Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by The_WOZ

Now, there's another group of planes, which includes the Stuka and the P-39/P-63, that do not have any internal collision boxes at all.
In these planes the damage to internal systems is determined procedurally every time a bullet hits the airframe.

Hi WOZ, do you happen to know the full list of these planes with the simplified damage model?

Someone here once posted an image of these damage boxes in a Zero, and the lack thereof in the P-39 (maybe it was you), but I couldn't track down the list of planes or the tool used to illustrate the damage boxes.

Thanks,

WokeUpDead

[ElAurens]

Long ago at the old UBI forum, Oleg did indeed say that single flak guns are modeled as a battery, to help with FPS issues in the sim.

[horseback]

From WOZ:
I agree with most of our points horseback, including trimming and innacurate instruments (this later issue is not only a problem of US planes).

I’m aware that many other aircraft have inaccurate or unreadable instrumentation, but there are several that are blessed with key instruments that are quite accurate (most of the Japanese fighters definitely fall into that category) in the game; this just makes it harder to tolerate. What you may not appreciate is how inconsistent the inaccuracies of the trimming and instrumentation of these aircraft are; in most other aircraft, the ‘error’ is almost always the same, whereas in the late war US fighters as a group, the instruments will not only lie to you, they will lie to you from different directions as the speed changes.

Regardless of ammount of armor or redundancy, if you look at the ammount of space occupied with critical systems on the P-47 you cannot deny that the chance of damaging something to some extend is greater than in other planes. But of course redundancy will make critical hits harder to achieve.

I took a look at the collision boxes on the P-47, both distributors are modelled and are slightly smaller than in reality, there's two magnetos placed behind the engine, while in reality the R-2800 had only one placed between the two distributors (unless I missed something while looking at the schematic).
The intercooler is missing, but the turbine and belly plumbing is there. Oil coolers are merged into a single smaller unit. (Cockpit armour plates and other internal parts are also modelled btw)

All in all I think the collision boxes itself are generous in favour of the P-47. The probability of actually hitting something inside the plane might be smaller than in reality.

The problem, if there's actually one (not saying there isn't, it's just that I dont fly the P-47, and when flying a bomber surviving a Jug attack long enough to cause damage with the gunners -I man the guns- is almost impossible) might indeed have to do with too big a chance to receive damage when a internal part is hit.

The amount of space occupied with critical systems is relatively farther into the fuselage than the diagram can convey; as I pointed out, there are a lot of support members and fuselage framing and skin that you have to get through before you can talk about puncturing the pipes and ducting—and the more critical the pipe or duct is, the more non-critical stuff is between it and the outer skin. Additionally, the ducting and pipes are not remotely comparable to the ducting in your building’s air conditioning system; it was pretty heavy-duty stuff that had to hold up under the extremes of altitude and high G maneuvers, not to mention the odd bullet or explosive round that found its way past the tail wheel and the rudder.

I remember being admonished on several occasions over the years that to penetrate a metal layer that not only thickness of the plate but angle of penetration is critical (usually after I pointed out that the vulnerability of certain aircraft from rear quarter attacks seemed awfully low). Penetrating multiple layers of metal at varying angles as would be necessary to damage the turbosupercharger system would be fairly difficult, even with multiple close range 20mm hits.

If you have to penetrate multiple layers from multiple angles, it gets a lot harder to do meaningful damage, and the whole of the underside of the Jug was reinforced by that ‘keel’ I mentioned earlier, as well as the structural members that held the fuel tanks in place.

I still think that the historical record shows both that making the kind of hits that are routinely made (or more accurately, credited) in the game and the amount of damage they are modeled as inflicting are excessive.

From Pursuivant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback
However, most Jug (and Corsair and Hellcat) fans would have to wonder where you’ve been all these years; the Il-2 Sturmovik ’46 version of the P-47D DM is obviously the creation of a truly dedicated bunch of debunkers.
To paraphrase a common saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by poor modeling." (Other than that, I agree with you. Debunking is just a method of generating controversy, which drums up trade for documentary producers, writers and academics.)

