PDA

View Full Version : Bomber toughness (B-17 and others)



Willey
06-15-2004, 04:53 AM
OK, the patch thread got locked so I have to start a new thread about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Posted by Gibbage1:
Did I say that? No. I said the B-17 is weaker then the He-111 and Pe-8 and history tells us it was the strongest bomber of the war.

The He-111 takes about 10-12 37MM hits. B-17 taked 3. The wings and engines on the B-17 burn like crazy, but no other bomber has this problem. The B-17 in Il2 is what you expect a Betty to be.

If you want proof, please visit this web page.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B-25's were tough. And they are tough. Tougher then the B-17 and that should not be. Eather all bombers need to decrease in toughness, or make the B-17 tougher.

Now that my .50 cal quest is over, I think this will be my new mission. Make the B-17 tougher!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you need 3 37mm hits to down a B-17 this looks OK to me. It's rather odd that you need 10+ for the Heinkel. So you better do not insist in having the Fortress tougher. The rest is too tough. Although I have to agree that the engines start burning really quickly. Didn't the Fortress have fire extinguishers?? The AI could use them if it had some. But there are some more engines that aren't in good relations DM-wise... Just hit the DB engines anywhere and you'll inflict oil cooler damage and render oil on his windscreen. But you need quite much lead to take down a Spit's Merlin or a VK-105/7 series engine unless you take in from straight 12 o'clock. Other weak engines are the BMW, which is quite vulnerable to .303s or the R-2800 which will die instantly when the turbo supercharger ducts are hit back in the fuselage.

Willey
06-15-2004, 04:53 AM
OK, the patch thread got locked so I have to start a new thread about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Posted by Gibbage1:
Did I say that? No. I said the B-17 is weaker then the He-111 and Pe-8 and history tells us it was the strongest bomber of the war.

The He-111 takes about 10-12 37MM hits. B-17 taked 3. The wings and engines on the B-17 burn like crazy, but no other bomber has this problem. The B-17 in Il2 is what you expect a Betty to be.

If you want proof, please visit this web page.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B-25's were tough. And they are tough. Tougher then the B-17 and that should not be. Eather all bombers need to decrease in toughness, or make the B-17 tougher.

Now that my .50 cal quest is over, I think this will be my new mission. Make the B-17 tougher!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you need 3 37mm hits to down a B-17 this looks OK to me. It's rather odd that you need 10+ for the Heinkel. So you better do not insist in having the Fortress tougher. The rest is too tough. Although I have to agree that the engines start burning really quickly. Didn't the Fortress have fire extinguishers?? The AI could use them if it had some. But there are some more engines that aren't in good relations DM-wise... Just hit the DB engines anywhere and you'll inflict oil cooler damage and render oil on his windscreen. But you need quite much lead to take down a Spit's Merlin or a VK-105/7 series engine unless you take in from straight 12 o'clock. Other weak engines are the BMW, which is quite vulnerable to .303s or the R-2800 which will die instantly when the turbo supercharger ducts are hit back in the fuselage.

1.JaVA_Razer
06-15-2004, 04:59 AM
I agree with gibbage that the B17 is WEAK

indeed the engines appear to be bullet magnets and burn QUICK

other planes just smoke engine(light grey smoke) no,this one burn imedialty.

it's fuselage is very nice to resisting bullets but it's engines are indeed weak. they need to be much thougher in my opinion but thats just me. I saw guncam footage of a BF 109 gitting the engine pod with a shot from it's guns(I think MG's because of little recoil) and the engine gave a little "puff" at impact and that was it.

do it now and your engine goes boom

edit:
"which is quite vulnerable to .303s or the R-2800 which will die instantly when the turbo supercharger ducts are hit back in the fuselage"

this is quite normal because if your supercharger gets hit in the proces your engine'll get the recoil from the superchargers rod/whatever it connects the engine together with
so your engine will get severly affected also


------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

WOLFMondo
06-15-2004, 05:03 AM
I found the weakness of the B17 is the fuel tanks past the outboard engines. Onces there burning its only a matter of time before the wing blows off.

The He111 does seem extra tough though. Much tougher than the B17. The plane that seems toughest though is the Me323. That plane is impossible to take out with a plane with 0.50 cals. Its just soaks them up.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

HellToupee
06-15-2004, 05:19 AM
in a bf110 with 20mm gunpod, i shotdown a he111 online, with &lt;gunstat and subtracking my hits before the attack it was over 300rounds to bring it down, with a good chunk 20mms.

It didnt lose a wing or anything, the guy was at like 10meters and just couldnt keep it airborn.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Yellonet
06-15-2004, 05:25 AM
The B-17 seems to be a lot tougher in 2.02.


- Yellonet

jurinko
06-15-2004, 05:31 AM
willey i would not say allisons or merlins are too tough, seem quite realistic dm. what is off are vk105 engines, the number of hits should down b17 and vk just stops, max. produces a bit of oil smoke. or doesn´t stop at all.
in arcade mode, few times my db605 was hit by mgs from side and did not quit.. but yes its the most vulnerable engine. Allisons/merlins are more ready to catch fire though.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

NegativeGee
06-15-2004, 05:33 AM
Statements like "it took me X rounds to shoot down plane Y" are not very helpful. Where are these hits scored? are they all to the fuselage, the wings, one wing or over the whole aircraft?

In my my experience the B-17 can absorb large amounts of fire, or very little, depending where you land your shots. Same goes for the He-111 for that matter (which can be quite easily brought down with M2 Brownings, pre or post patch dispersion or not).

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Yellonet
06-15-2004, 05:36 AM
And with the .50 cal. dispersion significantly lower, downing a He-111 isn't all that difficult either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


- Yellonet

DeBaer.534
06-15-2004, 01:35 PM
well the HE111 is a player a/c, the B17.
ever thought about how "funny" it would be to fly the hughe, heavy, slow manoeuvering He111, which has very weak defensive weapons online, if you go down by 5 20mm hits?
anyway i dont like the weak B17s, especially that the AI stalls it already if you do only little damage and spins down.
thats not very realistic, looks stupid, and isnt a lot of fun.

Giganoni
06-15-2004, 02:38 PM
I find the B-17 easy because it has big engines and nice big wing fuel tanks. I don't care if they are self sealing you get a good burst at a wing from an angle and I don't see why it shouldn't start flaming. I never found it to be a fortress. B-25 is harder for me because when making passes at it it is smaller and its vitals are harder to hit.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

plumps_
06-15-2004, 04:49 PM
Why does nobody mention the He-111 Z? The Zwilling is really tough. It probably still has its old DM from IL-2 Classic and was not considered important enough to be updated.

The Pe-2 and Db-3 DMs are fairly reasonable after the changes that came in 2.01.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

BS87
06-15-2004, 04:53 PM
The bombers either blow up within 1-2 shots or take half an ammo load, as mentioned before.

Now, i know in real life, 1-3 mk108 hits would likely kill a b17, but not alot of people fly them online, where they are allowed. Just think, if you could blow up a b17 with 1 30mm hit, or even 5 20mm hits, reliably, time and time again.... yes, it would be 'realistic' but who would fly them? even less people than now.

Fishu
06-15-2004, 05:41 PM
3 hits of 30mm MK108 should be about enough to bring down a B17 (IRL average as I recall)
and for 20mm MG151/20 the figure was around 20 hits.

What comes to 37mm especially the one on P39, MK108 was historically more powerful.
American 37mm put on P39 was awfully weak for its size when compares to most other guns about same class in caliber.
MK108 indeed would be more powerful in bringing down bombers.. I don't remember how much the difference was.
IIRC american 37mm was maybe slightly more powerful than 20mm MG151/20 minengeschoss round.

Anyway.. when you want to shoot down a bomber, you want to have high explosives and incendiary.

mortoma
06-15-2004, 07:20 PM
I just tried the B-17 in the new leaked patch, using QMB in my favorite bomber killing practice scenario. I actually think the Fortress is a little too tough now!! In my scenario, I start QMB with 3 B-17s set on average, against me in various German fighters. My goal is to try to down all three fortresses before they get to their airbase landing pattern. Before this patch I was able to down all three in a 109G2 or F4, with the 20mm cannon. With a weakly armed F2, I used to be able to down at least one consistently, sometimes two. Now I can only down one and heavily damage another, on average with the G2 or F4. With the F2 I can't down any fortresses so far. I think the DM of the 17 should be somewhere in between what it used to be and what it is now. Yes, the fortress was tough but it was still downable. For every fortress that made it back heavily damaged, there were probably 2 that didn't. Let's face it, not even the venerable B-17 was not totally invincible. At least you can still devastate one with a short Mk108 burst. I still can shoot down all three using Mk108, every time. Thank God for at least that. Maddox has a tendency to overdo stuff.

BBB_Hyperion
06-15-2004, 08:05 PM
B17 not hard to down when you know where to hit.

Here a example.

http://il2.wunderlin.net/modules/Static_Docs/data/misc/pics/b17dmtest.jpg

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Fishu
06-16-2004, 09:04 AM
What fuel?-)

http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/forum/b17layout.gif

p1ngu666
06-16-2004, 09:27 AM
i read they transfered fuel from the wingtanks to fusealarge one cos it was less vunrable

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 08:07 AM
Fishu wrong version of B17 nice try tho .)

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 11:51 AM
A Luftwaffa report said that in order to take down a B-17, it needed an AVERAGE of 40 20MM hits from Mg-151/20 or 10 hits from Mk-108. Right now it takes about 3-4 hits from Mk-108 and 10 hits from 20MM. It also seems extreamly allergic to .50 cal's. A VERY VERY short birst will set the wings on-fire and its occupents bailing. Again, look at the link I posted. B-17's were RAMMED BY FW-190's AND STILL FLEW HOME! And your telling me 3 shells should bring it down?

Please find me any pics of any Axis bomber with this sort of damage that flew home. I bring proof, you have not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
OK, the patch thread got locked so I have to start a new thread about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Posted by Gibbage1:
Did I say that? No. I said the B-17 is weaker then the He-111 and Pe-8 and history tells us it was the strongest bomber of the war.

The He-111 takes about 10-12 37MM hits. B-17 taked 3. The wings and engines on the B-17 burn like crazy, but no other bomber has this problem. The B-17 in Il2 is what you expect a Betty to be.

If you want proof, please visit this web page.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B-25's were tough. And they are tough. Tougher then the B-17 and that should not be. Eather all bombers need to decrease in toughness, or make the B-17 tougher.

Now that my .50 cal quest is over, I think this will be my new mission. Make the B-17 tougher!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you need 3 37mm hits to down a B-17 this looks OK to me. It's rather odd that you need 10+ for the Heinkel. So you better do not insist in having the Fortress tougher. The rest is too tough. Although I have to agree that the engines start burning really quickly. Didn't the Fortress have fire extinguishers?? The AI could use them if it had some. But there are some more engines that aren't in good relations DM-wise... Just hit the DB engines anywhere and you'll inflict oil cooler damage and render oil on his windscreen. But you need quite much lead to take down a Spit's Merlin or a VK-105/7 series engine unless you take in from straight 12 o'clock. Other weak engines are the BMW, which is quite vulnerable to .303s or the R-2800 which will die instantly when the turbo supercharger ducts are hit back in the fuselage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 11:58 AM
Also, just a note. I am saying the B-17 is the weakest bomber in the game. Im not saying online, im saying ANYWERE. Do a QMB and the B-17 goes down a LOT faster then an He-111. It may be more dangerous, but the He-111 should go down faster, not the other way around. When I am saying "X hits on Y aircraft" I am talking the average shells expended before the AI bails or the aircraft has a major brakedown. It takes on average 3-4 well placed 20MM shots to bring down a B-17 in a QMB, or 10-20 on a He-111. I think they should be swapped around. I dont see any photo's of He-111's landing after getting hit by 88MM AA, Rockets, FW-190's and so on.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 12:16 PM
Just in case you have not seen the web page listed (or ignoring the link) here are a few images

Collision with a FW-190
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/torn-in2.gif

Direct hit from an 88MM AA gun
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/sidehole.jpg

Another direct hit from an 88MM AA gun
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/turret1.gif

Me-262 Mk-108 hits. Were are those outboard fuel tanks?
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/wings/aileron120.jpg


Looks like a Mk-108 hit
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17photos/tail/rudder3.gif

Looks like a Mk-108 hit
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17photos/tail/rudder3.gif

As you can see, these things survived 88mm shells!!! Mk-108 hits are not as big as you would think. 20MM hits look puny.

Now, lets see the He-111 damage pics?

