PDA

View Full Version : Forget the 50-cal - are ALL weapons undermodelled?



Jagdklinger
08-24-2005, 06:43 AM
MG151 or ShVAK, 50 cal or Mk108: ALL porked?

I'm not interested in the relative merits of the weapons - but the lethality of air-to-air weapons in WWII in general compared to this sim.

Were WWII weapons more lethal than this game (or the Fw190 DM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) suggests? We read all these accounts of P47s getting home after taking 500 20mm hits (slight exaggeration, I know) but what about the single 7.62mm that sets another on fire? We don't hear about these incidents because the plane DIDN'T come back. (Using a P47 example probably isn't wise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif , but my point is: due to the plethora of 'survival' stories, do we, and game designers, have an inflated opinion of plane survivability?

Guncam viewings seem to suggest so; but guncam has the opposite effect - you usually only see the ones that go DOWN. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I'd be interested to hear your views...

ImpStarDuece
08-24-2005, 07:04 AM
You always hear about the beat up fighters that got home with heavy damage because they were the exception to the rule. What you dont hear much about is the thousands of fighters that made it back to base with only a couple of bullet holes or a solitary cannon strike to the wing or fuselage. In a recent interview with a BoB vet, he said that in the six aerial engagements he fought, his Spitfire was hit EVERY time, but never seriously.

A WW2 fighter is a fragile thing, relatively speaking. Packed into its 4-7 ton frame are anywhere between 200 and 500 gallons of fuel, 20 odd gallons of oil, high pressure oxygen bottles, cannon and machine gun ammunition stores and miscelanous other explosive/flammable components, not to mention the precious flesh of the pilot. All of this is protected in most cases, by a small scattering of armour and deflection plating and a thin layer of external aluminium.

Despite this, when you look at a cut away of a typical WW2 single engined taildragger, most people are struck by just how much empty space there is. Large sections of the fuselage, wings and engine bracing are left empty of critical components. With a bomber this is even more so.

The internal components of WW2 fighters are also VERY solid; main wing spars, reinforcing brackets, fuselage cross braces, equipment mountings. There are a lot of solid pieces of metal that can deflect/stop/prevent a projectile from doing damage.

So its all about the placement of rounds on the target. Hit the wrong section and its like punching a bean bag; nothing you do seems to make an impression (even with cannon sometimes). Hit the right parts and what happens; engines stop or light up, oil splatters, control surfaces rip off, fuel tanks rupture or explode, ammo boxes go up, major parts (tail, tail plane, wing sections) depart company with the ship.

I think that the sim gets the balance approximately right. Sure, there are some plane damage models that could use some tweaking or revision but generally it's adequate. Weapons in the game behave how they should. Brownings, ShVak and .303s CHEW their opponents, occasionally hitting something vital, othertimes acting like a sandblaster. Heavy MGs smack into internal components and cause damage. Cannons blow things up or off, structural damage and internal explosions the order of the day.

Every side will argue this or that, X weapon is too strong, Y weapon has the wrong belting, Z weapon has too much recoil/dispersion. But generally the experiance of shooting down targets in IL2 corresponds quite neatly to that of real life accounts.

I still wish they would beef up the .303s on the Hurricane though; shooting down 109Es is like trying to saw down a tree with a pocket knife.

Deadmeat313
08-24-2005, 07:10 AM
Heh. I think there is some danger of this turning into one of the hotter DM flame threads if we're not careful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Personally, I think they are probably all a little weak - mainly due to the sheer number of critical systems on a target plane that can be disabled by a burst of gunfire. This has (of necessity) been somewhat simplified in the game.

That said, I would not really want Oleg et al to increase the damage of the guns. What we have now works very well for game balance. If you hit a target at precise convergence, the effect is generally devastating no matter what model of plane the target is. At other ranges you do damage, but have to work for the kill, and thats where 'robust' aircraft show their true quality. I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

dazza9806482
08-24-2005, 07:18 AM
Nice explanation Impstar

I never really considered the points ur making but they make a lot of sense....

i love the damage modelling in il2 its sublime

i suspect pilot incapacitation was far greater tho- lots of guncam footage suggests a severely injured or dead pilot...

injuries dont happen enough i reckon- and arent sufficently severe.

reading eric browns accounts of luftwaffe tests he seems to suggest a few crashes resulted from fires burning through control cables


this isnt really modelled in il2- im not sure but are control surfaces under tension and held in place by cables?

ie if the elevator cables were hit rather than the elevator simply becoming ineffective would it flap in the wind? snap down and force a dive? or would the air flow hold it at a neutral position?

