PDA

View Full Version : Setting aircraft on Fire



totalspoon
12-16-2005, 04:08 PM
After watching the gun camera footage posted by Dirty-Mac, I notice how often the Japanese aircraft caught on fire when hit. It seamed that every time .50 cal hit them they burnt. I have also read that most of the aircraft shot down by the RAF during the Battle of Britain were set on fire and that the De-Wilde incendiary ammo used in the .30 cals was one of the more important war winning devices of the battle.

It disappointing that .50 very rarely sets fire to fuel tanks in PFM. .30 Cal is even worse. Set up a mission with a couple of unarmed He111€s and a Hurricane I with unlimited ammo and you can happily blaze away all day without causing a puff of flame. Is this a problem with the game?

vocatx
12-16-2005, 04:43 PM
On-line I usually fly Japanese aircraft and I can tell you from personal experience, there is no problem setting them on fire.

Tully__
12-16-2005, 11:01 PM
If you want the fuel tanks to burn, you have to shoot at the fuel tanks. In Japanese aircraft you'll find them in the inner third of the wings.

Incidentally, gun camera footage shown on television and posted on the net is generally a sample collection chosen for its spectacular nature. There are many thousands of gun cams showing aircraft being shot down without a trace of flame.

ShilkaLive
12-17-2005, 01:47 AM
Well, on my last squadnight mission my He-111 sure burned allright...

http://home.zonnet.nl/Shilka/IL2/burnbabyburn.JPG

IL2-chuter
12-17-2005, 02:26 AM
I just wish that when they (by they I mean specifially the "steel" B-25) do catch fire the aluminum would melt appropriately. Watching B-25s fly off into the distance while blazing away is just to much. For me, anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif No airplane can last very long while on fire, it has to do with the heat and the . . . melting point . . . of . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

You may now return to your thread . . .

totalspoon
12-17-2005, 04:53 AM
Sorry Guys, I wasn't saying aircraft don't catch fire. Cannon shells do a great job when you hit a fuel tank. Its just my belief that the .30cals in particular almost never set a target on fire, even when your right behind shooting into their fuel tanks.

Kuna15
12-17-2005, 05:02 AM
Fifties are going to infict heavy structural damage + set aircraft on fire; .303s are going to set aircraft on fire -- there are no many chances to infict heavy structral damage with that MGs.

Also setting alight Japanese aircraft is a bit easier with .303s - no wonder since their ammo belt consists of
APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

while .50cal belt consist of
APIT - AP - HE - AP

Bearcat99
12-17-2005, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Tully__:
If you want the fuel tanks to burn, you have to shoot at the fuel tanks. In Japanese aircraft you'll find them in the inner third of the wings.

Incidentally, gun camera footage shown on television and posted on the net is generally a sample collection chosen for its spectacular nature. There are many thousands of gun cams showing aircraft being shot down without a trace of flame.

Very true..... of the surviving guncam footage from all sides there is what..... even as a generous estimate.... @500 different clips... ok.. say 1000. I know I have seen a lot of the same ones over and over.... that same one of the F6 I think it is, breaking up after it hits the island, is the same one from Tora Tora Tora.... and a few other movies that mixed in guncam footage with film.... My point is that there were so many more planes shot down... I dont have the total number from the entire war... but.. the surviving guncam footage is probably less than 5%.... and like Tully said.... the most spectacular stuff is saved... a very good point that I never thought of till now. I guess that's why Tull is...... THE MAN... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mortoma
12-19-2005, 10:10 AM
I don't set aircraft on fire personally, mostly because my local airport has fairly tight security.

Kuna15
12-19-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I don't set aircraft on fire personally, mostly because my local airport has fairly tight security.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Diablo310th
12-20-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
Fifties are going to infict heavy structural damage + set aircraft on fire; .303s are going to set aircraft on fire -- there are no many chances to infict heavy structral damage with that MGs.

Also setting alight Japanese aircraft is a bit easier with .303s - no wonder since their ammo belt consists of
APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

while .50cal belt consist of
APIT - AP - HE - AP

Kuna..we really need to petition Oleg to change the loadout to more a US load than a Russian loadout. We need documentaion however and I havn't been able to find it. I know I saw posts on here with it in the past.

MrQBerrt
12-20-2005, 08:33 AM
I don't think I've ever shot down a multi-engine plane (especially the fighters) without setting them aflame first. Single engine is another story though. It also seems that japanese planes tend to flame up more than other countries planes, but who knows if this is too much or not enough. My big question in the flame debate is whether the P-38 Lightning is supposed to flame as much as it does in-game (I've never heard of the P-38 having such a reputation)

chris455
12-21-2005, 01:31 AM
.50 caliber HE ammo? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Diablo, I have read that one loadout used was
"TIAPI"(Tracer, Incendiary, Armor Peircing Incendiary).
This was used in P-47s operating in Italy, maybe elsewhere.

Kuna15
12-21-2005, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by chris455:
.50 caliber HE ammo? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Diablo, I have read that one loadout used was
"TIAPI"(Tracer, Incendiary, Armor Peircing Incendiary).
This was used in P-47s operating in Italy, maybe elsewhere.