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

darkhorizon11
06-17-2004, 12:20 PM
I semi agree with all this. The second poster said that the B17 isn't to weak but the 111 is too strong. True there. All it takes is one shot in the wrong place, any pilot will tell you that. Not to mention every individual plane may have little quirks of their own like battle damage from previous missions that weren't fully patched up and stuff like that. Overall it seems consistent. The 323 should be toned down too. I remember trying to shoot those damn things down the old IL2 with .50 cals and it was just brutal. Pretty much a bullet sponge if you ask me those things don't need a fighter escort. If you ask me sometimes I feel like I need a gigant escort.

McTriggerhappy
06-17-2004, 12:24 PM
you must remember, it's not like maddox games is the ultimate judge in aircraft stats, for in my opinion, the Russian planes seem to be conveniently better than I remember them actually being. I don't mean to imply that the programmers are crooks, but you can't forget that they may have wanted to promote the Russian aircraft and stuff during WWII.

-mctriggerhappy

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 12:59 PM
Hmm can you show us the report gib ?

This is such kind of report you may refer to.It shows the average ammunition use on 50 % and 95 %
chance on downing of a 4 Engine Bomber
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Vortrag_MK108_2.jpg
Thats by no way the kind of thing you find in fb most fire from point blank distance to allow maximum effect from high speed dive. So every rounds might hit that is not the case in the upper calculation its a average ammunition use.

I agree however most weapon effects are modeled
wrong or the damagemodel is lacking of some damage calculations thats noticeable on he111 vs p39 for example but you can find it on pretty much every plane. There is no deforming from gunfire there is no dead pilot even when a shell
exploded under his nose. The fuel doesnt start to burn from pressure effect etc etc.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

JG53-Falkster
06-17-2004, 12:59 PM
Another direct hit from an 88MM AA gun

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/turret1.gif

LOL direct hit, for sure even the picture over this one seems not to be a 88m hit, and Gibbage if this pics are 88 direct hits then they are really great exceptions 1 of 1000, it would be nice if you could also post some really direct hits,
well you know thats not possible because there isn't much left on the ground...........
This photo post doesn't say anything and you know that Gibbage.

Gibbage wrote:
"Luftwaffa report said that in order to take down a B-17, it needed an AVERAGE of 40 20MM hits from Mg-151/20 or 10 hits from Mk-108"


Thats wrong, its for B-17
15-20 mg151/20
or 4-6 mk108

Don't change numbers.......


[This message was edited by JG53-Falkster on Thu June 17 2004 at 12:08 PM.]

[This message was edited by JG53-Falkster on Thu June 17 2004 at 12:15 PM.]

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 01:02 PM
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/ for overview

But this site only shows planes that did come back.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 01:19 PM
Gibbage, sorry just a question.
why do you mean it was a 88 hit ?
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/sidehole.jpg

this is the text below the picture : (davewarbirds site )
This B-17 took a direct flak hit in the waist over Debrecen, Hungary which killed three crewmen and wounded two others. Threatening to come apart in mid-air the pilot nursed it home to a safe landing, but the weakened fuselage collapsed on touchdown

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 01:43 PM
I still dont see anyone posting He-111 damage pics.

I bring proof that the B-17 was tough and survive MASSIVE ammounts of damage. Show me a He-111 can take more. Thats my issue here. In IL2, He-111 takes more damage then the B-17 were the B-17 was legandary for its survivability. It was the toughest bomber in WWII.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Giganoni
06-17-2004, 01:47 PM
Gibbage, your little picture of the MK108 hits to the wing shows damage to the back of the wing. Of course there are no fuel tanks! They were in the upper half, probably right where the guy is crouched on. Those hits only ripped through flap structure or aileron (cant really see how far down the wing it is) and also through either the aileron control linkage or more than likely the cooling air slots. Had those hits been higher up, the B-17 would have never returned.

Sure the Fuselage is tough, but its wings are fabric and thinly armored fuel tanks. Two tanks per wing, a mid wing tank between the engines and then an outer wing tank after them. It is certianly not a fortress, it failed to be in WWII so why expect it to be in FB? Just look at FB, You blow a B-17 apart easily because you hit the huge fuel tanks on the wing, it ignites and blows the wing off.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 01:54 PM
gibbage, also your first picture.
why do you mean it was a 190 ?

originaltext:
The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.


Picute No. 3 text:
Another view of the flak hit to "Little Miss Mischief", this shows the mangled fuselage and ball turret. Incredibly, the ball turret gunner's only injuries were the loss of a little toe and frostbite from the high altitude.



where did you read 88mm AA ?
just a question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:02 PM
Wow. There are so many things wrong with your post. You proved you know nothing!

Fabric wings? No. B-17 was aluminum. Maybe fabric covered controle serfaces. I need to check that

Outer wing tanks? If they were there, shrapnal would of hit them. Also, the Mk-108 did not do much damage.

Also, it was a flying fortress. HINCE ITS NAME!!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Gibbage, your little picture of the MK108 hits to the wing shows damage to the back of the wing. Of course there are no fuel tanks! They were in the upper half, probably right where the guy is crouched on. Those hits only ripped through flap structure or aileron (cant really see how far down the wing it is) and also through either the aileron control linkage or more than likely the cooling air slots. Had those hits been higher up, the B-17 would have never returned.

Sure the Fuselage is tough, but its wings are fabric and thinly armored fuel tanks. Two tanks per wing, a mid wing tank between the engines and then an outer wing tank after them. It is certianly not a fortress, it failed to be in WWII so why expect it to be in FB? Just look at FB, You blow a B-17 apart easily because you hit the huge fuel tanks on the wing, it ignites and blows the wing off.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:06 PM
Those pics are in books and other web pages. The book I have said it was a FW-190's wing that hit the B-17. But does it matter what fighter hit it?

As for the Flak, US pilots called all the flap "88's". I dont know how many differant high-alt flak shells Germany had, but I assume the great majority were 88's.

Again, shoe me He-111 damage pics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
gibbage, also your first picture.
why do you mean it was a 190 ?

originaltext:
The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.


Picute No. 3 text:
Another view of the flak hit to "Little Miss Mischief", this shows the mangled fuselage and ball turret. Incredibly, the ball turret gunner's only injuries were the loss of a little toe and frostbite from the high altitude.



where did you read 88mm AA ?
just a question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:09 PM
Look. I showed you proof the B-17 was tough. The burden of proof is now on everyone who disagrees. Now go find proof that the B-17 was week. OK?

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Those pics are in books and other web pages. The book I have said it was a FW-190's wing that hit the B-17. But does it matter what fighter hit it?

As for the Flak, US pilots called all the flap "88's". I dont know how many differant high-alt flak shells Germany had, but I assume the great majority were 88's.

Again, shoe me He-111 damage pics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
gibbage, also your first picture.
why do you mean it was a 190 ?

originaltext:
The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.


Picute No. 3 text:
Another view of the flak hit to "Little Miss Mischief", this shows the mangled fuselage and ball turret. Incredibly, the ball turret gunner's only injuries were the loss of a little toe and frostbite from the high altitude.



where did you read 88mm AA ?
just a question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


could you scan the picture with the original text from your book ?
please name the book , say yes ?
maybe its not important for you,if it was a 88 or another gun , but i guess, you want to prove something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

JG53-Falkster
06-17-2004, 02:12 PM
I repeat:

to post photos doesn't say anything and you know that Gibbage.

the most of those pics are big exceptions.


""I still dont see anyone posting He-111 damage pics.""
Well i can't find any he111 pics hit by 88m AA or mk108 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif........It don't make sense to post pics like you did B17 or He111 it doesn't matter.


""It was the toughest bomber in WWII.""

Who said that? you?


I don't know Gibbage you're posting here pics and textes, from the most stuff the sources are wrong, you changed the numbers of documents or you interpret some pics with your own words. I think this isn't a poetry forum....

This isn't the way to make a good discussion gibbage.....

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:19 PM
I will try. I recently moved and still in the middle of unpacking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Those pics are in books and other web pages. The book I have said it was a FW-190's wing that hit the B-17. But does it matter what fighter hit it?

As for the Flak, US pilots called all the flap "88's". I dont know how many differant high-alt flak shells Germany had, but I assume the great majority were 88's.

Again, shoe me He-111 damage pics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
gibbage, also your first picture.
why do you mean it was a 190 ?

originaltext:
The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.


Picute No. 3 text:
Another view of the flak hit to "Little Miss Mischief", this shows the mangled fuselage and ball turret. Incredibly, the ball turret gunner's only injuries were the loss of a little toe and frostbite from the high altitude.



where did you read 88mm AA ?
just a question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


could you scan the picture with the original text from your book ?
please name the book , say yes ?
maybe its not important for you,if it was a 88 or another gun , but i guess, you want to prove something. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:21 PM
Did I ask for He-111 pics with damage from 88M or Mk-108? No. I asked for He-111 damage pics.

People are sidestepping the issue here. The B-17 was a very tough bomber in real life, and its very weak in IL2. Do you dispute that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53-Falkster:
""I still dont see anyone posting He-111 damage pics.""
Well i can't find any he111 pics hit by 88m AA or mk108 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif........It don't make sense to post pics like you did B17 or He111 it doesn't matter.
..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

JG53-Falkster
06-17-2004, 02:22 PM
i hope one day gibbage will answer all points of my posts..........

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:26 PM
"Testing verified that the cannon (Mk-108) was well-suited to this role, requiring as little as five hits with high-explosive ammunition to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator."

Notice. AS LITTLE AS FIVE HITS! That means "best possible scenario". I said "Average of 10 hits". Was I far off? No. Right on target. People twist "As little as five hits" to mean that the Mk-108 should down any B-17 in 5 hits.

Remember, There is best possible scenario, worse possible scenario, and average. I said average, and people counter with best possible. Talk about twisting words!!!

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:28 PM
Your sidestepping the point of this thread. If you go to the web page link, you will find many many many pics of damaged B-17's that made it home with massive battle damage. Thats what it shows. You know it, and your just trying to skirt past the truth because you fly Luftwaffa and you DONT want the B-17 "Flying Fortress" to be as powerful as it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53-Falkster:
i hope one day gibbage will answer all points of my posts..........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Sauhatz
06-17-2004, 02:34 PM
I've found a pic of a He-111 that was in low level flight over Nagasaki when it was hit by "Fat Man".

http://oberkampf.muddeln.free.fr/images/German%20losses/he111.jpg

...see ? A yield of 22 kilotons, but there are only a few tiny holes in the He-111...and the pilot Oberleutnant Wolfgang "Wolle" Petri still managed to fly it back to Germany!
After the rough landing ( gear was stuck...) he jumped out of the cockpit and started to sing:
"Das war Wahnsinn, das hat gerumst wie die H¶lle..." from within the He-111 the others were singing "H¶lle! H¶lle! H¶lle!" ...

Beat that!

...you know, since this is a poetry thread...

[This message was edited by Sauhatz on Thu June 17 2004 at 02:25 PM.]

Giganoni
06-17-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. There are so many things wrong with your post. You proved you know nothing!

Fabric wings? No. B-17 was aluminum. Maybe fabric covered controle serfaces. I need to check that

Outer wing tanks? If they were there, shrapnal would of hit them. Also, the Mk-108 did not do much damage.

Also, it was a flying fortress. HINCE ITS NAME!!!!!!

[
"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow Gibbage I guess we both know nothing! You don't even know where the fuel tanks for the B-17 were?! Guess what, it was dubbed the Flying Fortress, you want to know why? it was called that way back in 1935! Do you know what it was supposed to do in Europe? To be able to survive very well on its own without fighter escort. The first B-17 attacks were against lightly defended targets in France which bolstered the idea that the B-17 was a Fortress and could take care of itself. When they started heading to Germany, that was easily proven false and the 8thAF had to cancel attacks on Germany for awhile because of heavy losses.

Again your pictures can prove that B-17s can get lucky..and return with heavy damage but, is that the rule, or the exception? How many bombers with similar damage but, in a different section of the aircraft didn't make it?

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Rori
06-17-2004, 02:40 PM
yawn....just another tale from the "we won the war story" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

JG53-Falkster
06-17-2004, 02:42 PM
Yes you was far off, because you said in the "Luftwaffe Dokument" you can read ....10 mk108 can down a bomber....

But thats not true in the document its 4-6 hits. So you was far off.

Also you changed the undertext of pics, you change EVERYTHING to your own use. Even orgianl documents. However it doesn't make sense to discuss with someone who falsifies documents and undertextes of pics.

I agree the B-17 is a bit to weak, but dont falsifies any documents because this. In my point of view this is wrong and embarrassingly.

Anyway i know you a bit, you are always right. You're a great 3d modeller but you have to learn to make a disscusion, and i have to learn english........

Good night i have to sleep....

