the P-47, a bullet may not have enough force to knock out a magneto, but it may still sever some wiring and have the same effect.

In the case of the F6F, as a Ju88 and Betty pilot I can attest to the engine toughness to both MG and cannon fire.

[ElAurens]

I've had more "one shot" instant stops in the P 47 than any other plane in the sim. Second place goes to the glass jawed P 40.

You could probably bring the IL2 P 47 down easily with a side arm, if they were available in the sim.

[horseback]

As most planes in the game, both the P-47 and the Fw-190 have complete internal collision boxes modelled. This is, individual models for each internal system with a rough shape and size.

This means that if the ignition system is shot out, is because a bullet indeed hit that small part of the engine.

Which tells me that the shot is impossibly accurate, or that the 'collision boxes' are on the especially generous side for the P-47's (and the Hellcat's and the Corsair's) engine compartment.

As for random numbers, only God can generate a truly random number; there is always a prejudice built into any system built by men, and it is pretty obvious here.

When I run down and across the rear of a Betty at a 45 degree angle after a high 7 o'clock diving gunnery pass, and the rear gunner takes out my engine 3 out of 5 times in a QMB (my speed was in excess of 370 kts every time), that is not random.

When I approach from a level 4 o'clock, and get my engine knocked out from 450 meters as often as once in five tries, that is not random.

It is wrong.

cheers

horseback

[The_WOZ]

Let me put it this way, without these pseudo random numbers every single hit would knock out the engine, break controls, set fires, tear wings, etc, every single time

And no, the game doesn't call a special "letsporkthep47.rnd()" function, it uses de very same random number generator for the whole game. So by your logic the entire game is wrong

Also look at the size of the R-2800 distributors in this picture, each is as big as an human head.



Now, I'm not claiming that the damage model is perfect as it is, and I don't fly the P-47 so I can only tell what I have seen when flying against it online.
I would expect the engine to be somewhat more fragile, given the complex instalation with the turbocharger on the belly and all the plumbing it needs. But still it shouldn't have more probability to seize than the F6F or F4U.

Personally I wouldn't guide by getting the engine killed on a single hit by AI, it always had that supernatural hability to do tremendous damage with few rounds.

I have the same problem with the Hs-129 and AAA, it would aim directly to the engines and knock them down on a single hit, rarely it hits other thing that the very precise spot that kills the engines.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

Personally I wouldn't guide by getting the engine killed on a single hit by AI, it always had that supernatural hability to do tremendous damage with few rounds.

This has been changed in 4.12. If anything, AI gunnery isn't good enough, at least for Ace or Veteran fighters.

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

I have the same problem with the Hs-129 and AAA, it would aim directly to the engines and knock them down on a single hit, rarely it hits other thing that the very precise spot that kills the engines.

That might speak not so much to the accuracy of the AAA, so much as flaws with the DM for the Hs-129. TD gave us a lovely rework of this plane, but they might still be retaining old, bad DM.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

Let me put it this way, without these pseudo random numbers every single hit would knock out the engine, break controls, set fires, tear wings, etc, every single time

And no, the game doesn't call a special "letsporkthep47.rnd()" function, it uses de very same random number generator for the whole game. So by your logic the entire game is wrong

Also look at the size of the R-2800 distributors in this picture, each is as big as an human head.



Now, I'm not claiming that the damage model is perfect as it is, and I don't fly the P-47 so I can only tell what I have seen when flying against it online.
I would expect the engine to be somewhat more fragile, given the complex instalation with the turbocharger on the belly and all the plumbing it needs. But still it shouldn't have more probability to seize than the F6F or F4U.

Personally I wouldn't guide by getting the engine killed on a single hit by AI, it always had that supernatural hability to do tremendous damage with few rounds.

I have the same problem with the Hs-129 and AAA, it would aim directly to the engines and knock them down on a single hit, rarely it hits other thing that the very precise spot that kills the engines.