JG54_Arnie
08-24-2005, 07:33 AM
Good points so far. I'd like to add to that, that the missing of ammo storages on planes and other simplifications make weapons seem too weak when there's actually not as many fragile parts to hit inside the planes compared to real life. BoB will be different enough I suppose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWSensei
08-24-2005, 07:46 AM
You don't even have to get to weapons to get beyond reality. We never have engine problems, weather delays, sick pilots etc. (e.g. the P-38 kill team for Yamamoto lost nearly half their aircraft due to engine trouble before they ever got into combat).

You can run your engine at 100% all the time with no thought as to the damage done because once you land you are getting a completly new engine. Bet real world vets wish they could fly each mission with a pristine aircraft...

ClnlSandersLite
08-24-2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
(e.g. the P-38 kill team for Yamamoto lost nearly half their aircraft due to engine trouble before they ever got into combat).
Wrong.

2 aircraft out of 18 had to abort. I haven't ever seen the reason for the aborts listed either. Could have been problems not related to engine failure.

One combat loss: Lt. Ray Hine.
http://p-38online.com/yam.html

Edit:Since you asked, here are the reasons.

At take-off McLanahan blew a tire and shortly afterwards Moore's new tanks wouldn't feed.
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mitchell.html

Ankanor
08-24-2005, 04:34 PM
There are a lot of simplifications, true. You don't knock out the radio, oxygen, stuff like that. Also we have quite a few planes made of wood and cloth. They don't burn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Actually, one of the qualities of the (in)famous delta wood was that it could not be set on fire.

I'm psyched about the DM of BoB, you have checked the screens yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I mean, using the original blueprints for modelling, I believe that's setting a record http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2005, 06:41 PM
there is a bf109f in the Ottawaa Aviation museum which was shot down by a mig3 and had about 8 .30 cal bullet holes in it, one of which hit the radiator, which led to coolant loss and engine overheat, the pilot made an emergency landing and was taken prisoner, so in a liquid cooled aircraft, 1 shot may be all u need to bring down an airplane

Jagdklinger
08-25-2005, 05:16 AM
Thanks ImpStar - a great reply.

Lots of other good points:-


that the missing of ammo storages on planes and other simplifications make weapons seem too weak when there's actually not as many fragile parts to hit inside the planes compared to real life.


i love the damage modelling in il2 its sublime


Personally, I think they are probably all a little weak - mainly due to the sheer number of critical systems on a target plane that can be disabled by a burst of gunfire. This has (of necessity) been somewhat simplified in the game.
100% agree

WWSensei
08-25-2005, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
(e.g. the P-38 kill team for Yamamoto lost nearly half their aircraft due to engine trouble before they ever got into combat).
Wrong.

2 aircraft out of 18 had to abort. I haven't ever seen the reason for the aborts listed either. Could have been problems not related to engine failure.

One combat loss: Lt. Ray Hine.
http://p-38online.com/yam.html

Edit:Since you asked, here are the reasons.

At take-off McLanahan blew a tire and shortly afterwards Moore's new tanks wouldn't feed.
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mitchell.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, Right. The kill team was a 4 ship. The others were cover. 2 aborted which is half of the kill team--which is what I said. I have seen the reasons for the aborts. One was a loss of oil pressure and the other a loss of RPMs in one engine.

WOLFMondo
08-25-2005, 05:42 AM
Well put ImpStarDuece.

dazza9806482
08-25-2005, 07:09 AM
Given the complexity we are already seeing in lots of aspects of IL2 i really cant imagine how BOB is going to shape up

i think someone said the aircraft are going to be modelled according to actual blueprints, i would think that would result in a higly developed damage modelling.


this is why i fell in love with IL2 in the first place- despite its faults it really amounts to a wonderfully unique and deep creation....


ive learnt so much about fascinating subjects based on the game/sim and it consistantly surprises me!