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 02:50 PM
Im trying to verify that. But the diagrams show the only tanks are between the engines, and not outboard.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/fishu/forum/b17layout.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:

Wow Gibbage I guess we both know nothing! You don't even know where the fuel tanks for the B-17 were?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Snow_Wolf_
06-17-2004, 02:51 PM
http://www.hans-egebo.dk/images/Flames.jpg

B-17 hit by direct Flak hit

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master the art of Speed without ever getting a Ticket"

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 02:52 PM
In Fb you need 10 Mk108s hits cause every 2nd is a dummy tracer that was build for training uses. All other tracers had exposives .)

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 02:54 PM
also the question for you , snow wulf.
is there a text with your picture, where it claims, it was a 88 mm hit ?

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

JG53-Falkster
06-17-2004, 02:54 PM
LOL Gibbage this B-17 is the wrong version ...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

how BBB_Hyperion already said

wrong version of B17 nice try

Your posting here about B-17 and you nothing about it damn i can't anymore because lauthing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Snow_Wolf_
06-17-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
also the question for you , snow wulf.
is there a text with your picture, where it claims, it was a 88 mm hit ?

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My friend if u look carefully at my text i did not say B-17 hit by 88 flak i just said B-17 hit by flak which could be any calilber of flak gun. I suggest you next time read more carefully before making an assumption of what one post.

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master the art of Speed without ever getting a Ticket"

Giganoni
06-17-2004, 03:00 PM
I have a Diagram of a B-17F that shows em, but here is what I found about the B-17G

"Self-sealing fuel tanks in wings. Normal fuel capacity carried in six tanks in the inner wing sections 1,700-US gallons. Nine self-sealing auxiliary feeder tanks in the outer wings. Two self-sealing droppable ferry tanks may be carried in bomb bay. Maximum capacity of all wing tanks 2,780-US gallons."

This would go with my diagram of the F as well, since it says the outer wing tanks had nine inter-rib cells. This website also says that the ailerons and flaps were fitted with fabric. Of course it is a website so you can judge its credibility for yourself.

http://www.skytamer.com/specs/usa/boeing/b-17g.htm

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
also the question for you , snow wulf.
is there a text with your picture, where it claims, it was a 88 mm hit ?

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My friend if u look carefully at my text i did not say B-17 hit by 88 flak i just said B-17 hit by flak which could be any calilber of flak gun. I suggest you next time read more carefully before making an assumption of what one post.

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master the art of Speed without ever getting a Ticket"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what do you want to say with your picture ?
a B17 went down ? indeed , very informative.

btw. better you read MY post more carefully, i asked a question , but it is too hard for some poster .
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Thu June 17 2004 at 02:15 PM.]

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Thu June 17 2004 at 02:16 PM.]

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 03:04 PM
nt,

Boandlgramer
06-17-2004, 03:04 PM
doubble post

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:05 PM
Into the fuel tanks! Outch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snow_Wolf_:

B-17 hit by direct Flak hit
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

KIMURA
06-17-2004, 03:05 PM
Here a cross section drawing that proves the B-17F had ooutboard fuel tanks.

The colored pic shows a late B-17G in a turn, clearly to see the red surrounded filler plugs, you'll notice there some outboard too. Gibbage you seems U have to better back up your sources before posting such trashy claims.

And back to your "best 5 thing to down a B-17". "Normally" (if you could name air war in that way) it needed 3-5 MK-108 to down a B-17.

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/b17f.jpg

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/b17g.jpg

Kimura

Giganoni
06-17-2004, 03:08 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Thats the diagram I have Kimura, except it is in english, and from my Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

JG53Hunter
06-17-2004, 03:11 PM
So Gibbage is on the crusade again? He likes to post single events and generaliezes?
So do i http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ju87 Flak damage: (must be Russian 75mm!! Be shure! :P)
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/Ju87_damage_Malta1941.png

Look, the main 'Holm' is nerly destroyed! =&gt; Ju87 needs no 'Holm' in her wings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Look at this Ju61. AWSOME! WAS HIT BY A B17!!!!
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/Ju87_damage_Russia.png

And again, see another German Uberplane hit by ONE 50cal and it survived! Unbelivable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/Ju_62.jpg

No comment:
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/Ju_65.jpg

dumdidumdidum.....
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/Ju_63.jpg
btw. this one was hit by an asteriod falling from the sky. Trust me :P

You see, there are alot planes that where able to get back to base but there where tons of planes that where not so lucky.
Single events. Thats all you show us Gib.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:14 PM
Thanks. I was trying to find that information. But it looks like it DOES have tanks outboard. But I still dont see any "fabric covered wings" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Sure the Fuselage is tough, but its wings are fabric and thinly armored fuel tanks."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
I have a Diagram of a B-17F that shows em, but here is what I found about the B-17G

"Self-sealing fuel tanks in wings. Normal fuel capacity carried in six tanks in the inner wing sections 1,700-US gallons. Nine self-sealing auxiliary feeder tanks in the outer wings. Two self-sealing droppable ferry tanks may be carried in bomb bay. Maximum capacity of all wing tanks 2,780-US gallons."

This would go with my diagram of the F as well, since it says the outer wing tanks had nine inter-rib cells. This website also says that the ailerons and flaps were fitted with fabric. Of course it is a website so you can judge its credibility for yourself.

http://www.skytamer.com/specs/usa/boeing/b-17g.htm

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:21 PM
Ju-87's were also tough. They had to be! Just like the IL2.

Question. When does a "single event" not become a "single event" any more? When it happens more then once!!!!!!!! It happened a lot more then once on B-17's as you can see by the photo's. These photo's prove that these aircraft (Ju-87's and B-17's) can take a lot of damage or else there would be no photo's. Correct? Not all damaged bombers were photographed, and even less of the ones photographed are online for us. But history tells us that B-17's were very tough and did withstand outstanding battledamage. But thats not how its modeled in IL2. Its modeled as one of the weakest bombers in the game. Thats my issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Hunter:
So Gibbage is on the crusade again? He likes to post single events and generaliezes?
So do i http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

KIMURA
06-17-2004, 03:28 PM
The B-17 controll surfaces were made fully of Alu. The B-17 was far too heavy to fly with fabric covered controll surfaces.

Here a prove. Electrostatic discharger fitted at the aileron training edge. Also at the right elevator barely to see. Dichargers only makes sense on metal. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/b17f2.jpg

Kimura

horseback
06-17-2004, 03:34 PM
Is the issue here that the B-17 is disproportionately easy to shoot down in the game compared to the other bombers, or is it that its reputation is overblown, a result of wartime propaganda?

It looks to me as though Gibbage is making the first arguement, while Boandlgramer, Falkster and Giganoni are responding with the second, which fails to address the original question.

In the game, the B-17 is MUCH easier to take down than the He-111 or the Pe-8, and I guess that serves to amuse people who like to imagine themselves heroically opposing the US Air Forces, but it's grossly unrealistic and unbalanced.

Non sequitors about what caliber of AAA this or that damage was done by, or arguing about who said what about the locations of the wing tanks were serve only to distract from the issue. Flak damage could only be appraised by the altitude when the hit occured, the amount of damage done, and the apparent blast radius.

Since the heavy bombers operated at or above 7000m,little less than the 88mm and larger guns would have been able to reach them. A direct hit before the round was set to explode (remember, Axis AAA was set to go off at a predetermined altitude) might well do a lot of, but not fatal, damage. An explosive hit that didn't demolish the aircraft would be either a dud, or a smaller caliber round, hence the ever-popular 88mm usually getting the credit.

Was there a tougher bomber in World War II than the B-17? While there is no doubt that it's reputation for toughness may have been exaggerated (and please bear in mind that the American idiom uses exaggeration, in contrast to the British preference for understatement), the B-17 was in fact a hardy speciman, often taking its crews home even after receiving a horrendous beating. Certainly some fell to the 'Golden BB', or a well-placed burst in the cockpit, but the exceptions serve to prove the rule. No other bomber of the period had a comparable reputation for those qualities, and no other bomber could have served as well in its role.

Anyone with a better candidate for the title should submit its name and qualifications, so that Gibbage and I can ridicule it.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

NegativeGee
06-17-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage:
Also, it was a flying fortress. HINCE ITS NAME!!!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? if airforce X had a plane called the "Invincible", would that make it so in combat?

No.

The actual meaning of the name "Fortress" relates to the original designation the "upstart" US Army chose to deflect attention away (or they were just being tongue in cheek) from a project that could wrest any of the role of coastal defence away from the then dominant US Navy.

Anyway while posting pictures of damaged planes is very interesting, it means very little. While most of the damage is quite dramatic looking, its not really that severe. The planes have been brought back and landed. I don't see many shots of planes that are actully shot down or those that ended up strewn across the airfield or a burnt out skeleton.

So the B-17G..... I don't see how you got to the conclusion it is the weakest bomber in the game. Is it weaker than the Pe-8? I don't think so. Its actually has a tough structure in the game, but it has weak points like all planes.

So, in your opinion just how much damage should it be able to absorb, where and what from? If you actually tried sticking to some facts you might have an arguement.

And on the He-111, well I have read many stories about it being a tough plane in BoB, and they added more and more armour as the war went on, so what does that mean?

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Thu June 17 2004 at 02:49 PM.]

EFG_beber
06-17-2004, 03:43 PM
Another pic:
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/damagepics/108vsbrit.GIF

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:53 PM
The two pics on the left were test's. They did not fire a 30MM Mk-108 at those stationary aircraft. They detonated the shell inside the aircraft.

The German fuses were VERY poor. They would eather detonate outside the aircraft as it hit, or on the other side after it left. This would nullify the expanding gas effect.

Take a firecracker, light it, and let it go off in your hand. Outch. It caused damage, but your hand is still there. Now, take the same firecracker, light it, and close your hand. You will most likley loose your hand!!! That was the therie of the 30MM shell. Get it to explode inside. Again, the German fuses sucked so the 30MM's damage was only cuncussion or what little shrapnel it had.

I also heard there was a hydrolic fuse on some shells that "Only when off on contact with fluid.". They were ment for fuel tanks. If it did not hit the tanks, it did not go off. Considering fuel tanks occupy only a small % of the aircraft (Im guessing 10% in square feet), and the Mk-108 gun itself was very innaccurate, these rounds would only be usefull 10% of the time they hit the aircraft. If they DID get into the fuel tank and the fuse DID work, it would be devistating.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:56 PM
People use the "He-111 was tough in BoB" annalogy a lot around here. It was!!! You know why? Hirricanes and Spitfires were firing .303's at them! Not 20MM or .50 cal's. The .303's were deamed innefficiant even at BoB. Once the Spitfires were armed with 20MM at the end of BoB, Germany stopped sending He-111's partly because of high losses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:

And on the He-111, well I have read many stories about it being a tough plane in BoB, and they added more and more armour as the war went on, so what does that mean?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

NegativeGee
06-17-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
People use the "He-111 was tough in BoB" annalogy a lot around here. It was!!! You know why? Hirricanes and Spitfires were firing .303's at them! Not 20MM or .50 cal's. The .303's were deamed innefficiant even at BoB. Once the Spitfires were armed with 20MM at the end of BoB, Germany stopped sending He-111's partly because of high losses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so illustrates the problem of making a technical point using anecdotal evidence alone.

Blutarski2004 wrote this in the current 0.50 cal thread:

"Get some good data to Dr Oleg and make the case for a correction. That is what we did with respect to 50cal dispersion. Data does not = whining."

Thats what you need here. Be it in game tests to show the B-17 is overly fragile to some damage types, or whatever you deem suitable, thats what you need here.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

klower
06-17-2004, 04:31 PM
Kimura,
First off, I am a big B-17 fan. I don't know if they are modeled too weak or not. I do like to shoot down he-111s with a p-40 offline. It is quite challenging. The p-40 has a glass jaw.

Anyway, I can tell you that the b-17 has fabric covered control surfaces. I was riding in one just a few weeks ago (b-17G). I had a chance to do a very detailed inspection. Let me assure you, they are fabric, no doubt.

Abbuzze
06-17-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The two pics on the left were test's. They did not fire a 30MM Mk-108 at those stationary aircraft. They detonated the shell inside the aircraft.

The German fuses were VERY poor. They would eather detonate outside the aircraft as it hit, or on the other side after it left. This would nullify the expanding gas effect.

Take a firecracker, light it, and let it go off in your hand. Outch. It caused damage, but your hand is still there. Now, take the same firecracker, light it, and close your hand. You will most likley loose your hand!!! That was the therie of the 30MM shell. Get it to explode inside. Again, the German fuses sucked so the 30MM's damage was only cuncussion or what little shrapnel it had.

