Ki-27 too durable & strange behavior

[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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

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.

More to the point, actual WW2 aircrew got relatively little gunnery training, and what they did get was often proven to be ineffective.

In 1943-44, the 8th Air Force had to run remedial training schools for gunners arriving in-theater. This despite the fact that US gunners probably got some of the best training available.

Gunners in many other air forces didn't even get training.

The same goes for pilots. If you were a British fighter pilot fresh from training in August 1940, or a Soviet pilot in 1942, or a German or Japanese pilot in 1944, you barely knew how to fly, much less how to shoot. The assumption was that you'd learn all that stuff once you reached your unit.

Realistically, of course, it was organized murder to send inadequately trained men into action. The only good all those badly trained "nuggets" did was distract the enemy long enough to allow the more skilled pilots to survive. The lucky few managed to survive long enough to gain experience.