That was why they had two distributors, for redundancy. My argument is that the Corsair and Hellcat are both at least as fragile as the P-47 (and the Hellcat is probably the worst of the trio). You might also take another look at your picture: there's a lot more space between the cylinder heads and the metal of the cowling than we would see in a comparable picture of a Focke-Wulf or Lavotchkin. The damage model for the R-2800 is plainly wrong, and the DMs for the rest of the aircraft that use it are also clearly exaggerated in light of their combat records.

As I pointed out, just making a hit inside the cowling of a fighter approaching from any angle at any distance was extremely difficult; it happens far too often, and for certain aircraft, I suspect that it happens extra often, just as certain ai aircraft always seem to be crewed by clones of Little Stevie Wonder at the gunner's position (regardless of assigned skill level) and others always have the virtual offspring of Annie Oakley and Davy Crockett at their guns.

Do a little research and see how the fuel tanks and turbosupercharger in the Thunderbolt was installed and try to remember that American fighters in general were notoriously over-engineered and built to greater stress standards than the European norm (and most definitely the Japanese norm), and that the P-47 was considered even more so. There was a heavy belly 'keel' added early in the P-47C series in order to support a large drop tank and plumbing for it; it added a lot of protection for fuel tanks that were already buried pretty deeply inside the fuselage and had oodles of the leak-proofing that was standard on less protected tanks in other aircraft of the era. See the attached picture:

That's just the turbosupercharger; it doesn't show the supporting frames or the basic structure that covered it. The majority of it was ducting and piping that was hard to hit, and wouldn't be easily or seriously punctured unless hit from the right angle (i.e., a low-probability high deflection shot). The critical components were comparatively small. It could take a licking and keep in ticking.

Carrier aircraft are designed to take the stresses of repeated carrier landings, which adds to the strength and density of the airframe, which makes them even tougher to destroy or damage.

All three of these aircraft were used extensively in close ground support and were universally acknowledged as the safest aircraft of the war for that task. Corsairs and Hellcats largely replaced the SB2C Helldiver in the divebombing role by the end of the war because the difference in accuracy was minimal and the aircraft were much more capable (and survivable) after they dropped their bombs at low level over some of the densest light flak in the world.

The FW-190's BMW and the La-5/-7 series are treated much better, as I have pointed out, and neither had a record remotely comparable, particularly when specifically assigned to ground support. The schlacht variants of the 190 were heavily rebuilt with extra armor and weapon installations; the P-47, F6F and F4U assigned to ground attack were no different from the models assigned to air combat. Hour for dedicated ground attack combat hour, all three of these American fighters were statistically safer to fly over heavily defended enemy positions.

But not in this game. The 'random numbers' that generate hits and determine damage are clearly wrong for these aircraft.

And of course, it is a given that the AI are accurate (and swivel their guns ridiculously fast) at any distance or skill setting, to the point of parody (seriously, not a lot of trained soldiers can hit a stationary target the size of a P-47's cowl opening from 400m away, much less pick off the distributors with a standard rifle, much less than that hit it with a machine gun with open sights from a moving platform). For the off-line player, that is by far the biggest hole in the sim, but there appears to be no effective way to limit their accuracy to realistic levels (that DT will admit to, but I'm still getting disabling strikes from Rookie Zeros at over 400m, and as for the Betties...).

In general, the aircraft crew ai are far too accurate at ridiculous ranges and angles, and are able to bring their guns to bear much too quickly. They consistently hit 'spots' more often than the aircraft in general. The AA on the ground also seems to be modeled as being equivalent to a battery than as an individual emplacement, and again, even the heavy guns readjust and aim at 'spots' with inhuman speed.

I've flown many Soviet and German campaigns in Il-2 Sturmovik and all its successors over the last eleven years; no German or Soviet aircraft is as susceptible to being hit or being seriously damaged by those hits as the US radial powered fighters, when you take into account their relative size and speeds. It is not a matter of tactics; you can use the QMB to assign yourself a FW 190 or La-5F/FN to attack the same formation of Betties or He-111s and take the same angles of approach and you will take fewer hits and less damage than you will with a P-47, F4U or F6F.