I also heard there was a hydrolic fuse on some shells that "Only when off on contact with fluid.". They were ment for fuel tanks. If it did not hit the tanks, it did not go off. Considering fuel tanks occupy only a small % of the aircraft (Im guessing 10% in square feet), and the Mk-108 gun itself was very innaccurate, these rounds would only be usefull 10% of the time they hit the aircraft. If they DID get into the fuel tank and the fuse DID work, it would be devistating.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any source for this?

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 07:16 PM
Any source against this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Any source for this?

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Giganoni
06-17-2004, 07:47 PM
The B-17 is not that weak. It just has very obvious weakspots. I can fire into a fuselage with a 109Z and the B-17 holds up admirably. However, shooting those big guns into the very big fuel tanks will spell doom for the B-17. Alu and self sealing is not going to stand up real well against a barrage of big guns. If you guys wish that the ammo didn't ignite the fuel tanks as often, you can try changing that. To me the B-17 just has a very apparent weakness in the game, but I can't see how it is highly unhistorical.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 09:13 PM
Question. The B-17 fuel tanks from any indication were self-sealing. Were the He-111's and were are the fuel tanks on the He-111? Its quite difficult to ignight the He-111's wings were its easy to burn the B-17. Also the He-111's are EXTREAMLY damage resistant to HMG's compaired to the B-17. Radials have proven time and time again to take more punishment then inlines. Im home now so I will do a few test's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
The B-17 is not that weak. It just has very obvious weakspots. I can fire into a fuselage with a 109Z and the B-17 holds up admirably. However, shooting those big guns into the very big fuel tanks will spell doom for the B-17. Alu and self sealing is not going to stand up real well against a barrage of big guns. If you guys wish that the ammo didn't ignite the fuel tanks as often, you can try changing that. To me the B-17 just has a very apparent weakness in the game, but I can't see how it is highly unhistorical.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Bastables
06-17-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Any source against this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Any source for this?

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/


http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage you disingenuous little sod.

It generally considered good form that when you make a statement you have proof to back it up, as opposed to pulling things out of your hat and declaring them reality.


Read this, Ugly Kid has great info on how good mid a late war MG fusing was.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=30310959&r=318104801#318104801

Ak9779
06-17-2004, 10:10 PM
OT for a moment here, but why all the insults?

Are the egos here so fragile they have to resort to belittling their opponents?

I'm all for discussion, but namecalling, IMO, is just bad form.

Make your argument, and prove your argument.
There are plenty of good sources to support both sides.

*****ing and namecalling just muddle up what would otherwise be a productive thread.

Later,
Ak

Flying and Dying!

BennyMoore
06-17-2004, 10:27 PM
Go Gibbage!

While I think that Bastables has a good point about your last post in this thread being a logical fallacy, I can understand what drove you to do so.

You, who want historical accuracy and non-****ed United States aircraft, are just about alone amidst a sea of anti-American arcade clowns.

Fight the good fight, sir!

Bastables
06-17-2004, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ak9779:
OT for a moment here, but why all the insults?

Are the egos here so fragile they have to resort to belittling their opponents?

I'm all for discussion, but namecalling, IMO, is just bad form.

Make your argument, and prove your argument.
There are plenty of good sources to support both sides.

*****ing and namecalling just muddle up what would otherwise be a productive thread.

Later,
Ak

Flying and Dying!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Productive? When one individual continues to make unsupported statements and treats them as facts?

Bloody pointless as Gibbage continues to do this time and time again.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Gibbage1
The German fuses were VERY poor. They would eather detonate outside the aircraft as it hit, or on the other side after it left. This would nullify the expanding gas effect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See Blutarskis post.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&p=3

Although earliest German fuzes were found to be rather too sensitive, they were quickly improved by means of a slightly greater delay which considerably increased the effectiveness of the minengeschoss ammunition.

The superiority of more potent explosive and/or a greater quantity thereof is not linear. An explosive superiority of 2:1 increases effective blast overpressure radius by a factor of about 1.26; a superiority of 3:1 = 1.45 improvement in blast radius. Such overpressure radii increase destructive volume 2x and 3x respectively. This is what the trade-off was made for - blowing out and distorting airframe structure and setting afire nearby flammables.
----

Still want to see the source where this stands what you claimed.
Oh and the BoB evaluations disqualify themself as this were not used on B17.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Question. The B-17 fuel tanks from any indication were self-sealing. Were the He-111's and were are the fuel tanks on the He-111? Its quite difficult to ignight the He-111's wings were its easy to burn the B-17. Also the He-111's are EXTREAMLY damage resistant to HMG's compaired to the B-17. Radials have proven time and time again to take more punishment then inlines. Im home now so I will do a few test's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II
He111H
Power Plant: Two Junkers Jumo 211F twelve-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engines, each rated at 1,300 hp at 3,810 m (12,500 ft), in nacelles at extremity of center section. Three-bladed VDM controllable- pitch full-feathering propellers. Four self-sealing fuel tanks, two inboard and two outboard of nacelles. Total fuel capacity 940 imperial gallons.
-----
He111 can be set in flammes too but the approach works only from high aoa dive fire on front wing section.

There are dm problems on most planes or it ok that you need 4 to 5 mk108 for a p51 ? p39 vs he111 fuselage section is only 1 problem . The limits of the il2 engine are obvious it is not possible to model correct damage yet. It works with trigger zones and the deforming effect is not modeled nor considered as damage cause the planes have a static structure that doesnt change. We can see 20 mm holes for mk108 hits obvious a shortcomming.
We can only hope that for BoB all is considered cause changing all things that are inaccurate would take more time than to build a new sim.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Bastables
06-17-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
Go Gibbage!

While I think that Bastables has a good point about your last post in this thread being a logical fallacy, I can understand what drove you to do so.

You, who want historical accuracy and non-****ed United States aircraft, are just about alone amidst a sea of anti-American arcade clowns.

Fight the good fight, sir!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I under stand what drove Gibbage to it as well, and it sickens me that agendas are held up as more important than actually debating on a logical basis.
Apparently belief in what is subjectivily "right" is good enough.

This board is an utter waste of time.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 11:03 PM
OK. Did a test in the QMB. 2.01

Me in a P-38J. Did not use 20MM only 4x .50 cal
4 He-111 H6
4 B-17

This is what it took to take down a B-17. 16 hits with .50 cal. Crew bailed and the wing blew off shortly after.
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/b1701.jpg

This is what it took to stop a B-17's engine. 4 hits. Later on I did another birst into the outboard fuel tank and it went down. On average, the B-17's needed about 20 .50 cal bulletes to take down if it in that spot.
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/b1702.jpg

This is what it took to stop an He-111's engine. This shot was after my 2nd pass and the arrows had already vanished. So x1.5 these arrows. I gave it another birst before I heard it finally go out. On average it hook HUNDREDS of rounds to stop an He-111's engine on 3 of the 4 bombers. The 4th bomber seemed to birst into flames and spin out after about 50 rounds just inboard of the engine.
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11101.jpg

This was the last bomber. I tried to find the fuel tanks. Apperantly they are not in the wings!!! Note, this is my 2nd pass and a LOT of arrows were gone before I took this shot. So add 50% to the arrows. Thats how much this bomber took!!! Ailerons are gone from this last birst just after the screenshot. It still flew. I had to give it another birst to remove both elivators before he went down.
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

This is an example of why I say the B-17 is VERY weak in the game.

BTW. Were is the He-111's "weak spot" other then the pilot? I tired to find it!!!

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Luftwaffe_109
06-17-2004, 11:09 PM
Gibage said:
"Notice. AS LITTLE AS FIVE HITS! That means "best possible scenario". I said "Average of 10 hits". Was I far off? No. Right on target. People twist "As little as five hits" to mean that the Mk-108 should down any B-17 in 5 hits."

This is rubbish. Unless you have looked at a frequency distribution table of how many Mk 108 hits it took to down b-17s then there is no way you can logically deduce that 10 hits was "an average".

For all you know "as little as five hits" could also be close to the majority, or far from the majority. You just chose something that suited your agenda.

BennyMoore
06-17-2004, 11:30 PM
And you're still stupid, because he has even used data from the game to support his obviously correct statement, and you still are blind.

Beware the sting of ignorance's barbs, friend.

Luftwaffe_109
06-17-2004, 11:41 PM
BennyMoore I was talking about real life, and responded specifically to the quote which I provided. I made no comment whatsoever about the game. The fact is that Gibbage deliberately misinterpreted the document and made a statement he couldn't possibly make, that ten shots is an average. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this, as the document clear says "as little as five".

You cannot make up averages without a frequency distribution, no matter what your agenda is.

And I suggest you refrain from your weak insults, they speak volumes about your intelligence

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 12:02 AM
Mk-108 5-10 hits aside, do you think the B-17 is too weak in the game? Or do you think the He-111 is too strong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
BennyMoore I was talking about real life, and responded specifically to the quote which I provided. I made no comment whatsoever about the game. The fact is that Gibbage deliberately misinterpreted the document and made a statement he couldn't possibly make, that ten shots is an average. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this, as the document clear says "as little as five".

You cannot make up averages without a frequency distribution, no matter what your agenda is.

And I suggest you refrain from your weak insults, they speak volumes about your intelligence<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Menthol_moose
06-18-2004, 12:06 AM
From playing around testing out the new .50 guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif, its easy to tell the he-111 is alot stronger than the B17, which engines catch on fire with ease.

Rebel_Yell_21
06-18-2004, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Mk-108 5-10 hits aside, do you think the B-17 is too weak in the game? Or do you think the He-111 is too strong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both - be sure.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

Giganoni
06-18-2004, 12:53 AM
Seems that the He-111 wings are (too) strong but I don't know what the He-111 wings are covered with, either that or your shots are not exactly hitting the fuel tanks or engines enough. With 50 cal dispersion in 2.01 that could be a problem, since the fuel tanks of the He-111 (I would assume) are smaller than the ones on the B-17. That last picture shows a lot of fuselage hits and flap or aileron hits. Is the B-17 too weak though? I don't really think so. In real combat you cant sit on the tail of a B-17 and pump 50 cals into its fuel tank at a leisurely pace. I think what this debate needs is a comparison of armor and the material which made up the aircraft.

So, does the He-111 have armor protecting the engines? Does the B-17? Both have self sealing fuel tanks, but does the He-111 have some sort of armor protection for the tanks? Is it just better designed or compartmentalized? Lets put some hard data of the He-111 on this thread from cited sources to see.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

JG53Hunter
06-18-2004, 12:55 AM
Yes, i agree in you with the B17 to be to fast to bring down. There was a version of the game where it seamed to be all right. I don't recal it's numbers right now. Then we had this pea-shoting machineguns and canons and and if i get things right the DM of the B17 was adjusted in the same patch (to a weaker B17) and the MG's + MK's where adjusted to their old strenght.

As happend before Maddox got things right and wrong at the same time. The B17 is to fragile to SMG and HMG fire. I agree with you on that point. But i don't know if the B17 is to vunerable to MK fire. I would have to test it but i think it is not. I haven't attacked a B17 for quite some time.
Regarding the hitting power of the MK108:
All source i have ever read qoute a number of 3 till 5 MK108 hits to doom a B17. (I am talking of hits, not of fired shells)
Howerver, there may be B17 that survieved more then 10 Hits and there may be others that went down after one lucky hit (cockpit, fuel tank...)
Well i wounder how much of a B17 will be left after 10 30mm hits...

The He111 seems to be too tought. I also agree with you on that. I've flown yesterday on a nice desert server together with a souadmate with P40E and shot down some He111. We used to fly approximatly 4 B&Z attacks average to bring her down. Most times with burning or wrecked engines. This was on 2.01. I don't know how it will be with the tighter dispersion of the upcomming 2.02 patch. Maybee it will be easier.

There are so many things wrong in the FB damage-management...
Look at some russian bombers.
The Db3 is a flying tank and the pe2 is a fast kill.
Then there's the thing with the Mk's an fighter kills.
KI-Gunners to bad or super snipers.
Hurricane overheating on the desert map below 2000m.
etc.
etc.
etc.

The list ist long and i doubt Maddox Games will be able (and willing) to improve the DM to a consistency where it will be allright for all planes and weapons. I give my hopes to BOB for that because i think the gameengine of FB is maxed out and each tiny change at one point results in an overall and unwished effekt on the other side (remember the MK fiasco)

You get my vote in incresing the durability of the B17 against HMG but don't try to bring down the German MK effectivnes in general because´ one plane is moddeled to weak by stating things like "German fuses where bad..."-Bull...

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 01:26 AM
It looks like I found the fuel tanks on the He-111.

They are both inboard and outboard the engine. Very early models of He-111 had bomb bays in the wings inboard the engine. Those were deleted in the H model and fuel tanks added. Thats the inner tanks. The rest of the fuel was stored in the outer.

http://hsfeatures.com/images/he111jb_3.jpg

You can see the filler holes marked.

