PDA

View Full Version : Jappanese Aircraft Too Resiliant?



bmoffa
04-04-2007, 11:50 AM
The Japanese aircraft are too resiliant. I've have seen a lot of interviews with pilots who fought against the Japanese in WWII. Every one of them recalls how they would igite after just taking a few hits. The big problem (before the F6F) was getting the Japanese airplanes in their sites. Once there, they came done with just a short burst. I am emptying my guns into some of the really lightly armed bombers and still can't get then to go down.

JG53Frankyboy
04-04-2007, 12:14 PM
come online and fly japanese fighters/bombers on the ZekevsWildcat server and tell that than again.......................

3.JG51_BigBear
04-04-2007, 01:55 PM
In my experience there are only three Japanese planes that really soak up the damage, the Betty, the Ki-61 and the N1K1. The rest flame very easily for me and even glancing blows to the Zeros and Ki-84s effectively knocks them out of the fight.

In my opinion the Betty should go down easier but it does have some very effective defensive fire which makes sustained firing runs very dangerous and it is a large twin engine bomber meant to sustain battle damage from defending fighters and flack so its not so unbelievable that it could take significantly more punishment than something like a zero.

LeBillfish has posted a lot of information about the structure of the Ki-61 and it looks to have been as tough as any German fighter so I'm not surprised that it can take a beating.

Finally the N1K1 was a latter war fighter that took advantage of Japan's lessons in aircraft construction and technological developments and I would expect something like that to be more resilient than their early war fighters. It also wasn't encountered nearly as much as Zeros and Ki-43s so the amount of anectodal information about the amount of damage it could take is probably fairly limited.

AKA_TAGERT
04-04-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by bmoffa:
The Japanese aircraft are too resiliant. I've have seen a lot of interviews with pilots who fought against the Japanese in WWII. Every one of them recalls how they would igite after just taking a few hits. The big problem (before the F6F) was getting the Japanese airplanes in their sites. Once there, they came done with just a short burst. I am emptying my guns into some of the really lightly armed bombers and still can't get then to go down. This has to be the best documented bug report I have seen all day!

Mind you I just woke up.

stalkervision
04-04-2007, 02:12 PM
In my opinion the Betty should go down easier but it does have some very effective defensive fire which makes sustained firing runs very dangerous and it is a large twin engine bomber meant to sustain battle damage from defending fighters and flack so its not so unbelievable that it could take significantly more punishment than something like a zero.

Latter model betty's were substantially up-armored and designed with self-sealing fuel tanks. Their defensive armorments was also vastly improved and I believe their engines were also much better and more powerful.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-04-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my opinion the Betty should go down easier but it does have some very effective defensive fire which makes sustained firing runs very dangerous and it is a large twin engine bomber meant to sustain battle damage from defending fighters and flack so its not so unbelievable that it could take significantly more punishment than something like a zero.

Latter model betty's were substantially up-armored and designed with self-sealing fuel tanks. Their defensive armorments was also vastly improved and I believe their engines were also much better and more powerful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never thought it was a dog but it has been called the "flying Zippo" so I would have thought it woudl flame a little easier than it does.

Asgeir_Strips
04-04-2007, 02:27 PM
The betty should flame pretty easy yeah.
I guess the incediary rounds (.50 cal) aren't modeled well enough in-game

stalkervision
04-04-2007, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In my opinion the Betty should go down easier but it does have some very effective defensive fire which makes sustained firing runs very dangerous and it is a large twin engine bomber meant to sustain battle damage from defending fighters and flack so its not so unbelievable that it could take significantly more punishment than something like a zero.

Latter model betty's were substantially up-armored and designed with self-sealing fuel tanks. Their defensive armorments was also vastly improved and I believe their engines were also much better and more powerful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never thought it was a dog but it has been called the "flying Zippo" so I would have thought it woudl flame a little easier than it does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look for it's fuel tanks.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif The Il-2 version is an early Betty and should be pretty easy to down. Just don't sit directly behind it with that twenty millimeter cannon it has in the tail pointing directly at you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WWSensei
04-04-2007, 02:42 PM
Do the mission as your own online game with a few AI bombers. My guess is you aren't hitting the bomber nearly as much as you think or perhaps firing from too far away for the bullets to have much effect. I'll put it this way...if you are firing from more than 250 meters there isn't anything to discuss because you most likely are completely missing the target or just annoying them with your spent bullets glancing off the skin.

