Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[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