You can also see that yes, I did put MANY bulletes through those tanks, with no fire. But a very few bulletes set the B-17 on fire, and even less disabled its engine.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
06-18-2004, 01:30 AM
Salute

This is such an incredible joke that the Luftwhiners are insisting that a Heinkel 111 is a more durable aircraft than a B-17.

Any remotely detailed study of these two aircraft shows the B-17 was built far stronger, with a much more heavily reinforced airframe. It was easily the most durable bomber to see service in Europe. One of the clues to how heavily built it was, was the fact it only carried a 6,000 lb payload. Compare that to a Ju-88 which carries 4,000 lbs and weighs 1/2 as much.

The Heinkel is described in many accounts as being shot down with a single burst of 20mm from a Spitfire, or from the .50 calibres on a Mustang or Thunderbolt. It was not a heavily built aircraft.

The German medium bombers were that, MEDIUMS. Not heavies, and not designed to fly unescorted. Which the B-17's were.

Consider this:

On the 2nd Schweinfurt/Regensburg attack in October 1943, when the B-17's were UNESCORTED, two groups attacked the two targets. The two attack forces totalled 291 B-17 aircraft. They were attacked by 400 German interceptors. Yet despite this, despite the fact they were attacked coming and going from the target, they lost only 60 aircraft. That to German fighters armed with rockets, 30mm cannon etc.

Compare that to the Battle of Britain, where the British fighters were armed with .303 rifle calibre machine guns.

The Germans launched 1,000 plane bomber raids on London, with escort 90% of the way by 700+ Fighters, and were still losing 60 aircraft a day, against attacks by 450 British fighters.

There should be NO comparison between the durability of a B-17 and a Heinkel.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Fri June 18 2004 at 12:39 AM.]

Bill_Door
06-18-2004, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
There should be NO comparison between the durability of a B-17 and a Heinkel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, but then don`t try to proof that the B17
is to weak by comparing it with the H111.

H111 is in the game right from the start. Maybe the DM is still very simple.
B17 comes to the game much later. Maybe the DM is more advanced.

So what?

There are a lot of planes in this game with very simple DM. Try to down a Morane or a R10 for example.

What does that say about the B17? Right, nothing!

And if it takes 16 hits with .50 cal. To down a B17 (according to the Gibbage test center) this could also proof that the .50 is overmodeled . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

By the way, it is an AI plane. A flying Target! Who cares?

SheerLuckHolmes
06-18-2004, 05:05 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote..

On the 2nd Schweinfurt/Regensburg attack in October 1943, when the B-17's were UNESCORTED, two groups attacked the two targets. The two attack forces totalled 291 B-17 aircraft. They were attacked by 400 German interceptors. Yet despite this, despite the fact they were attacked coming and going from the target, they lost only 60 aircraft. That to German fighters armed with rockets, 30mm cannon etc.


True, but over 100 was damaged beyond repair.

But truly, in MANY memoirs ( both American and german ) is told that B-17 could take much damage. It didn'd carry as much bombs as B-24, but it was more reliable, could often bring crew back though had suffered many hits from attacking planes.

SheerLuck Holmes

1.JaVA_Razer
06-18-2004, 05:17 AM
Eu
guys
THAT DIAGRAM ON PAGE 3 IS NOT A GOOD ONE

why?

because if yous ee close,the radiogunner has a gun,does our have a gun?
NOOOOOO

so get yur models straight will ya?

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

NegativeGee
06-18-2004, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

On the 2nd Schweinfurt/Regensburg attack in October 1943, when the B-17's were UNESCORTED, two groups attacked the two targets. The two attack forces totalled 291 B-17 aircraft. They were attacked by 400 German interceptors. Yet despite this, despite the fact they were attacked coming and going from the target, they lost only 60 aircraft. That to German fighters armed with rockets, 30mm cannon etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Black Thursday"- USAAF name for the long range raids carried out on Schweinfurt on 14th October 1943.

291 B-17's left England and made the attack. They were escorted over England and over the continent to the limit of the P-47's range.

60 Bombers did not rtb (~600 trained aircrew lost)

5 crashed on return to England

12 damaged beyond repair.

121 damaged and repairable

5 dead, 43 wounded aircrew in the aircraft that did return.


Saying they "only(!)" lost 60 aircraft kinda cheapens the terrible cost of the raid. This raid, coupled with a series of other large actions in September-October inflicted unsustainable losses on the 8th, about 200 B-17's being shot down.

If the B-17's had been flying raids at the same altitude the Luftwaffe had during the BoB, goodness knows how heavy the losses would have been.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

RealHondo
06-18-2004, 06:31 AM
The whole discussion is ridiculous. For me it's obvious that the He 111 is too strong, not the B17 too weak.

If you pump a wing or an engine with lots of 15mm, 20mm or even 30mm it's going to burn or fall apart, Fortress or not. I believe the German respect for the B17 wasn't a premier result of the B17's ruggedness, but a tribute to the firepower it delivered back at the fighters (which is quite well simulated in FB, IMHO).

JG53-Falkster
06-18-2004, 08:00 AM
A question Gibbage whats your age? I guess between 13-17 years old i'm right?

mortoma
06-18-2004, 08:05 AM
You people who still think the B-17 is too weak must not have the leaked patch. To down it now with a 20mm equipped 109 is very difficult. More than it should be. See my other post in this thread.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 08:13 AM
Hi,

Not another tiresome 'it's a US plane so it has to be much better than it is in accordance with my anecdotal evidence' thread..

That aside, I would say that the B17 takes 2-3 Mk108 hits to the wing to get it to shear/catch fire. I never fire at the fuselage (what's the point when you have those big wings to hit) so wouldn't be able to make a comment on that.

I've been frustrated by He111s before in that 20mm Hispanos don't do a lot of damage to them. If you want to drop a Heinkel, use a Hurri as those .303s make short work of the engines. In that respect, I don't think that they are too hard to down.

In v2.02, I've noticed that attacking B17 formations is more likely to get you killed than with v2.01, possibly because of an increase in .50 power/sniper gunner accuracy. I also think that the B25 is probably more robust than the B17 currently.

Using the Spit hit by a Mk108 picture as a yardstick, I don't see why 2-3 Mk108 hits on the same part of an aircraft shouldn't take the wing off a B17 or sufficient structural damage to disable it.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Foo.bar
06-18-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just in case you have not seen the web page listed (or ignoring the link) here are a few (bla bla bla) images<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting images but nothing more than lucky individual cases. as a rule one 8.8 flak hit was way enough for that B-17. unless one of your american super heroes (like superman, popeye or hulk) was aboard the plane.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
06-18-2004, 11:00 AM
Salute

I was waiting for someone from the Luftie side to mention the damaged figures.

Thank you for confirming how tough the B-17 was.

How many did you say were so badly damaged, yet, managed to return to base????

Clearly that shows they were very durable planes, able to soak up incredible amounts of damage, yet continue to fly.

Thanks guys for reinforcing the point. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why don't you go ask a real pilot from either the Luftwaffe or USAAF how tough the B-17 was?

I have personally talked to Franz Stigler, who shot down 13 of them, in fact as recently as 3 weeks ago, and he emphatically stated that the B-17 was the toughest bomber flying.

And by the way, he spent a long time as an instructor, and had the opportunity to examine and fly a Heinkel lll.

But of course, he was only a combat pilot and who actually flew. How could his observations compare with the knowledge of some nerd who spends his time in front of a computer... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S.

By the way, for those who sent cards and greetings to Franz while he was in the hospital, he appreciated it. He is now feeling much better and has been allowed to go home, although he is still on anti-biotics. It is hoped that his lung infection has been cured, although he is being cautiously optimistic for the moment. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1.JaVA_Razer
06-18-2004, 11:03 AM
Falkster, I believe Gib's a married man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

I was waiting for someone from the Luftie side to mention the damaged figures.

Thank you for confirming how tough the B-17 was.

How many did you say were so badly damaged, yet, managed to return to base????

Clearly that shows they were very durable planes, able to soak up incredible amounts of damage, yet continue to fly.

Thanks guys for reinforcing the point. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why don't you go ask a real pilot from either the Luftwaffe or USAAF how tough the B-17 was?

I have personally talked to Franz Stigler, who shot down 13 of them, in fact as recently as 3 weeks ago, and he emphatically stated that the B-17 was the toughest bomber flying.

And by the way, he spent a long time as an instructor, and had the opportunity to examine and fly a Heinkel lll.

But of course, he was only a combat pilot and who actually flew. How could his observations compare with the knowledge of some nerd who spends his time in front of a computer... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nerd? Yourself included, m8.

However, there is a slight flaw your assumption in that, while I have no doubt that Franz knows plenty about shooting down B17s, to assert that the B17 was the toughest bomber flying is incorrect purely because Franz wasn't shooting down any Axis bombers. In that respect, you only have one side of an argument.

Good try, though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 11:47 AM
Lets see.

Battle figures arnt proof

Friendly pilot accounts arnt proof

German pilot accounts arnt proof

Diagrams arnt proof

history is not proof

In-game test's arnt proof.

Many many photo's of damaged B-17's returning home arnt proof

German gunbam showing multiple strikes with Mk-108 and 20MM with little effect arnt proof

What would you consider adiquate proof that the B-17 was a tough bird? For the vast majority of people who are saying "nied! B-17 is correct in-game!" I doubt any proof would be adiquate.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 12:43 PM
Hi,

I wasn't disputing the fact that the B17 may be a tough bomber. After all, it has built in 'redundancy' in terms of 4 engines, two pilots etc etc etc. However, to assert that it was the toughest bomber in the air is difficult to prove because I doubt there were any like-for-like tests peformed.

For example, when they crash test cars, they don't drive one of them into a concrete block then drive another car into a pile of bricks in order to compare how the impact is handled; they drive them into the same block and the block is constructed to a tight specification. It's the only way.

It's like the argument about the P47 being a tough bird. Sure, lots of them may have come home with holes in them but how many didn't come home with slightly more holes...or slightly less holes in them? No one could possibly have that information so I would always dispute that claim unless someone showed me some alternative evidence that was entirely reasonable. And no, your stock of Commando comics won't suffice in that department http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The problem, as always, is that a lot of information about the war is not accurate. You see this in any publication you read about warfare where one sides makes one set of claims while the other side makes a different set of claims. You can't even 'split the difference' because you cannot say that is accurate. So, you are in a situation where something cannot be explicitly proved.

Going back to what you state, I'm not sure what you mean by:

'history is not proof' - what history? written by who?

'in game tests' - this is ridiculous - it is a simulation and we are talking about the actual aircraft; you shouldn't confuse the two.

'battle figures'
'photos are not proof' - refer to the P47 point.

'Mk108 hits with no effect' - you are saying that it was not possible to destroy a B17 with 30mm fire?

Pilot accounts are anecdotal. Refer to the claims point.

The bottom line is that making unquantifiable statements like 'The B17 was toughest', 'the P51 won the war' etc are entirely subject to nationalistic bias and, while we can all be guilty of this (it is part of human nature, after all), not everyone goes around making posts about it every five minutes.

And no, this is not entirely aimed at you, Gib.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

CaptJodan
06-18-2004, 02:17 PM
So in otherwords, because nothing can be proved (at least to your specifications) then the way it is is perfectly fine? Why change anything when we know war doesn't have the complete picture and nothing can be "completely proven"? Under these strict circumstances, I don't really see how you can get any aircraft accurately modeled if you discout every POSSIBLE bit of information that WAS in the war.

The B-17 was renouned for it's toughness on both sides of the war, and in the Pacific as well. I'm reading "Samuri" right now, and it mentions several times in there that the B-17 was well respected, and that with 20mm cannons and their machine guns, it was tough to take those beasts down. That's from the side of the war who would have biases against. I'm sure the same goes for some german accounts. The B-17 wasn't the biggest, wasn't the heaviest..wasn't the one with the biggest load, the longest range, the fastest, etc. What made it so famous? Good adverising? Come on. It had to have SOMETHING. It was a rugged bird.

Now, comparing it to other aircaft...hard to do. You'd need detailed information from both aircraft to determine something like that, and I'll agree that saying "a hit here would take out an HE-111 while the same hit in the same spot on a B-17 won't do anything" is impossible. You can't do that. But by no means was the B-17 coming home on a wing and a prayer an isolated incident. As of 2.01, I can hit the wing of a B-17, set fire to one of the fuel tanks, and suddenly the AI thinks it's a good idea to pull up, stall, spin, and go completely out of control. As if they lost all control surfaces or control cables. It wasn't this easy! There's numerous examples in Martin Cadian's "The Flying Forts" of planes coming home shreaded.