VW-IceFire
04-04-2007, 03:02 PM
You have to be careful when you start using general terms to describe something specific. Something that only needs "a few hits" to go down may mean completely different things depending on who said it and in what context and all sorts of different things. A WWII fighter pilots "few hits" might be quite different to yours or mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Only the N1K-1J and N1K-2J do I question for DM a little bit. Mostly in the fuel tank department. The rest are quite easy to flame and the J2M will actually explode completely if hit in the right way. I think its wrong to expect that a few random hits will cause catastrophic damage...especially since most gun camera footage shows Japanese planes taking a fair number of blasts from the .50cal (usually all at once) before going down. Trouble is that online lag and other things sometimes make groupings of hits much harder to do.

Waldo.Pepper
04-04-2007, 03:20 PM
Dear bmoffa

I am sorry to inform you of this but you are suffering from a condition know as 'noob.'

In fact I don't think I can remember such a bad case, in a long time anyway.

What this means is that you simply don't know what is what yet. We all had it at one time. I always looked out of my plane and expected to see 'front markers' on the ground! (ok that's a fib).

It will pass with time. But until it does such sweeping pronouncements that the "Japanese planes are too resilient", or the "Hellcat does not go fast enough" will not be viewed as credible. Especially when spoken by someone who has a bad case of 'noob', such as yourself.

Why just a short time ago you had trouble with the game and did not know how to take off. Good for you now that you are up to 25% success! (This is why we think you are missing the Japanese planes with your ammo!)

Keep at it! It will come with time. It is a complex game. Soon enough you will live up to your handle of bad moffo. The 'noob' will ease as well.

LEBillfish
04-04-2007, 07:04 PM
Lets talk about a "few hits".......

Check your hit counters, you'll often find for 200 rounds fired only maybe 10 actually hit and dropped the plane.....Sure, there are those that will post their reports of putting 500 rounds into a plane and it flew off yet truth be told, if your firing rounds through a big hole they'll count as hits yet you've done all the damage that can be done to that spot.

Forget the "Bob Ace over Guadalcanal real life shot down 10 planes in one sortie....and had so much ammo left they wouldn't refill him for the next day.."....Those events ARE VERY rare, and though not doubting the skill of the individuals, most of it was blind luck and good fortune........You'll also note these same guys ran into rediculous odd opportunities often, so how is it they go through the whole war with getting only 14 kills, when in one day they got 7?

Even with the finest of aces, 1 was a BIG number, that often sucking up much of their ammo...The difference is they did it day in day out...today 1, then 3, then 2, then 1 etc... That's how they got those high kills and if you think about it....If getting so many kills is so easy why is 5 the number for ace...WHy not 50, or 100......As truth be told even if shooting a lot, 10 kills let alone 20 are massive numbers in air combat.

Luck makes it so you expend 20 rounds and get a kill......Don't be fooled by those movies you see...watching the guy firing for 5 seconds or more...Think about it...5x13R/Sx6 = 390 rounds fired...Do the math....Odds are against you with great shots getting 3 planes, let alone 7.

fuzzychickens
04-04-2007, 09:36 PM
I have to ask, how often were american planes (as a percentage of all missions) ever really expected to take down heavy bombers?

If americans faced something like the bombing raids the germans faced, I'd think we'd see aamerican fighters with something bigger than 50 cals.

Honestly, 50 cal guns are not what one would want to use to take down bombers if they had a choice of guns.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-04-2007, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by fuzzychickens:
I have to ask, how often were american planes (as a percentage of all missions) ever really expected to take down heavy bombers?

If americans faced something like the bombing raids the germans faced, I'd think we'd see aamerican fighters with something bigger than 50 cals.

Honestly, 50 cal guns are not what one would want to use to take down bombers if they had a choice of guns.

In the late 30s, when the P-40, P-39, and P-38 were developed, bomber interception was very much on the minds of U.S. aircraft developers. The thinking at the time was that escort fighters would never have the range to accompany bombers and since the isolationist U.S. saw itself only fighting defensive wars in the near future it only needed point defense fighter/interceptors to stop the hords of bombers that many airforce strategists believed would win the next great war.