You will find that these aircraft are harder to keep trimmed, that their instrument displays are generally inaccurate, and even once you finally figure out how to fly them with comparable precision, you will still take more hits than with the German or Soviet radials and that those hits will do disproportionate levels of damage.

cheers

horseback

[The_WOZ]

I agree with most of our points horseback, including trimming and innacurate instruments (this later issue is not only a problem of US planes).

Regardless of ammount of armor or redundancy, if you look at the ammount of space occupied with critical systems on the P-47 you cannot deny that the chance of damaging something to some extend is greater than in other planes. But of course redundancy will make critical hits harder to achieve.

I took a look at the collision boxes on the P-47, both distributors are modelled and are slightly smaller than in reality, there's two magnetos placed behind the engine, while in reality the R-2800 had only one placed between the two distributors (unless I missed something while looking at the schematic).
The intercooler is missing, but the turbine and belly plumbing is there. Oil coolers are merged into a single smaller unit. (Cockpit armour plates and other internal parts are also modelled btw)
All in all I think the collision boxes itself are generous in favour of the P-47. The probability of actually hitting something inside the plane might be smaller than in reality.
The problem, if there's actually one (not saying there isn't, it's just that I dont fly the P-47, and when flying a bomber surviving a Jug attack long enough to cause damage with the gunners -I man the guns- is almost impossible) might indeed have to do with too big a chance to receive damage when a internal part is hit.

Pursuivant:
I dont have mayor problems with the engines on the Hs-129 on air to air combat, be it a human pilot or AI gunner, it's AAA that is obsessed with my engines
But yes, either the damage on the Hs-129 engines is exagerated (the cowling bottom half was armored after all), or is downplayed on other planes with engines of the same family (G-50/MC-200, IAR-80/81)

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

Now, there's another group of planes, which includes the Stuka and the P-39/P-63, that do not have any internal collision boxes at all.
In these planes the damage to internal systems is determined procedurally every time a bullet hits the airframe.

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

[ElAurens]

Long ago at the old UBI forum, Oleg did indeed say that single flak guns are modeled as a battery, to help with FPS issues in the sim.

[horseback]

From WOZ:
I agree with most of our points horseback, including trimming and innacurate instruments (this later issue is not only a problem of US planes).

I’m aware that many other aircraft have inaccurate or unreadable instrumentation, but there are several that are blessed with key instruments that are quite accurate (most of the Japanese fighters definitely fall into that category) in the game; this just makes it harder to tolerate. What you may not appreciate is how inconsistent the inaccuracies of the trimming and instrumentation of these aircraft are; in most other aircraft, the ‘error’ is almost always the same, whereas in the late war US fighters as a group, the instruments will not only lie to you, they will lie to you from different directions as the speed changes.

Regardless of ammount of armor or redundancy, if you look at the ammount of space occupied with critical systems on the P-47 you cannot deny that the chance of damaging something to some extend is greater than in other planes. But of course redundancy will make critical hits harder to achieve.

I took a look at the collision boxes on the P-47, both distributors are modelled and are slightly smaller than in reality, there's two magnetos placed behind the engine, while in reality the R-2800 had only one placed between the two distributors (unless I missed something while looking at the schematic).
The intercooler is missing, but the turbine and belly plumbing is there. Oil coolers are merged into a single smaller unit. (Cockpit armour plates and other internal parts are also modelled btw)

All in all I think the collision boxes itself are generous in favour of the P-47. The probability of actually hitting something inside the plane might be smaller than in reality.

The problem, if there's actually one (not saying there isn't, it's just that I dont fly the P-47, and when flying a bomber surviving a Jug attack long enough to cause damage with the gunners -I man the guns- is almost impossible) might indeed have to do with too big a chance to receive damage when a internal part is hit.