All of that being said, I haven't seen 2.02. Gib, have you seen 2.02? I hear it's better. It may be. It may be just fine after 2.02, and this may be for nothing. But I do have trouble believing claims that an HE-111 is as rugged or moreso than a B-17 overall. Those who speak of American propoganda and how it's all some giant conspiracy need to remember that aircraft from Germany have reputations as exceptional aircraft as well. The Ju-87 was one of the best, if not the best dive bomber of the war, especially in the job it had to perform. The 109s and 190s were some really awesome birds as well, and with their heavy cannons, did well against the B-17s. I think if the HE-111 had such an ability to take punishment as the B-17, for which you're comparing a MEDIUM bomber to a HEAVY bomber with more redundancy, I certainly think that would have gotten out.

DarthBane_
06-18-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets see.

Battle figures arnt proof

Friendly pilot accounts arnt proof

German pilot accounts arnt proof

Diagrams arnt proof

history is not proof

In-game test's arnt proof.

Many many photo's of damaged B-17's returning home arnt proof

German gunbam showing multiple strikes with Mk-108 and 20MM with little effect arnt proof

What would you consider adiquate proof that the B-17 was a tough bird? For the vast majority of people who are saying "nied! B-17 is correct in-game!" I doubt any proof would be adiquate.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When someone is cought in lie and editing real text from under pictures, together with editing rl LW reports, you lose all points you tried to make here, simply you are not person to be thrusted any longer. The only thing obvious is that you are persistent whiner, trying to shape AEP in your american standards, stop editing facts and only than you can be taken seriously. Stop crying for changes that suit you, its discusting.

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
'history is not proof' - what history? written by who?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything I have ever read in books, on TV, on forums said the B-17 was a very tough bomber. Pilots who flew them, gunners that manned there guns, pilots who flew cover for them, and even the Luftwaffa pilots who tried to knock them down all day the B-17 was very very strong and could take a lot more punishment that would of taken any other bomber down. Are you saying everyone is wrong? But a few armchair forum jocks are right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'in game tests' - this is ridiculous - it is a simulation and we are talking about the actual aircraft; you shouldn't confuse the two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This forum is about the game, but a game test is ridiculous? THE TEST SHOWS THAT THE B-17 IS WEAK, AND HISTORY SAYS IT WAS NOT! I dont confuse the two, but its a valid comparison. This thead is about compairing B-17 real toughness in-game compaired to real-life, BUT FOR SOME REASON I CANT COMPAIR THE TWO? How backwards is this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'battle figures'
'photos are not proof' - refer to the P47 point.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People keep saying "Lucky ones" or "one time thing" but again. I said when is it no longer a "one time thing"? When it happens multiple times. The photo's prove it happened many many times, not just noce!!!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'Mk108 hits with no effect' - you are saying that it was not possible to destroy a B17 with 30mm fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now your misquoting me. I said "little effect" and you said "no effect". BIG DIFFERANCE!!!! There is a well circulated guncam footage of a Bf-110 with Mk-108 (said Bf-110 with Mk-108 in German on the film) shooting a low flying B-17. The 110 got in VERY VERY close and unloaded into it for 2 minutes. You can see the shells exploding with little effect and the B-17 did not "birst into flames" or "blow the wings off" or just explode. It flew on. The 110 also put a LOT of rounds into the #2 engine with no visable effect.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Pilot accounts are anecdotal. Refer to the claims point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not talking about B-17 pilots who claim shooting down 20 Bf-109's. We are talking about vets who flew these beast's home after taking many many hits. We are also talking about German pilots who had to fight these. Also Japanese pilots. I guess they all lie and overexadurate about the B-17's toughness? If all sides of the war say "That B-17 was tough" then maybe there is something too it?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The bottom line is that making unquantifiable statements like 'The B17 was toughest', 'the P51 won the war' etc are entirely subject to nationalistic bias and, while we can all be guilty of this (it is part of human nature, after all), not everyone goes around making posts about it every five minutes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would be qualified? TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT WAS A TOUGH AIRCRAFT!!! That was my point of the post

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And no, this is not entirely aimed at you, Gib.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats complete bull sh. If it was not entirely aimed at my, why are you not only quoting me, but also mis-quoting me!!! Everything in your post is in response to my post. Dont fool yourself, your not fooling me

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

owlwatcher
06-18-2004, 03:25 PM
I noticed Black Thursday is referanced;

Black Thursday"- USAAF name for the long range raids carried out on Schweinfurt on 14th October 1943.

291 B-17's left England and made the attack. They were escorted over England and over the continent to the limit of the P-47's range.

60 Bombers did not rtb (~600 trained aircrew lost)

5 crashed on return to England

12 damaged beyond repair.

121 damaged and repairable

5 dead, 43 wounded aircrew in the aircraft that did return

The B-17 I would say is the only plane that could have carried out this raid and done so well , built in the 2ndWW with the opposistion it opposed.
The He-111 would have never been capable of this type of mission in any way which or form.Obsolute in 41, proven during BOB. Against lightly armed interceptors.

The B-17 killed the Luftwaffe. It went in Harms way. Took the fight to the enemy on it's grounds and won. One tough plane I think.
As for the picture and how many 108s read what you want out of the numbers.
I think the B-17 should be alittle harder to kill.
Anything with less then 2x20mm should have a real rough time . Read the early Japs. vs B-17 encounters to get an idea.
The numbers for the 108 is used (2 pods) firing.
One 108 firing needed to hit?

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
'history is not proof' - what history? written by who?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything I have ever read in books, on TV, on forums said the B-17 was a very tough bomber. Pilots who flew them, gunners that manned there guns, pilots who flew cover for them, and even the Luftwaffa pilots who tried to knock them down all day the B-17 was very very strong and could take a lot more punishment that would of taken any other bomber down. Are you saying everyone is wrong? But a few armchair forum jocks are right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'in game tests' - this is ridiculous - it is a simulation and we are talking about the actual aircraft; you shouldn't confuse the two.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This forum is about the game, but a game test is ridiculous? THE TEST SHOWS THAT THE B-17 IS WEAK, AND HISTORY SAYS IT WAS NOT! I dont confuse the two, but its a valid comparison. This thead is about compairing B-17 real toughness in-game compaired to real-life, BUT FOR SOME REASON I CANT COMPAIR THE TWO? How backwards is this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'battle figures'
'photos are not proof' - refer to the P47 point.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People keep saying "Lucky ones" or "one time thing" but again. I said when is it no longer a "one time thing"? When it happens multiple times. The photo's prove it happened many many times, not just noce!!!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
'Mk108 hits with no effect' - you are saying that it was not possible to destroy a B17 with 30mm fire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now your misquoting me. I said "little effect" and you said "no effect". BIG DIFFERANCE!!!! There is a well circulated guncam footage of a Bf-110 with Mk-108 (said Bf-110 with Mk-108 in German on the film) shooting a low flying B-17. The 110 got in VERY VERY close and unloaded into it for 2 minutes. You can see the shells exploding with little effect and the B-17 did not "birst into flames" or "blow the wings off" or just explode. It flew on. The 110 also put a LOT of rounds into the #2 engine with no visable effect.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Pilot accounts are anecdotal. Refer to the claims point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are not talking about B-17 pilots who claim shooting down 20 Bf-109's. We are talking about vets who flew these beast's home after taking many many hits. We are also talking about German pilots who had to fight these. Also Japanese pilots. I guess they all lie and overexadurate about the B-17's toughness? If all sides of the war say "That B-17 was tough" then maybe there is something too it?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The bottom line is that making unquantifiable statements like 'The B17 was toughest', 'the P51 won the war' etc are entirely subject to nationalistic bias and, while we can all be guilty of this (it is part of human nature, after all), not everyone goes around making posts about it every five minutes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would be qualified? TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO RESEARCH TO PROVE IT WAS A TOUGH AIRCRAFT!!! That was my point of the post

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And no, this is not entirely aimed at you, Gib.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats complete bull sh. If it was not entirely aimed at my, why are you not only quoting me, but also mis-quoting me!!! Everything in your post is in response to my post. Dont fool yourself, your not fooling me

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

In response:

Point 1: Like I said, I can believe that the B17 was a tough bomber. It should be - that's what heavy bombers are supposed to be - tough. However, I think we are now on the subject that a B17 should be able to take an entire Bf110s 30mm ammo load and still fly on? Look at the picture of the Spitfire posted a little time ago. Obviously:

a. Something was wrong with the 30mms.
b. They all passed straight through (in which case, the bomber was lucky..not tough)
c. The footage is not authentic.

Point 2:
The point about the game is that it is a simulation limited by the real-time physics modelling capability of current PC hardware. In that respect, we have a simplified damage model which I would think unlikely to model precisely the individual component parts of an aircraft (strength/shear points etc) or, indeed, the actual physical model of a 30mm shell exploding. So what do you want to happen? Should all B17s in FB take an entire BF110 30mm cannon load because you saw some guncam footage that said the B17 would not be damaged? Let's be realistic, shall we?

Point 3: Show me the statistical evidence of how many P47s made it home with n holes in them compared to those that didn't make it home with y holes in them.

Point 4: You're right, I might have made a mistake in quoting you - apologies. However, see point 2 and email Oleg asking him to make all B17s resistant to 30mm fire.

Point 5: 'Veteran' intelligence agencies told us that Iraq were involved in 9/11 and that they had WMD. Don't believe everything you read or see. I didn't and I was right.

Point 6: The research that would need to be done would be to get all pilots together and ask them to rank bombers they shot at in descending order of toughness. I'd go for this one.

As you wouldn't get a representative, comparative picture, because they didn't shoot down bombers on their own side (or maybe they did), there is actually no way you could satisfy me in telling me what the ordering is.

Point 7:
I perhaps did not make it clear enough for you to understand properly - the last paragraph wasn't entirely aimed at you; there are plenty of people making biased claims, me included but the odd thing is that I defend aircraft that are from a different country from me. The previous poster has a point, though.

How would you like to see the sim, then, Gib? On the basis that you only ever post that this US plane is not good enough/that US weapon is not good enough, what would you like to be done about it exactly? Would you like, as the previous poster suggests, to have all US planes as being according to your sources of "evidence" whilst discarding anything from other sources that you don't agree with?

You see, unfortunately, whining such as this only serves to annoy especially when I've just been online and pumped two 30mm shells (I was in a 262) into a YP80, in a slashing attack, only to see it get a fuel leak. What next? Am I to attack a B17 formation in a BF110 only to have to expend all my ammo, land, take off and attack again just to shoot down 1 plane?

I'll let you in on a secret fear of mine which is this. The marketing boys know the US market is worth a lot of money. So, they get together, decide that the only way to make a real killing is to have it where it's very easy for patriots flying US planes to shoot down anything that has a LW cross/rising sun on it. After all, they were the bad guys, weren't they? Goose-stepping Nazis, the lot of them. And those Japanese..their planes were made of paper and caught fire with a slight breeze. And P38s turned with A6M Zeros. Richard Bong said.

Now, this is an over-exaggeration but when you see posts in here, you just know that's what some people think...because they often say it.

And the day we have a biased sim, where history no longer counts but sales do, is the day I'm out of here because it's wrong. Like U571 is wrong.

Oh, and if the bias were towards the Russians or Germans, I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

CaptJodan
06-18-2004, 03:57 PM
"Point 6: The research that would need to be done would be to get all pilots together and ask them to rank bombers they shot at in descending order of toughness. I'd go for this one.

As you wouldn't get a representative, comparative picture, because they didn't shoot down bombers on their own side (or maybe they did), there is actually no way you could satisfy me in telling me what the ordering is."


See, now this I have a problem with. There's no way to really satisfy you, so there's no real way to show whether the B-17 is undermodeled in terms of damage or not, or even if the HE-111 is undermodeled, overmodeled, or just right. This isn't a problem? That doesn't make much sense to me.



"I'll let you in on a secret fear of mine which is this. The marketing boys know the US market is worth a lot of money. So, they get together, decide that the only way to make a real killing is to have it where it's very easy for patriots flying US planes to shoot down anything that has a LW cross/rising sun on it. After all, they were the bad guys, weren't they? Goose-stepping Nazis, the lot of them. And those Japanese..their planes were made of paper and caught fire with a slight breeze. And P38s turned with A6M Zeros. Richard Bong said.

Now, this is an over-exaggeration but when you see posts in here, you just know that's what some people think...because they often say it.

And the day we have a biased sim, where history no longer counts but sales do, is the day I'm out of here because it's wrong. Like U571 is wrong.