Granted, the P-38 and P-39 both featured a cannon but, given the number of machine guns on both aircraft, I don't think aircraft developers were putting a lot of stock in them.

XyZspineZyX
04-05-2007, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by bmoffa:
The Japanese aircraft are too resiliant. I've have seen a lot of interviews with pilots who fought against the Japanese in WWII. Every one of them recalls how they would igite after just taking a few hits. The big problem (before the F6F) was getting the Japanese airplanes in their sites. Once there, they came done with just a short burst. I am emptying my guns into some of the really lightly armed bombers and still can't get then to go down.

Those real WWII pilots knew where to shoot the Japanese planes. They were trained to do it

Slamming 300 pounds of lead into a Betty's tail isn't going to light it on fire simply because it took 5,000 hits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Some IJA/IJN planes seem a little tough at times. If you turn on 'arcade mode' and take a look at where you're hitting them, it might go a long way towards helping your success

RamsteinUSA
04-05-2007, 11:47 AM
of course you know they only are interested in adding more spaceships, not correcting mistakes of re-writing history...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

OOOOOOOpssss.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
did i say that outloud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Daiichidoku
04-05-2007, 12:38 PM
bettys were known by japanese pilots and crew as "type 1 flying cigar lighter"...

dunno how it acts in game though

IMHO, however, the ki84 series catches alight far too easily, they had rudimentary at first, then upgraded fuel tank protection...ive even read that some had an auot fire fuel tank extiguisher, ala A6M5b/c
84, and the other JP types, seem to suffer from "stigma" attached to early zeros as kindling

the ki61, while not so much a flamer, seems to have its FM affected too easily and extremely, by even the slightest damage, much like the 190 suffered some time ago

Grendel-B
04-05-2007, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Granted, the P-38 and P-39 both featured a cannon but, given the number of machine guns on both aircraft, I don't think aircraft developers were putting a lot of stock in them.

Both P-38 and P-39 were designed around a cannon. Both were to feature 37 mm cannon for anti bomber duty. At the time of design machineguns were still more or less mandatory as secondary armanent, and until the very end of the WW2 most cannon armed aircraft were still having mixed armanent of cannons and mgs.

F19_Ob
04-05-2007, 01:44 PM
bmoffa Could you please provide some standard '.Trk' tracks (not the one with 'Ntrk' extension) so we may review the problem you speak of more closely in arcademode.

It is very hard to make anything of the little info you posted.
Many post their claims here with nothing more to show than resentment. often because they were shot down and/or failed to shot a plane down when they were sure they should have.
Basically feelings derived from heresay or myths, and sometimes also patriotic propaganda, wich sometimes have become a base for a persons knowledge. With the mothers milk so to speak.

Observe I don't mean it is so in this case, just that it's common.


If u have no space to upload tracks, U can do it on 'Rapidshare', wich is free.( I use it)
Here is a link:
http://rapidshare.com/


regards

VW-IceFire
04-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Range might be an issue too. The real life pilots seem to mention closing to very close distances from their target before really letting loose. Maybe its just old memories but the guys talk about 150 yards or less sometimes...and geeze...thats almost chewing their tail off in comparison to the distance I'm shooting from.

.50cal damage does fall off with distance. So if you're spraying and praying at 400m then the even a "type 1 lighter" will probably be able to shrug that one off.

XyZspineZyX
04-05-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
of course you know they only are interested in adding more spaceships, not correcting mistakes of re-writing history...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

OOOOOOOpssss.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
did i say that outloud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Yes, we all know the Arado 234 and the A 20C never really flew but were rather taken from the pages of Buck Rogers comics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

F19_Olli72
04-06-2007, 02:20 AM
Speaking about the Betty, everyone repeats the 'flying zippo' mantra as facts. There was this rather known pilot, you may have heard about him; Joe Foss. He stated that the Betty was not that easy to bring down. Or maybe everyone else is right and he is wrong... he only had 26 kills after all!