While I rarely attempt to contradict the great Robert A. Heinlein, I would suggest to you that nothing says ‘basic human nature’ more than: “I’m going to stick this up your %#&%(&*^)*, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.” One or two misunderstandings is a coincidence; after that, if they continue to always work to your disadvantage you should assume that you’re getting jerked around, and start protecting your interests (learn this lesson before you get married, or your life will be a living hell).

Remember that both the Corsair and Hellcat are products of the deeply flawed Pacific Fighters expansion, and there might be legal reasons why 1c/TD can't fix them. The Pacific Theater and carrier ops were obviously areas that 1c had less experience with, fewer local resources to work with, and less personal incentive to recreate, and it shows.

As for the P-47, I think that 1c's original work was influenced heavily by contemporary Soviet assessments of the P-47C, which were influenced by the relative lack of need for a high-altitude, long-range escort and the Soviet preference for cannons rather than heavy machine guns as fighter aircraft armament. The Soviets didn't know what to make of it and wrote it off. I also have to wonder if Soviet assessments suffered from some of the same shock that British and U.S. 56 FG pilots suffered when transitioning from the Spitfire to the Jug. After all, Soviet fighter pilots were more familiar with small, nimble fighters like the I-16 and Yak series, so the P-47 must have seemed clumsy by comparison.

Here, I generally agree. I argued on many occasions on the Ubi forums that the late war American fighters were too demanding of technical expertise at the ground crew level for the Soviets to keep them flying properly, and that the tactical doctrines they were built to were utterly alien to the VVS, which led to Oleg and Co taking the operational records, performance data and pilot descriptions with a five pound bag of salt (rather than the traditional grain). As products of the old Soviet system, I suspect that they believed to their bones that anything from America was heavily propagandized and needed to be taken down a peg. I know that they rejected official documentation on the P-38 in favor of ‘other’ sources, and certainly the Mustang’s treatment would indicate that they preferred to use data gathered from Chiang Kai-Shek's clapped-out, badly maintained Lend-Lease examples acquired from the People’s Republic of China after 1948.

One correction: the 56th FG came to England as the only fighter group in the 8th AF that had experience with the P-47, and they loved it. By contrast the 78th FG had originally been a P-38 outfit that got stripped of its aircraft and most of their experienced pilots for the North African invasion, and the 4th FG had originally been the RAF’s Eagle Squadrons flying Spit Vbs (and as the only source of experienced combat pilots, were stripped of a large portion of key leaders and their most promising pilots). The 78th and 4th FGs were not big fans of the Jug, and frankly sulked about it for most of their breaking in period.

The 56th adapted and made the most of the Jug, while the 4th couldn't move on to the P-51 fast enough; its senior officers were trying to get the P-51 or P-51A before word about the Merlin version reached them. The 78th eventually resigned themselves to the Jug, and were one of the last groups to convert to the Mustang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback
P-47s and F6F Hellcats were the two safest fighters to fly in combat in WWII, and they were both powered by the mighty R-2800.
While I think that your points about the R-2800 (and, by extension many of the other late war U.S. radial engines modeled in the game) are valid, to play devil's advocate, part of the reputation of the late war U.S. fighters was made by the fact that after 1943, U.S. pilots usually had air superiority (at least locally) and were usually facing inferior opponents.

When we are talking about taking damage from ground fire, the reputations in question were made during 1944 and after, against some extremely potent AAA systems and ground troops (IJA) trained to shoot back rather than scatter and hide from aerial attacks. The 8th AF fighter groups prior to February of 1944 had barely achieved a standoff, but the ruggedness of the (much less capable) early P-47s was already established; Robert Johnson was far from the only guy to get his Thunderbolt shot to pieces over eastern France and still make it back across the Channel.

Corsairs and Hellcats got their combat starts in February and August of 1943, well before the Japanese had been beaten. The fact is that US Naval Aviators used the Corsair and Hellcat to break the IJN air arm’s back by spring of 1944; using the F4F or FM-2, it would have taken another six months (and hundreds more good men’s lives) at the least.

cheers

horseback

[Woke Up Dead]

My view of the toughness of the planes being discussed is a bit different from many of the posters here, maybe because I fly mostly online where I rarely attack bombers and their AI gunners. I find the P-47's wings to be extremely tough, same goes for the F4U. They can take a lot of damage and still maintain lift and stability, unlike Yak or 190 wings. Their engines can be damaged lightly, but I rarely see one knocked out completely (though when it does happen it's on the P-47, not the F4U). PKs are rare, and tails falling off are even rarer.