Oh, and if the bias were towards the Russians or Germans, I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

Cheers,
Norris"

This is a valid enough point, and a real threat. I do think that sometimes it goes a little overboard. That's why we need to take careful consideration of anything we decide to change in game. It needs to be looked at from all angles we can see, and do what we can to get the correct information.

Let's face it, Gib has sometimes gone off the deep end. But overall, I think he's just trying to get it right. The P-38 is no super airplane by any stretch of the imagination, (though for some reason some think so) Gib helped to make that plane happen, both in its good AND bad aspects(compression).

I really don't think this is another thread devoted to super-ing the B-17. Just getting it a bit more tough. I personally do NOT want to see 30mm cannons flying through the air and doing little damage. That's a bit far fetched, and may be an isolated incident if it happened. But I also don't want tank fires started at the drop of a hat with a few .50s or a single 20mm hit to the wing.

Bottom line, I think it's just the comparasion between the B-17 and others that seems out of wack. Even the B-25 seems a bit too hearty to me. I can hit that plane with everything I've got on a Zero and the ONLY way I've been able to take it down is with the fuel tanks. In many ways, it is as tough, or tougher than a B-17, which doesn't seem right. Its just the comparasion between other AC and the 17.

Giganoni
06-18-2004, 03:57 PM
How is the B-17 weak!?! It is tough, fire at the fuselage and you'll see it is a tough bird to crack! Your aiming at the wings, your hitting the fuel tanks and your igniting the fuel. Or your hitting the engines..guess what, that is a plane's weakspot! Aluminum and self sealing tanks cant stop everything.

Does no one have armor placement for the He-111 that would prove its too strong? I think its fuel tanks or engines just don't get hit as easily which could be the fault of the DM. Or if there is armor, it would make sense.

However the story of the B-17 is very interesting, the politics behind it and its misguided usage in unescorted flights into Germany in 1943. There is a navigator named Elmer Bendiner who made a memoir called The Fall of Fortresses. To me he doesn't necessarily harbor love for the commanders who knowingly sent those B-17 crews on those missions of "Black Week" partly because they needed to bolster the image of their air power and avoid its heavies being transffered to another theater. There is a section of William O Neill's book A Democracy at War (which largely praises American democracy coming together to fight and win the war, etc)
where Bendiner's bomber group had 18 crews. At the end of October 14 there were only four crews left which had participated in the first horrible Schweinfurt raid on August 17. That is a 72 percent replacement rate. In less than a month's time.

Proof that it could not do well against heavily defended targets without long range fighter escort. Yet the commanders and private citizens who heavily invested in the B-17 foolishly felt that it could. Hey, if the B-17 could have done that, we may not been so keen as to develop excellent long range escort fighters such as the P-51D. I'm sure we would have but, maybe not as quickly. "what ifs" are always open to speculation.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Itto_Okami
06-18-2004, 04:46 PM
Setup a quick test... QMB, 1 PZL vs 1 He.111 and try to down the He... then do the same with the B-17... here I had to taran the He.111 to down it... while I disposed of the B-17 at my will having some fuselage ammos spared... Anyone can do the same test?

S!

Itto

NorrisMcWhirter
06-18-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaptJodan:
"Point 6: The research that would need to be done would be to get all pilots together and ask them to rank bombers they shot at in descending order of toughness. I'd go for this one.

As you wouldn't get a representative, comparative picture, because they didn't shoot down bombers on their own side (or maybe they did), there is actually no way you could satisfy me in telling me what the ordering is."


See, now this I have a problem with. There's no way to really satisfy you, so there's no real way to show whether the B-17 is undermodeled in terms of damage or not, or even if the HE-111 is undermodeled, overmodeled, or just right. This isn't a problem? That doesn't make much sense to me.



"I'll let you in on a secret fear of mine which is this. The marketing boys know the US market is worth a lot of money. So, they get together, decide that the only way to make a real killing is to have it where it's very easy for patriots flying US planes to shoot down anything that has a LW cross/rising sun on it. After all, they were the bad guys, weren't they? Goose-stepping Nazis, the lot of them. And those Japanese..their planes were made of paper and caught fire with a slight breeze. And P38s turned with A6M Zeros. Richard Bong said.

Now, this is an over-exaggeration but when you see posts in here, you just know that's what some people think...because they often say it.

And the day we have a biased sim, where history no longer counts but sales do, is the day I'm out of here because it's wrong. Like U571 is wrong.

Oh, and if the bias were towards the Russians or Germans, I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

Cheers,
Norris"

This is a valid enough point, and a real threat. I do think that sometimes it goes a little overboard. That's why we need to take careful consideration of anything we decide to change in game. It needs to be looked at from all angles we can see, and do what we can to get the correct information.

Let's face it, Gib has sometimes gone off the deep end. But overall, I think he's just trying to get it right. The P-38 is no super airplane by any stretch of the imagination, (though for some reason some think so) Gib helped to make that plane happen, both in its good AND bad aspects(compression).

I really don't think this is another thread devoted to super-ing the B-17. Just getting it a bit more tough. I personally do NOT want to see 30mm cannons flying through the air and doing little damage. That's a bit far fetched, and may be an isolated incident if it happened. But I also don't want tank fires started at the drop of a hat with a few .50s or a single 20mm hit to the wing.

Bottom line, I think it's just the comparasion between the B-17 and others that seems out of wack. Even the B-25 seems a bit too hearty to me. I can hit that plane with everything I've got on a Zero and the ONLY way I've been able to take it down is with the fuel tanks. In many ways, it is as tough, or tougher than a B-17, which doesn't seem right. Its just the comparasion between other AC and the 17.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Point 1: I like to be pedantic but pedants also have to be realistic. It's quite obvious to me, as I already pointed out, that a heavy bomber is going to be "tough". You can just imagine the guy writing the specification for it, knowing that it's going to be slow and that it cannot avoid incoming fighters. What does he do about it? He specifies good defensive armament and redundancies like 4 engines (a function of bomb load, also) etc..as already mentioned.

Of course, the B17 is going to be more resistant to attacks than say a He111. After all, the B17 has 4 tough radials as opposed to two engines on the Heinkel. However, to say that it is physically tougher is another matter. This requires analysis of the materials involved, the manufacturing process and the structure of the airframe. It also requires analysis of how that airframe reacts to the type of weapons used against it. Alternatively, you could send both aircraft into exactly the same operating environment and analyse which of them made it home more often. That didn't happen so we don't have those figures.

To be completely pedantic, the only way to actually prove if the simulation modelling is good is to actually fire 20mm/30mm shells and such like into a B17 airframe and to assess the consequences of direct hits. This test would need to be repeated several times from typical attack attitudes while the airframe was subjected to the stresses experienced in a combat environment.

As that isn't going to happen, I'll settle for the B17 taking about the same damage as a B25 because I'll assume the construction to be similar. Therefore, it goes without saying that the B17 will make it home more often than the B25 because it has four engines, but that's only true if we assume that attackers go mostly for the engines.

By the same token, I'll accept that a He111 should make it home less often than a B25 because, although it has the same number of engines, they are water cooled hence more likely to be disabled due to their relative complexity. This assumes, of course, that the He111 doesn't have additional armour to protect the engines. Again, this assumes an attacker goes for the engines and that the attacker uses the same weaponry to attack both aircraft.

I'd also accept that, in a head on attack, the probabilty of taking any of these planes down is almost equal if we assume the attacker goes for the cockpit.

Point 2:

I'm with you. I don't want to see a bomber disabled with a couple of 20mm hits nor do I want to see a He111 taken down with a few .50 hits. Nor do I want to see a repeat of AEP where it takes 5-6 30mm cannon hits being absorbed by a P51.

Overall, it strikes me that this entire sim is like trying to balance on top of a pyramid; this is why we get a new game after nearly every patch because, basically, the developer doesn't actually know what the exact FM/DM/WMs are which is no complaint; it must be very difficult. So they try to make everything as close to the specifications as they can then tweak it so everything appears ok *relative to something else*. So, for example, if they were to know that a 20mm hit does x amount of damage and that a .50 cal is 0.8 times as powerful as the 20mm round, then each .50 cal causes 0.8x damage.

They have my sympathy for having a job where it's a fine line between 50 page threads and praise.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

NN_EnigmuS
06-18-2004, 05:49 PM
max fuel loadout for a He111: 765gallons

for a B17:2,780 gallons carried in wing lol that's why he burn hehe when you hit a fuel tank in a wing,what do you want exactly?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-18-2004, 05:58 PM
and all damaged photos of B17 not showing any hit in wings because they didn't get home lol

the reason why it is hard to down in real life is because it is not as simple to hit a wings when you are fired by a box of B17,you hit where you can that's it(you just made test like one B17 and you firing agaisnt a friendly plane,but try to put 150 B17 firing and you will see if you destroye one easily that's the point)

and yes B17 is very hard to destroye when not shooting in fuel tank of the wings like it is in game

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 06:43 PM
The He-111 also carried it fuel in the wings. Even though it carried less fuel then the B-17, it was also a much smaller aircraft. Why can you not also light the He-111's wing on fire as easy as the B-17? I fired right were the tanks "should" be, no fire. B-17, fire. They both have self sealing fuel tanks, but why are the tanks on the He-111 not vulnerable to fight?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:

and yes B17 is very hard to destroye when not shooting in fuel tank of the wings like it is in game

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 07:06 PM
Just realized something. My P-38 and P-63 take more damage then the B-17. Thats just sad.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

PunicaDUSK
06-18-2004, 07:08 PM
Because you just didn't say that...

You state facts that are no facts, you present pictures that...

etc. etc.

But who saied the B-17 is too weak?

Hmmm... whom of us did say that???
Your quotes are everything...

Fishu
06-18-2004, 07:23 PM
I finally did some scenario testing and made up few bomber fleets to shoot down.. a quite massive fleet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Damage seemed about right to me in version 2.01
30mm hits / kill ratio was like documents claims.
20mm seemed to be also about there within documented ratios.

Problem here is not that B-17 would be too weak, the problem is that some planes are too tough.

Anyhow, B-17 wasn't any wonder machine, it didn't have any better armour than the other bombers or fighters. just the basic armour.. some for fuel tanks, pilots...
Pretty much same armour as in most western planes by 1944.
Bigger difference to some bomber designs was it's more rugged structure, however that didn't give it any more miraculous durability.

If you think B-17 was some miraculously durable bomber compared to others, please, get down on ground from the world of hype.



If something is messed up, its the IL2's way of managing ammo.
Every round seems to have incendiary capabilities.
There doesn't either seem to be different kinds of belts for different planes.
So if every round is incendiary capable, it will of course make it worse for bombers with big fuel tanks.
Although full fuel tanks shouldn't burn so easy as they do in the game.

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 07:36 PM
Look. A fighter takes 16 rounds of .50 cal and shrugs it off. Thats acceptable. A B-17 takes 16 rounds of ammo, looses a wing, and is killed. How in anyones logic is this acceptable? Im guessing its acceptable to the people who want to shoot down B-17's.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

HellToupee
06-18-2004, 08:24 PM
it lost its wing because it hit the fuel tank, only reason they go down so easy is because of those weak spots on the wings, shoot everywhere else and it will soak up the bullets. The problem of durability with the he111 is that the he111 almost never catches fire. Its just a dm issue weapons arnt sawing them up just setting off those fuel tanks.

On average the figures quoted even back to the old cfs1 manual :P have 5-6 hits of 30mm and 20-30 hits of 20mm.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

HellToupee
06-18-2004, 09:10 PM
if you discount the fire effects you find the b17 is stronger than the he111 especially vs mk108s.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Fishu
06-18-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
A B-17 takes 16 rounds of ammo, looses a wing, and is killed. How in anyones logic is this acceptable?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After my last post, I did do the same test scenario with P47 and P51 few times over.
Not a single time B17 lost it's wing due to handful of hits.

What I found interesting, wasn't that how B17 took damage, but how different it was to fly P47/P51 and BF110/FW190 against the bombers.
BF110 and FW190 couldn't take many hits, while P47/P51 on average took many hits to engine and hardly lost power, let alone flaming out.
BF110 engine at the best flamed out after 1-2 hits :&gt;
FW190.. even with a radial engine, lost huge deal of power after 1-2 hits and once cut off after 1 hit.

Now thats something weirder than B17 damage.

Oh and I used arcade toggle each time, so there isn't much doubt how there was hits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Used spit too.. altho the spit flight ended short, I did the classic ramming move http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Approached lead plane of 3 plane B17 formation from side, failed to notice left most B17 which was below the nose all the time and then clipped right wing into its waist gunners compartment - my spit rolled 180 and flew right over B17 on the right... only saved from ramming by already missing wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Little lower and it'd been boom into 2nd B-17's waist.
Left B17 was cut in half.