And obviously, the 50s were porked back then too since none of the Betty's 'bursts in flames': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE

tigertalon
04-06-2007, 03:53 AM
Problem is that .50 cals (all heavy caliber MGs actually) are way weaker at seting planes on fire compared to .30 caliber guns. When fighting against japanese adversaries, I'd trade all my .50 cals for equal number of any light MGs we have in PF. If 8 out of your 10 japanese targets go down for a reason different than being on fire, we have a problem.

Reposting some old tracks I made during testing, setting a H8K fuel tank on fire with (click for a video):

1. twin light MGs in the nose of Ki-43-1a

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_30cal_1.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=30cal_1.flv)

please compare with

2. twin .50 cals in a nose of a buffalo:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_50cal_1.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=50cal_1.flv)



or, shooting 4 fighters with only twin 7,62mm ShKAS (light MG) in the cowling of a Yak-1:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_ShKAS_fighters.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=ShKAS_fighters.flv)

please compare with doing the same with twin .50cals in the cowling of an aircobra (Q-10):

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_M2_fighters.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=M2_fighters.flv)

F19_Ob
04-06-2007, 04:17 PM
TigerTalon have some points here, although one shouldn't compare, for example, ki-43's light mg's with the fastfiring russian light guns wich have about double the rate of fire.

The 50's still have their structural destructiveness, although it seems they have no incendaries, or very few ,when shooting on some planes that is, a conflicting problem it seems.

I also made some tests a while back (month or so )and noted that pretty much all nationalities of 50 cal types have less flaming- effect on normal range 100-300m compared to light mg's.
However a hurricane b's many light mg's (example) have very little flame-effect on longer ranges despite many hitflashes.

I made similar tests as TT a while ago, on the same H8K (amongst others), and could, for example, pour the full clip of a ki-43 (heavy mg's) and the same for all twin gunned italians without being able to set it on fire during several sorties.
I had arcade mode activated to make sure I hit about the same spot as often as possible, wich is very difficult and many sorties are nessesary .

However at same time one can flame a ki-43 with two 50's of a buffalo very easily.
I have noted I shot at 4 groups of friendly ki-43 with four planes each and I set them all on fire (4 in a row in one pass, moving on to the next in line.) and about half burned with a 1 sec burst.
So this problem does not apply to all planes.

In arcademode one see that some rounds of the 50's had a type of explosives and the hit-arrows broke up, unlike light mg's wich went straight through.
Wonder if that can be one of the reasons for less fire? detonations should more produce it
since for example 20mm cannons creates fires at higher rate (if the plane dont break up first.)

The example of the ki-43 also makes me wonder how many other planes have tis type of tuning to burn easily?
What I mean is that if the ammo is made more flamable the planes that were tuned to burn very easy must be tuned aswell, for example the ki-43, wich could otherwise result in a very funny DM for it.
should the fueltanks also burn at the rate as the ki-43's does all the time?
The hit box likely burn after a determined amount of hits, or is there some randomising?
Just throwing out the question, because my above test, flaming all those ki-43's in a row with only two heavy mg's of a Buffalo feel unlikely to me, and doesn't correspond so well with what I have read.


I'm too limited on time to test further and post results, thats why I wouldn't go deeper or post anything I had to try to explain in detail later.
Now when u brought it up I may go so far and mean this matter could use an extra look before 'Game over'.

In my badly battered head it leans towards that pretty much every plane could have to be checked, perhaps tuned, and tested so no new problems arise, and therefore timeconsuming ,difficult and unfortunately unlikely.

----------------------


------------------------

F19_Ob
04-07-2007, 03:20 AM
Regarding Bettys. They later had some gas (Co2 ?) wich was filled into the fueltanks and preventing fires wich perhaps could explain the video olli posted, although they seemed to hit poorly.

badatit
04-07-2007, 05:30 PM
Plane #1 Roman Candle with 10 rounds of .50.
Plane #2 KABOOOM! with 11 rounds of .50.
Gun Platform: F6F-3 (gunstat listed after each kill)
Enemy A/C: A6M3
Note: Plane #2 suffered a fuel leak before engagement.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/Badatit/plane1s.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/Badatit/plane2s.jpg



Track file (condenced to a few minutes)
Patience (http://www.filefactory.com/file/4fa48f/)

Aaron_GT
04-08-2007, 03:47 AM
AFAIKthe P38 was designed around a 23mm Madsen cannon, but with supplies looking suspect as WW2 started it was then swapped to a 37mm cannon for the very first P38 versions, and then to the 20mm cannon for volume production.