Could my different impression be caused by the difference in environment and targets? AI gunners on bombers will usually be looking directly into your engine, even if you don't attack from six o'clock. Unlike AI fighers, human opponents will usually avoid the head-on and will maneuver onto your six, where they will have a good look at your wings when you make a slight turn. If they shoot directly from your six, they may damage your controls (I lose elevators and rudders often in the F4U and P-47), but your engine will be the furthest target for them.

Agree about the Stuka toughness, the LMGs on the Hurricane IIB really do a number on its wing tanks. It is an old, slow, big plane that I imagine was armored more from the bottom than the top though. Also, its lack of toughness is offset by that rear gunner and its ability to turn with a Spitfire.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Could my different impression be caused by the difference in environment and targets?

This is a good point. And, it's not just AI gunners, it's just the nature of defensive gunnery that you'll mostly be aiming at the front of incoming fighters - either aiming directly at them as they attack you, or taking leading shots them as they pass.

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Agree about the Stuka toughness, the LMGs on the Hurricane IIB really do a number on its wing tanks.

??? I find that those massive rows of .303 machine guns on the Hurricane MkI, MkIIB and Spitfire I are some of the most useless weapons in the game, at least when it comes to attacking anything other than light fighters at close range.

Against anything but the lightest, most lightly armored aircraft, you basically need a PK, a critical hit or a fire to take down your foe. And, to have a hope of getting any of those things, you need to get close, aim carefully and shoot bursts of at least 3-5 seconds.

Of course, that's also historically accurate performance. There's a very good reason why the RAF switched to cannons.

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Also, its lack of toughness is offset by that rear gunner and its ability to turn with a Spitfire.

At least for AI, I don't find that Stuka gunners are that tough, nor do Stukas really try to maneuver defensively, even when they're not in formation. They're pretty much sitting ducks unless they have escorts.

[horseback]

My understanding was that the "beginning of the end" for the IJN were the Battles of Midway and Guadacanal. I don't dispute that the the F6F and F4U sped the destruction of the IJN (and IJAAF in New Guinea), but arguably pilots flying the P-40, P-39/P-400 and F4F paved the way.

In particular, after Midway and Guadacanal, the Japanese supply chain was never as secure as it should have been, so Japanese planes and pilots never got the support they really needed. Japanese policy towards its pilots was also, quite frankly, brutal, which didn't help matters either. All that led to a loss of effectiveness.

But, then maybe that's too much revisionist history on my part.

What is indisputably is that by 1944, when the the F6F and F4U really sealed their reputations, the Japanese were desperate and there was just no comparison between pilot quality and technical support. But, I say that without meaning to detract from the reputation of either plane, or the men who flew them. I think that you're right that 1943 was the year that the tide really turned, and both the F6F and F4U helped to do do that.

The Guadalcanal campaign didn't end until late spring/early summer of 1943, after the first several squadrons of Corsairs had deployed. Combined with Midway, the cream of the IJN's fighter force were eliminated, but Rabaul remained a menace in the Solomons into the following spring of 1944, due in part to the IJA's addition to the mix there. In addition, the IJN's carrier forces were still formidable; they gave the USN a pretty good thumping at Santa Cruz in '43, which led to our being a lot more cautious until the new carriers got in-theater in late summer '43.

The arrival of the new fast carriers equipped with the significantly superior Hellcat, coupled with the land-based Corsairs along the Solomon chain is what tipped the scales.

I'll give plenty of credit to the P-40 and P-38 (which entered combat in New Guinea in November of 1942), but the P-39 was a disaster in the Southwest Pacific. Poor support, bad documentation and poorly prepared pilots and maintenance personnel rushed to the theater doomed it and ruined its reputation, regardless of its capabilities on paper. It was almost strictly a ground support aircraft in the Pacific the moment a viable alternative became available.