The amount of space occupied with critical systems is relatively farther into the fuselage than the diagram can convey; as I pointed out, there are a lot of support members and fuselage framing and skin that you have to get through before you can talk about puncturing the pipes and ducting—and the more critical the pipe or duct is, the more non-critical stuff is between it and the outer skin. Additionally, the ducting and pipes are not remotely comparable to the ducting in your building’s air conditioning system; it was pretty heavy-duty stuff that had to hold up under the extremes of altitude and high G maneuvers, not to mention the odd bullet or explosive round that found its way past the tail wheel and the rudder.

I remember being admonished on several occasions over the years that to penetrate a metal layer that not only thickness of the plate but angle of penetration is critical (usually after I pointed out that the vulnerability of certain aircraft from rear quarter attacks seemed awfully low). Penetrating multiple layers of metal at varying angles as would be necessary to damage the turbosupercharger system would be fairly difficult, even with multiple close range 20mm hits.

If you have to penetrate multiple layers from multiple angles, it gets a lot harder to do meaningful damage, and the whole of the underside of the Jug was reinforced by that ‘keel’ I mentioned earlier, as well as the structural members that held the fuel tanks in place.

I still think that the historical record shows both that making the kind of hits that are routinely made (or more accurately, credited) in the game and the amount of damage they are modeled as inflicting are excessive.

From Pursuivant:
Quote:
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.)

While I rarely attempt to contradict the great Robert A. Heinlein, I would suggest to you that nothing says ‘basic human nature’ more than: “I’m going to stick this up your %#&%(&*^)*, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.” One or two misunderstandings is a coincidence; after that, if they continue to always work to your disadvantage you should assume that you’re getting jerked around, and start protecting your interests (learn this lesson before you get married, or your life will be a living hell).

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.

Here, I generally agree. I argued on many occasions on the Ubi forums that the late war American fighters were too demanding of technical expertise at the ground crew level for the Soviets to keep them flying properly, and that the tactical doctrines they were built to were utterly alien to the VVS, which led to Oleg and Co taking the operational records, performance data and pilot descriptions with a five pound bag of salt (rather than the traditional grain). As products of the old Soviet system, I suspect that they believed to their bones that anything from America was heavily propagandized and needed to be taken down a peg. I know that they rejected official documentation on the P-38 in favor of ‘other’ sources, and certainly the Mustang’s treatment would indicate that they preferred to use data gathered from Chiang Kai-Shek's clapped-out, badly maintained Lend-Lease examples acquired from the People’s Republic of China after 1948.

One correction: the 56th FG came to England as the only fighter group in the 8th AF that had experience with the P-47, and they loved it. By contrast the 78th FG had originally been a P-38 outfit that got stripped of its aircraft and most of their experienced pilots for the North African invasion, and the 4th FG had originally been the RAF’s Eagle Squadrons flying Spit Vbs (and as the only source of experienced combat pilots, were stripped of a large portion of key leaders and their most promising pilots). The 78th and 4th FGs were not big fans of the Jug, and frankly sulked about it for most of their breaking in period.

The 56th adapted and made the most of the Jug, while the 4th couldn't move on to the P-51 fast enough; its senior officers were trying to get the P-51 or P-51A before word about the Merlin version reached them. The 78th eventually resigned themselves to the Jug, and were one of the last groups to convert to the Mustang.

Quote:
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.

When we are talking about taking damage from ground fire, the reputations in question were made during 1944 and after, against some extremely potent AAA systems and ground troops (IJA) trained to shoot back rather than scatter and hide from aerial attacks. The 8th AF fighter groups prior to February of 1944 had barely achieved a standoff, but the ruggedness of the (much less capable) early P-47s was already established; Robert Johnson was far from the only guy to get his Thunderbolt shot to pieces over eastern France and still make it back across the Channel.

Corsairs and Hellcats got their combat starts in February and August of 1943, well before the Japanese had been beaten. The fact is that US Naval Aviators used the Corsair and Hellcat to break the IJN air arm’s back by spring of 1944; using the F4F or FM-2, it would have taken another six months (and hundreds more good men’s lives) at the least.

cheers

horseback