The RAF was looking at 4 or 6 20mm cannon becoming the standard armament (former for single engined interceptors, the latter for twin engined bomber destroyers) in pre-WW2 specifications.

F19_Ob
04-08-2007, 05:00 AM
Good call Badatit.
In my tests with the 50's I only was limited to the zero and ki-43 and this was a couple of patches ago ( so a bit dated test).

I shot at 40 ki-43 and 40 zeros from about 100m with a 2 second only mg's of a p38.
My results noted was:
22 ki-43 burned 13 pilots PK'd, others broke apart, but all died.

For the zeros I only had noted 31 burned.

Unfortunately those tracks didnn't work with the later patches and Ntrk's don't support arcademode.

However I had saved a few screens as examples of the ki-43's flamability when hit with light mg's.
I had noted 29 of 5o planes burned with an average of 1 or 3 light mg hits ( arcade arrow hits).
Can be good to know when one fly it online.
(A plane for the experts only. I fly it anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/5-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/4-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/1.jpg


The ki-27 has tanks on the same places as the ki-43 but doesn't burn as easy although it becomes heavily damaged.
Perhaps the tanks were smaller and did not extend so far out on the wing?
The ki-43 has almost the double range wich should mean less fuel in the ki-27.

Anyone have good clear cutaways of ki-27 and 43?

blindpugh
04-11-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
The betty should flame pretty easy yeah.
I guess the incediary rounds (.50 cal) aren't modeled well enough in-game I dont believe it -someone else besides myself thinks the 50,s are ****

crucislancer
04-11-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by bmoffa:
The Japanese aircraft are too resiliant. I've have seen a lot of interviews with pilots who fought against the Japanese in WWII. Every one of them recalls how they would igite after just taking a few hits. The big problem (before the F6F) was getting the Japanese airplanes in their sites. Once there, they came done with just a short burst. I am emptying my guns into some of the really lightly armed bombers and still can't get then to go down.

I've found the majority of the Japanese planes to be quite prone to flaming. I'm no expert pilot, but I've taken out my share of Zeros with short bursts in a F4F, F6F, and F4U. That is, when they aren't on my tail making me sweat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RSS-Martin
04-11-2007, 05:09 PM
Well I mainly fly the Betty and no I do not bail out just because a red fighter appears like some asume should happen. Actually I manage to down several fighters, it is all a matter of who is flying. A beginner in a Betty is a easy target, just like a beginner in a F4U or a F4F. Someone who is a bit more experianced is not going to do you the favor of presenting the weakest side to your guns. Nor are they going to fly a straight line so you can aim easlily.

koivis
04-20-2007, 04:22 PM
Atleast Ki-84's pilot protection was good: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=3326.0

"the P-51 had 8-9 mm back plate so 13 mm of the Ki-84 cannot be described as weak"

Seriously, think about that.

LEBillfish
04-21-2007, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by koivis:
Atleast Ki-84's pilot protection was good: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=3326.0

"the P-51 had 8-9 mm back plate so 13 mm of the Ki-84 cannot be described as weak"

Seriously, think about that.

Many many more of the Army aircraft had as good if not better armor and some of the navy as well.......It was only early on that it was sacrificed out of vanity...That includes self sealing tanks, bullet proofing for tanks, armor for pilot and some cases other points, fire extinguisher systems for fuel tanks and so on.

DooDaH2007
04-21-2007, 08:51 AM
If you turn on 'arcade mode' and take a look at where you're hitting them, it might go a long way towards helping your success

arcade=1

It was a golden tip I recieved a week or so ago...
You can see rounds bouncing off armour and where you are hitting that does damage...
Looking at tracks was never that cool...

tigertalon
04-21-2007, 10:09 AM
In the arcade=1 mode, is there any way to turn the RTB, PK etc... "clouds" off, or you simply have to wait for it to dissapear? Sometimes they are quite annoying, especially when taking screenies.