TIAPI sounds good to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
More incendiary the better from my PoV.

LEBillfish
12-21-2005, 07:43 AM
In the sim Japanese planes burn rather easily. In fact, the Army aircraft (Ki-designation) too easily. Ki-43 had layers of rubber and silk felt when at their most primitive state to help absorb leaks and prevent hydroshock blowout....Ki-61 the same. In short order they went to very thick layers of rubber it even forcing the tank capacity to be reduced.

From accounts I've read, Navy planes with little to no protection burned rather well and easily like they do here. Very early Ki-43 & 61's did slightly, yet were actually more prone to being broke in two mid fuselage from the oxygen tanks being hit......So much so 5th AirForce personel were informed of it and tank locations......

However, In most accounts I have read literally with the occassional stream of smoke....Most planes were simply hit and noted as just "going down".....Perhaps engines siezed, or controls, though more likely the pilot hit.....Yet one moment fighting hard, the next simply heading down with no clear reason why.

As a side note.......IMLTHO most planes went down due to problems in the cockpit. Be it oil/fuel/hyd/coolant fluid lines get hit spewing liquid all over burning or blinding the pilot, fire, or the pilot hit from a round or shrapnel from it....

(remember, a .50 round slamming through a cockpit is not just a 1/2"x2" chunk of lead....It's suddenly often numerous fractured pieces, phosphorous or whatever they used if a tracer, explosives if that type, and all the pieces of metal it violently breaks off of the plane as it passes through.......Add to that the sound and surprise.....So think of it as someone unexpectedly fired off both barrels of a 12Ga. 00 buck magnum round right through your car door while you're driving 90....Bet you don't drive straight let alone if hit when reflex makes you respond to that if you can)....

So in the end, most accounts I've read were of a plane simply suddenly seeming to lose control and go down in an instant. So I'd think it often really boiled down to a pilot losing control long enough (a brief second or 2 could do it) that they couldn't recover.......The above what I "assume" to be the case.

Abbuzze
12-21-2005, 08:36 AM
The father of a formar JG member, which was a 109 pilot with 5 kills told us that he never saw any plane going down in flames. They mostly explode when hit. The only plane he ever saw buring was his one when he was hit over GB and baild.

Tater-SW-
12-21-2005, 09:10 AM
From what I've read the japanese attempts at self-sealing tanks after the beginning of the war were pretty ineffective.

tater

Archer_F4U
12-21-2005, 09:16 AM
Kuna..we really need to petition Oleg to change the loadout to more a US load than a Russian loadout. We need documentaion however and I havn't been able to find it. I know I saw posts on here with it in the past.
From what I've read the ammunition sequence varies. I've read that one of the engineering officers in VF-17 (maybe VMF-214?) setup oil drums and shot them with various sequences of ammunition to find which set the drums on fire easiest/quickest. I squadron changed their standard sequence of rounds and eventually it spread throughout the Solomons (possibly the Pacific, I can't recall how widely the change was spread). I can see fighters using different sequences depending where they are. In the early part of the Pacific war the US planes would be one sequence, late war another, possibly others in between, sometimes with sequences varying between units. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if the sequence was different between the Pacific and Western Europe, and possibly even between squadrons flying mostly against IJN and IJAAF aircraft.

Diablo310th
12-21-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by chris455:
.50 caliber HE ammo? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Diablo, I have read that one loadout used was
"TIAPI"(Tracer, Incendiary, Armor Peircing Incendiary).
This was used in P-47s operating in Italy, maybe elsewhere.

Chris...that's a new one on me. That last post I saw concerming 50's loadout was 4xAPI and 1x APIT. That would be even better.

Diablo310th
12-21-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Archer_F4U:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Kuna..we really need to petition Oleg to change the loadout to more a US load than a Russian loadout. We need documentaion however and I havn't been able to find it. I know I saw posts on here with it in the past.
From what I've read the ammunition sequence varies. I've read that one of the engineering officers in VF-17 (maybe VMF-214?) setup oil drums and shot them with various sequences of ammunition to find which set the drums on fire easiest/quickest. I squadron changed their standard sequence of rounds and eventually it spread throughout the Solomons (possibly the Pacific, I can't recall how widely the change was spread). I can see fighters using different sequences depending where they are. In the early part of the Pacific war the US planes would be one sequence, late war another, possibly others in between, sometimes with sequences varying between units. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if the sequence was different between the Pacific and Western Europe, and possibly even between squadrons flying mostly against IJN and IJAAF aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true Archer which is why we probably ahve the loadout we do fior the 50's. I think what we are seeing is a typical loadout for Russian Lend Lease planes. Oleg does not see the Jug as a fighter so this loadout would be best for shooting down bombers or strafing. I would like to see some kind of documentaion as to a typical Western Theater loadout. I'm sure it would not contain an HE round. Changing this loadout and changing teh synch of the 50's would not be hard for Oleg to do if we can show enough proof and convince him of it. I really don't want to ahve to wait 5 years to get a Jug with that capability with the BoB engine.