The P-40 and the Wildcats gave the USN and USAAF parity at best, and the P-38s were never available in adequate numbers anywhere until the middle of1944. The F6F and the F4U (which had its own production issues early on) were the keys to the turn around.

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

My view of the toughness of the planes being discussed is a bit different from many of the posters here, maybe because I fly mostly online where I rarely attack bombers and their AI gunners. I find the P-47's wings to be extremely tough, same goes for the F4U. They can take a lot of damage and still maintain lift and stability, unlike Yak or 190 wings. Their engines can be damaged lightly, but I rarely see one knocked out completely (though when it does happen it's on the P-47, not the F4U). PKs are rare, and tails falling off are even rarer.

Could my different impression be caused by the difference in environment and targets? AI gunners on bombers will usually be looking directly into your engine, even if you don't attack from six o'clock. Unlike AI fighers, human opponents will usually avoid the head-on and will maneuver onto your six, where they will have a good look at your wings when you make a slight turn. If they shoot directly from your six, they may damage your controls (I lose elevators and rudders often in the F4U and P-47), but your engine will be the furthest target for them.

Agree about the Stuka toughness, the LMGs on the Hurricane IIB really do a number on its wing tanks. It is an old, slow, big plane that I imagine was armored more from the bottom than the top though. Also, its lack of toughness is offset by that rear gunner and its ability to turn with a Spitfire.

'Looking into your engine' should be meaningless at ranges of more than 100m for the best aerial marksmen who ever lived; you're shooting from a platform moving in three dimensions at a target less than 2 meters square and also moving in three dimensions (not the same dimensions and directions as you are). In real terms, until the range was so short that relative motion was meaningless or your attacker was flying in close formation, hitting him was usually a matter of chance. At ranges over 100m, the average man can barely discern that there is a cowl, much less hit it under the conditions that would prevail in WWII.

Shooting accurately from a maneuvering aircraft, even a bomber in a gentle bank, was next to impossible. Ai gunnery from rear gunners and ground flak in this game has always been ridiculously accurate, probably more than modern automated systems today.

Unrealistic accuracy at unrealistic ranges + unrealistic DMs=unrealistic results.

cheers

horseback

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by horseback

'Looking into your engine' should be meaningless at ranges of more than 100m for the best aerial marksmen who ever lived; you're shooting from a platform moving in three dimensions at a target less than 2 meters square and also moving in three dimensions (not the same dimensions and directions as you are). In real terms, until the range was so short that relative motion was meaningless or your attacker was flying in close formation, hitting him was usually a matter of chance. At ranges over 100m, the average man can barely discern that there is a cowl, much less hit it under the conditions that would prevail in WWII.

Shooting accurately from a maneuvering aircraft, even a bomber in a gentle bank, was next to impossible. Ai gunnery from rear gunners and ground flak in this game has always been ridiculously accurate, probably more than modern automated systems today.

Unrealistic accuracy at unrealistic ranges + unrealistic DMs=unrealistic results.

cheers

horseback

I hear you, but your reply, and most of your subsequent replies in this thread make good arguments about unrealistic accuracy of AI gunners, not about the unrealistic fragility of the American engines. If you try attacking the same bombers with the same tactics in a different planes, you might conclude the R-2800 is just as tough or tougher. That's certainly the impression I get.

I would rank the fragility of engines according to their aircraft roughly like this, from most delicate to toughest:

- Bf-109
- Ki-61
- P-40
- P-51
- Hurricane
- Tempest
- Italian liquid-cooled planes
- P-38
- Spitfire
- MiG
- P-47
- F4U
- Yak
- LaGG
- F4F
- FW-190
- La 5/7
- P-39
- Japanese radial-powered fighters

[ElAurens]

I can attest to the P 40 one shot insta-stop.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

I hear you, but your reply, and most of your subsequent replies in this thread make good arguments about unrealistic accuracy of AI gunners, not about the unrealistic fragility of the American engines. If you try attacking the same bombers with the same tactics in a different planes, you might conclude the R-2800 is just as tough or tougher. That's certainly the impression I get.