Bearcat99
04-24-2007, 10:05 PM
Tonight I shot up a Oscar in a Coop hosted by OkieDude..... set him on fire.... and this plane flew around for a good 3 minutes at least, doing loops before finally crashing.... that has happened in 109s and 190s as well.... I think that perhaps the DM needs to be tweaked so that a plane can't burn for more than a few seconds before it begins to fall out of the sky... or explode. If the pilot is alive he will bail... and the plane will fall.... if he is dead... usually he will fall on the stick... and the plane will fall.... but whatever he does he shouldnt keep flying around for 180+ seconds...

JG53Frankyboy
04-25-2007, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Tonight I shot up a Oscar in a Coop hosted by OkieDude..... set him on fire.... and this plane flew around for a good 3 minutes at least, doing loops before finally crashing.... that has happened in 109s and 190s as well.... I think that perhaps the DM needs to be tweaked so that a plane can't burn for more than a few seconds before it begins to fall out of the sky... or explode. If the pilot is alive he will bail... and the plane will fall.... if he is dead... usually he will fall on the stick... and the plane will fall.... but whatever he does he shouldnt keep flying around for 180+ seconds...

yep, it would be propably better if the AI-crew, if still alive, would bail as soon the plane would burn.
sometimes AI planes fly very long around burning - not only fighters, also bombers.

Rammjaeger
05-06-2007, 12:30 PM
Setting the Ki-61 ablaze is surely feasible even with a short burst from more than 500 m:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2972/corsairvstony2fl1.th.jpg (http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corsairvstony2fl1.jpg)
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5718/corsairvstony3ko4.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corsairvstony3ko4.jpg)

Nimits
05-10-2007, 05:59 PM
The Japanese aircraft are too resiliant. I've have seen a lot of interviews with pilots who fought against the Japanese in WWII. Every one of them recalls how they would igite after just taking a few hits. The big problem (before the F6F) was getting the Japanese airplanes in their sites. Once there, they came done with just a short burst. I am emptying my guns into some of the really lightly armed bombers and still can't get then to go down.


Two things to note:

1. The USN pilots of 1941-1942 were, man for man, probably the best aerial gunners in the world at the time. These guys trained almost exclusively for for deflection shooting, and used high deflection shots as an intentional and preferred tactic. While there are always individual aces in any air force skilled in this sort of gunnery (e.g. Marseille), no other flying service made deflection shooting as high a priority as the USN (and by association, the USMC). So, in general, these guys were probably getting more bullets on targets than your average WWII pilot (or computer simmer). In one of the most notable examples, during his famous defense of the Lexington in February, 1942, Butch O'Hare actually shot a Betty's engine off its mount while doing a high deflection run. I'd be willing to bet at least half the pilots here could not do that if they tried 20 times.

2. As studies by Lundstrom, Shores, and others have shown, every airforce in the world overclaimed on average by somewhere between 50%-100%. Whether it was the Luftwaffe or USAF (who had rather strict policies), or the IJN (who took tactical intelligence to new lows in the 1940s), everyone did it. It is in fact quite enlightning to read an American account of an engagement where they around a couple fighters and claimed about 20 Japanese, and then read the Japanese version where they admitted to losing 10 and claimed maybe 60 US planes shot down! The obvious conclusion is that most of those "Ace in a Day" engagements did not actually result in 5 enemy planes shot down. Yes, Japanese planes were highly vulnerable, but as a matter of history, alot of the claims submitted either did not go down at all are were shot at and claimed by multiple aircraft.

Foxman2
05-10-2007, 10:14 PM
Finally, someone says it

I'm sick and tired of some allied pilots here saying Japanese Aircraft are too resilent, basically, it is the luck of the draw, once i took down a zeke at 500 meters bu killing the pilot, and another time a AI Beaufighter really shot up a claude but the pilot and plane survive, though with alot of holes in the fusalge.

Let me explain, if there are 100 shots of Japanese Planes going down over the war, and only 30 of them show them flaming, a american book maker will only show 20 pictures, and about 10 -15 will be of flaming zeros, basically, as i said it is the luck of the draw when shooting up a japanese plane, and for that matter any plane.

So basically, Japanese Planes in the sim are not too resilent, it's the randomness of the shooting up a plane in the sim, sometimes it will take only a few hits, while other times you can really give the Japanese Plane a hammering, and all it will do is smoke and safely head back to base, Simple.