Gibbage1
06-18-2004, 09:47 PM
If your getting that shot up by bombers then your tactics needs some major work. Also your aim. If you typically fly Axis aircraft, and hop into a US aircraft armed with .50's, you wont hit a thing. Your constantly leading a LOT in axis aircraft because of the low velocity of there canon rounds. In US aircraft, you dont lead nearly as much.

Did you try with arcade mode?

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

bearboy160
06-18-2004, 09:49 PM
I thought the only way to take down bombers was with rockets?
I emptied my all my guns on those damn Zwillings and all I got was bits and pieces of its fuselage and smoking engines. I quit, loaded my IL-2 with rockets, climbed up above them and loosed two rockets at em. Blew up straight away.The whole plane just disintergrated.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BS87
06-18-2004, 10:41 PM
How about this. We drop ALL the arguments about EVERYTHING in this thread from fuses to fuel tanks. And we agree on one thing, that answers the ORIGIONAL question.

When compared to the He111, a bomber which should be relativly weaker, the B17 is easier to take down (in game).

There, if we can all agree on that, an issue which has cold hard proof, there is no more use for this thread. The origional question has been answered, and all the needless flamin can stop. On BOTH SIDES.

Hoarmurath
06-19-2004, 12:03 AM
According to a recent discussion in this forum, Me323 Gigant is one of the toughest planes in FB.

This track is 2.01

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/puny50.zip

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

BS87
06-19-2004, 12:21 AM
Heh, i think you got the wrong thead, this is about the B17 and He111, not the strength of .50 cals.

Hoarmurath
06-19-2004, 12:43 AM
Grrrr, my intent was to shot down both planes with one pass... sorry i needed a second pass at the B17, but it can be done.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/weakspots.zip

then, if you fire at B17 weak spots, it goes down. same for the He111. And same for the Me323. If you don't fire at weakspots, even a fighter can sustain a great amount of damage.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

BS87
06-19-2004, 12:52 AM
True, although what i think gibbage is trying to point out is that the He111's weak spot should be a little.... weaker?? and the b17s... just a tad bit tougher.

Gibbage1
06-19-2004, 02:20 AM
I still cant find the He-111's weak spot. Nobody has told me were it is. Other then the pilot, I dont think there is a single spot on the aircraft you can hit and take it down like the B-17.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
06-19-2004, 02:27 AM
Then gibb, your quest has ended, look at the track, i hit two weak spots in one pass. You can easily shot down a He111 by shooting its control surfaces at the tail, or by setting fire to one of its engines.

the difficulty in shooting down a bomber is not to make it go down, but rather to survive its defensive fire.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

HellToupee
06-19-2004, 02:29 AM
stopped both engines in one pass with the haspanoes.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Gibbage1
06-19-2004, 02:38 AM
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hoarmurath
06-19-2004, 03:19 AM
Gibbage, if i was able to shoot down a He111 in a single pass, your pic only prove one thing.... That you need more practice.

I feel confident that in a P38 you can shoot down a He111 in one or two pass easily.

I'm not an exceptionnal pilot or gunner. I have only average skills, for which i train alot. If i can do something, anyone can do the same with a little training.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

NN_EnigmuS
06-19-2004, 03:19 AM
i ve a track,if someone can host it, where i burn a He111 with a P47D27 with 3s burst

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-19-2004, 03:27 AM
if you want to fire it,just shoot from upper in the engine if you shoot direct 6 not a lot of effect

it's the weak point

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-19-2004, 03:42 AM
here it is,shoot 2s with only .50cal from a p38L:the weak point is in red so before always whining just learn your ennemy and improve your practise lol

http://www.checksix-fr.com/albumphoto/photos/im_1087638058.jpg

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
06-19-2004, 03:57 AM
Hi,

He111 hard to down? That's odd because the online map I was flying on last night saw *every single* He111 attack foiled by Spitfires. Watching the action on external view, most Spits disabled the controls of the He111 in one pass + smoked an engine. The second pass would be terminal for the bomber.

Just as well I jumped into an A6 and sorted those Spit boys out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Getting back to the point, B17s are easy to shoot down if you hit the wings and that's what I'd expect as the fuel tanks are there. Just as I'd expect a heavy bomber to be tough, so I'd expect the fuel tanks to be the weak point and that's what we have. Just like the oil cooler on the Il-2, the wings are the achilles heel of the B17. Also, I don't see any difference in taking down a B17 with LW 30mm fire to the wings as a Spitfire with 2x20mm Hispanos taking down a He111 by hitting it in the wings and that is what I observed last night.

If your P51 and P38 are taking more hits than a B17, then maybe the P51 and P38 are too strong - did you ever consider that? How many 30mm hits would you expect a P47 to survive, too? 4-6 sound about right? Oh, and while 1C are toning these down, how about sorting out the YP-80 which appears to take multiple 30mm hits in the wing without too much bother.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

NN_EnigmuS
06-19-2004, 06:15 AM
why don't you ask for extinctor for He111

it will be better too me asking this for a flyable plane it's a lack

He111 had extinctor not in game but Tb3 had lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Fishu
06-19-2004, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If your getting that shot up by bombers then your tactics needs some major work. Also your aim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that was addressed to me...

Survival of my fighters wasn't any kind of interest in the test scenarios, just toasting of B-17s and damage resistance between US/German fighters was something I observed. (AI isn't known for tactics, they were nicely tallying the B17s and getting shot up :&gthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

plus I wonder what the aim has to do here..

"Oh and I used arcade toggle each time, so there isn't much doubt how there was hits"


I don't need to be taught with basics, I have more experience with virtual air wars than most here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BS87,

B-17 seems about as "weak" as I would imagine it being in real life.
It takes about as many hits to down as historical documents points out.
and I have no reason to doubt german investigations of hundreds cases, when they were trying to analyze best tactics and guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(theres even estimated figures for how many shots were fired just to get one hit, I can tell you it was *alot* :&gthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Guess I have to turn those B17 fleets into He111 fleets and try again with the same planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ought to be fun, when they dont have .50's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Couple things worth considering is the awfully unrealistically huge muzzle flashes and fire effects, when every round acts like incendiary and every fuel tank is behaving like nearly empty, full of fumes waiting to lit up.

Knegel
06-20-2004, 03:07 AM
Hello,

i dont think that the B17 got called 'flyingfortress' cause it was tough in its structure, rather cause it had so many guns.

The B17 probably did need more hits than a He111 or most other bombers, but it also was a much easyer target, due to its size.

Minimum 4-5 30mm hits to bring a b17 down is absolutly rubbish, cause also 1 x 20mm can be enough, if its on the right place. If i see the damagepower of the 30mm i would say 4-5 in the middle is more likely than 4-5 minimum.

The gamedamagemodel i absolutly dont understand. Sometimes i can unload all my Amo and nearly nothing happen, and sometimes a snapshot is enough to take out all controlls of the enemy(or my plane).

The structure of most planes seems to be much to tough, a He111 and also B17 wing should fall off very fast if the attacker shoot from 50-100m distance, like the P38 do it on the screenshots some posts before).

Who ever saw a 20mm shooting to a target in 100m distance should know that a Wing is fast done. And on 50-100m distance the hitquote should be very very high!! The MG151/20mm had a fireratio of 11-13 rounds per sec!! So a FW190A8 was shooting 44-52 rounds per sec!! On 50-100m a hitquoute of 50% should be easy possible, specialy in game, where we can fly with same speed like the bomber.
Also the damagepower of a P38 with 1 x 20mm + 4 x .50 cal must have been incredible. In real life every Bomber would go down after 1 sec shooting if its done like on the Screenshots.
Imagine a pilot shoot 5 sec constant!! With the FW190A8 176 - 208 20mm rounds(without MG131) would fly toward the target, with the P38 44 20mm´s and 208 .50cal´s!

Since 20mm´s and big MG´s was common, the only chance to safe a Bomber was to hinder the attackers to make exact attacks on close distance. The B17´s was able to do this vs single planes, but not vs the 'line-tactic', where 12 or more Me109´s or FW190 did attack in a line, to split the defencife fire of the Pulk.

Often 70% of the attacker got a kill while this attacks(JG301/2 killreports)!

Thats why the B17´s wasnt able to fly alone, and with escort the JG´s most wasnt able make more than one 'line attack', often they never got the chance to do this.

I think in Fb is the DM a same weak point like the FM. Not realy credible.

Greetings, Knegel

BennyMoore
06-20-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knegel:
In real life every Bomber would go down after 1 sec shooting if its done like on the Screenshots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it makes sense considering the volume of fire that we're talking about, but history shows that that is simply not true. I've read more than a few stories about fighters that pound a bomber with cannons, all shots hitting the target, until their ammunition is gone and still not downing the bomber.

That one story about the B-29 Superfortress was mentioned in this thread, I believe; perhaps you should read that? Four twenty millimeters and four fifties fired at point blank range at a bomber whose crew had bailed and which was flying straight and level. The fighter ran out of ammunition, and the only reason the bomber crashed was that the bombs in the bomb bay were detonated. Even then, it did not go down in flames but simply banked very slightly so that it eventually circled down into the ocean.

The fighter crew said that there were chunks of bomber the size of dishpans flying past their plane.

[This message was edited by BennyMoore on Sun June 20 2004 at 10:35 PM.]

Fishu
06-21-2004, 01:40 AM
Bennymoore,

Hit percentage in real life was much much different than in our games.
I'm sure it's also easier to find these highlight stories easier than the stories of regular flights.

BennyMoore
06-21-2004, 10:57 PM
Going by all of the gun camera footage I've seen, I'd say hit percentage in real life (at close range) was equal or greater than that of the game.

Anyway, there's not much that can go wrong with a straight and level bomber that's not firing back.

DaBallz
06-22-2004, 03:26 AM
The B-17 was very tough structurally. Much
tougher than it needed.
The wing used a "Warren truss" wing spar.
It was similar to a railroad bridge
in construction. The wing and fuselage skin
was thick by the standards of the day
and the internal ribs and stringers were
over done.

This was NOT a calculated design to make the bird tougher.
This was a carryover from the 247 airliner
and was typical 1930's Boeing engineering.

the end result was an airframe that was a bit over weight
but very resistant to failure from gunfire.

The engines were Wright GR-1820 9 cylinder single row
radials. They were reliable and resistant
to gunfire (as resistant as an engine can get).
There were no notable fuel system weaknesses
to point at. Self sealing tanks were used
as were "T handle" operated fuel cut off valves
to cut fuel when an an engine was feathered.

The B-17 lacked any notable weaknesses other
than those shared by ALL piston engined aircraft.

Gasoline/Petrol fueled planes were VERY vulnerable
to fire if a fuel line was damaged. self sealing
tanks were tough to destroy, but cannon fire
could damage them beyong the rubber lining's
ability to re-seal.

The best attack on a B-17 was to shoot the cockpit. Pilots were the best weak point to attack.

All German fighter pilots respected the ability
of the Boeings to absorb damage and deal out
death. To sum it up, the Boeings were
heavily defended and tough.

da...

Warren Truss railway bridge....
http://www.richmangalleries.com/images/KingstonRhinecliffreduced.jpg

EFG_beber
06-22-2004, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
i ve a track,if someone can host it, where i burn a He111 with a P47D27 with 3s burst

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
pm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-22-2004, 04:40 AM
where i must send it to you ?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

EFG_beber
06-22-2004, 05:22 AM
See your private message in "my space"

EFG_beber
06-22-2004, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38 with .50 cal
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8609/grab0000.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/192/grab0001.jpg

fw-190 A6 with all guns.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/891/grab0005.jpg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5499/grab0006.jpg

edit:190 a6

[This message was edited by EFG_beber on Tue June 22 2004 at 05:27 AM.]

NN_EnigmuS
06-22-2004, 09:20 AM
http://h.ds.free.fr/He111.TRK

here the link,a p38 vs He111,a 3s burst only with .50cal and engine burn

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-22-2004, 09:24 AM
tks to beber for hosting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

EFG_beber
06-22-2004, 04:09 PM
i had make some test on the b-17 and he-111.
For me the b-17 appear to be good.

But for the 111 it's différent.

first if i shoot the engine it' will immediately burn.
It's a weak point and it's normal.
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8609/grab0000.jpg

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/192/grab0001.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5687/grab0002.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1285/grab0003.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2966/grab0004.jpg


Here a he-111 cross section.
You could see the fuel tank.
But when i shoot theme they don't burn

Why?
he-111 H6 don't have outboard fuel tank?
or other?
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9242/1562.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/891/grab0005.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5499/grab0006.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6405/grab0007.jpg

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8652/grab0008.jpg

[This message was edited by EFG_beber on Tue June 22 2004 at 03:19 PM.]