4-12 wish list (Merged)

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by HOSTIL

I wish weapons more efficient. I feel the callibers are so weak.
Other day, I spent all 7mm ammo to destroy a truck ( fw190 a4).

Cordially,

10000+ I agree more than a 100 percent. It seems like that I have to hit the enemy plane with all my ammo. I remembered one time I had used all my ammo on one buffalo MK and it didn't go down (Ki-43 is the plane I used).

[Luno13]

Not every pilot scored ten kills in one sortie Even the top aces managed only one kill in ten sorties on average. The vast majority of pilots never got kills.

Aerial gunnery shouldn't be too easy. With small caliber weapons you're only poking holes in the plane. You must be able to hit specific points within the plane, such as the pilot, fuel, coolant, and oil lines, etc. Don't expect to shred wings off with rifle-caliber rounds!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Ace1staller

10000+ I agree more than a 100 percent. It seems like that I have to hit the enemy plane with all my ammo. I remembered one time I had used all my ammo on one buffalo MK and it didn't go down (Ki-43 is the plane I used).

I'd like to see some tracks of you shooting that much in an enemy aircraft and it not going down.

That said... there are many stories from WWII that support the notion that light calibre machine guns were insufficient to bring down the better constructed and better armored aircraft. Here's one:

One of the 56th's worst setbacks occurred on June 26, 1943, when 48 P-47Cs left a forward operating base at RAF Manston late in the afternoon to provide escort for B-17 Flying Fortress bombers returning from a mission against Villacoublay airfield in the Paris suburbs. As the P-47s approached the rendezvous point near Forges-les-Eaux, they were jumped from above and behind by 16 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s of II Gruppe, JG 26. The first pass scattered the Thunderbolts, and Johnson's aircraft, flying at the rear of the 61st Squadron's formation, was seriously damaged by a 20 mm shell that exploded in his cockpit and ruptured his hydraulic system. Burned and partially blinded by hydraulic fluid, Johnson tried to bail out, but could not open his shattered canopy.

After pulling out of an uncontrolled spin and with the fire amazingly going out on its own, Johnson headed for the English Channel, but was intercepted by a single Fw 190. Unable to fight back, he maneuvered while under a series of attacks, and although sustaining further heavy damage from both 7.92mm and 20mm rounds, managed to survive until the German ran out of ammunition, who, after saluting him by rocking his wings, turned back. His opponent has never been identified, but Johnson could have been one of three victories claimed that day by the commander of III/JG 2, Oberst Egon Mayer.[2] [N 1] After landing, Johnson tried to count the bullet holes in his airplane, but when he passed 200, including 21, 20 mm cannon shell impacts, without even moving around the aircraft, he gave up.

While Johnson made it back to crash land at Manston, damaging his fighter beyond economical repair, four other pilots of the 56th FG were killed in action. A fifth, able to extend only one of his plane's landing gear struts, had to bail out over the English Channel and was rescued north of Yarmouth. Five other Thunderbolts suffered battle damage. Johnson suffered shrapnel wounds and minor burns to his face, hands, and legs, and was awarded the Purple Heart. He resumed flying missions on July 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Johnson

Exceptional but not entirely unheard of.

The Buffalo Mark I which I presume you were flying against was one of the better protected Buffalo models (also one of the heaviest) and in general it was fairly well constructed. I'm not surprised that it would take a significant number of bullets to bring down. Particularly if the shooter were engaging from dead 6 and firing into the fuselage instead of aiming for the engine or wing roots where the more vulnerable components are.

What does shortchange the lighter calibres are some of the smaller finely detailed damage model components. The kind of thing they did right away with Cliffs of Dover but just weren't part of the original IL-2.

[Phil_K]

Could DT change bomber formations so that when a number of flights are "set" together, they are stepped slightly (by about 15-20 metres)?

This would:

1.) Make the formations look much more realistic, and

2.) Reduce the number of silly-looking collisions that occur when the bombers are forming up.

[hafu1939]

Could the Ju 87 and Ju 52 be able to tow gliders?
Could there be 900 l drop-tanks available for Do 217 and Bf 110?

[Pepek]

Flyable me 410/210! And as much western single player campaigns as possible!

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I'd like to see some tracks of you shooting that much in an enemy aircraft and it not going down.

That said... there are many stories from WWII that support the notion that light calibre machine guns were insufficient to bring down the better constructed and better armored aircraft. Here's one:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Johnson

Exceptional but not entirely unheard of.

The Buffalo Mark I which I presume you were flying against was one of the better protected Buffalo models (also one of the heaviest) and in general it was fairly well constructed. I'm not surprised that it would take a significant number of bullets to bring down. Particularly if the shooter were engaging from dead 6 and firing into the fuselage instead of aiming for the engine or wing roots where the more vulnerable components are.

What does shortchange the lighter calibres are some of the smaller finely detailed damage model components. The kind of thing they did right away with Cliffs of Dover but just weren't part of the original IL-2.

Yeah I heard the story of that P-47 pilot, I think I'm aiming at the wrongs spots then.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Ace1staller

Yeah I heard the story of that P-47 pilot, I think I'm aiming at the wrongs spots then.

Probably If you want to start a separate topic on effective gunnery I can try and put together a few pointers. I find most people in general tend to spray rather than aim and they tend to begin firing well beyond the effective range. I started this way as well. My little mindgame I play with myself is when I think I'm in range... I hold my breath for a quick moment and then open fire. Gives myself time to mentally calculate the deflection and it means I'm that much closer to the target.

The rest is technique. I'm sure several would be willing to help you out.

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Probably If you want to start a separate topic on effective gunnery I can try and put together a few pointers. I find most people in general tend to spray rather than aim and they tend to begin firing well beyond the effective range. I started this way as well. My little mindgame I play with myself is when I think I'm in range... I hold my breath for a quick moment and then open fire. Gives myself time to mentally calculate the deflection and it means I'm that much closer to the target.

The rest is technique. I'm sure several would be willing to help you out.

K, you can do that Icefire

[Lagarto]

IMHO the problem with firing at close range in this game is that aircraft, when hit, tend to explode mid-air, much too often to my taste. I've ruined many of my offline campaigns this way, caught in the blast of my exploding adversary. I daresay this feature is exaggerated and could be toned down a little.