I would rank the fragility of engines according to their aircraft roughly like this, from most delicate to toughest:

- Bf-109
- Ki-61
- P-40
- P-51
- Hurricane
- Tempest
- Italian liquid-cooled planes
- P-38
- Spitfire
- MiG
- P-47
- F4U
- Yak
- LaGG
- F4F
- FW-190
- La 5/7
- P-39
- Japanese radial-powered fighters

Part of my argument, probably obscured by the more obvious gunnery flaws, is that some aircraft are disproportionately hit even more than that their DMs are overstated/flawed. I've flown the 109 and 190 regularly since the first year the sim was sold, and while the 109 has an inline engine, I've never felt that it took a disproportionate number of engine losses, certainly nothing like the P-40. My immediate impression is that the 190 loses its engine or takes engine damage quite a bit more often than the 109. It also gets hit more often, even though it was a bit faster and capable of rapid change in direction and it needs considerably less firing time to obtain the destruction of its target. Once hit though, it usually gives you reduced power for a good while rather than packing it in immediately the way an R-2800 or the P-40's Allison often will.

Admittedly, by this point I have about 10-20 times as many 'hours' in the 109/190 over the P-40 in all their respective versions, but the P-40 hours are still pretty significant. I have less time in the Mustang than the P-40, but it seems far more likely to lose its prop pitch than other aircraft that have a DM that includes loss of PP (how about the Zero for a comparison? It's props were license built Hamilton Standard models, and I've never lost PP in the few combats I've tried in it, and that spinner is -or should be- like the Mustang's, a big target). I haven't flown the Ki-61, the Tempest or the Italians in any appreciable combat situations, so I cannot offer an opinion on them.

I tried one short campaign in the early Hurri, but it was enormously frustrating not least because the campaign was developed for an earlier patch of the game, and some things just weren't possible that had been before the notorious 4.0x patches. It did seem to me to be in much the same class as the P-40, as far as the glass jaw.

The Hellcat in my opinion is far more likely to get hit than either the P-47 or the Corsair; in ratio of hits to engine losses, they appear to me to be about even --much too much damage much too often. Similarly, the Mustang is far more likely to get hit than a Spitfire, although the Spit seems to lose control surfaces or take a PK more easily.

Of the five though, the Hellcat is easily the greatest bullet magnet; it's like that one kid in your group of friends who was always caught or recognized when all of you were doing something you shouldn't.

Yaks and LaGGs seem to me to be about right; I have more hours in them and P-39s than the P-40, and the constant concern in Soviet fighters was overheating; hits to the engine make it overheat or die fairly quickly; the engines were always very closely cowled, so any hit to the engine covers almost invariably led to hitting the engine (oddly enough, even though hits to the engine tend to take it out, it rarely damages the MGs mounted above it).

This is also true of the 190, the Lavotchkins, the P-38, and the Ki-43, but not nearly so much in the case of the P-47, Hellcat, Mustang, Spitfire, Hurricane or P-40; these aircraft look remarkably abbreviated when the engine covers or cowls are removed for maintenance, even more so than the 109. I am also aware that the P-40 and the Mustang had some armor plating behind their spinners to protect the engine and pilot in a headon fire situation (which doesn't seem to be very effective in-game...)

The Soviets also don't seem to get hit as easily overall as some western types; they and the Airacobra seem to benefit from some sort of 'grace' that doesn't extend to the P-40, the Spit and later American types, which a few passes against a flight of He-111s (armed with multiple low-tech single 7.9mm popgun positions) would quickly illustrate.

The F4F is actually safer than the F6F against the Betty in my experience, despite being slower and less armored (and the early war examples of the F4F-3 lacked self-sealing tanks and pilot armor; first clashes in the Pacific featured boilerplate literally being hand installed on the hanger deck the night before a mission).

Fragility seems to me to be at least partly as much of a function of how likely you are to be hit; it would be interesting to do a comparison of attacking passes at bombers generally acknowledged as particularly dangerous in spite of being lightly armed, like the He-111 or the Betty. If you made multiple passes in each aircraft at roughly the same angles and speeds, you can observe which aircraft take disproportionate hits and or damage, and draw your own conclusions.

cheers

horseback