Was the HE 111 that big of a torch?

[SR-F_Winger]

Subjective observation: Feels like really EVERY single time i see the 111 getting shot at it almost instantly starts to burn.

Is that supposed to be like that?

 

Does the PE burn as easy?

I know the IL2 doesnt. Sometimes feels like a tank to shoot down.

Edited September 8, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[=LD=Hethwill]

Given the VVS interceptors are all shooting HE cannon rounds the probabilities is decidedly high

 

Same with PE-2. Tinder box as it gets hit by a burst of those cannons.

[Descolada]

Given the VVS interceptors are all shooting HE cannon rounds the probabilities is decidedly high

 

Same with PE-2. Tinder box as it gets hit by a burst of those cannons.

No, you can take a 111 out with just machine guns. Later today I'll make a video showing how fast they burn just by being fired upon by 2x shkas.

[Pupo]

every airplane from the game looks like zeros from pearl harbour the movie. it's the only major negative aspect of this sim IMO....

[dburne]

I can very easily set a 111 on fire, quickly, with my Yak 1 machine guns.

When I fly a QMB mission, it is usually against some 111's and some 109's, I save the cannons for the 109's.

Edited September 8, 2014 by dburnette

[VR-DriftaholiC]

I think all three burn toe easily and the worst part is the fire kills the pilot when it's the wing/engine on fire and not the cockpit.

Edited September 8, 2014 by driftaholic

[Uriah]

how about in real life.  Did they burn that easily?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Not sure about real life but virtually everything in this sim goes down in a very short burst. At least compared to what I'm used to in IL-2 1946. I really am not sure which way is the more accurate...

[SeriousFox]

We need fire extinguisher

[StickMan]

Fire 2 machine guns and 20mm cannon into your car for a good 2-3 seconds and see if it catches fire too easily. I think you will get a better feel of what these weapons did to machinery then judging by other sims.

[Pharoah]

My understanding is that it all comes down to whether the He-111 had selfsealing tanks (the Jap a/c didn't) and how vulnerable the fuel lines were to catching fire. If you're firing HE rounds which penetrated the fuel lines and/or tanks, then yes. But if they had self sealing tanks like the allies did then theoretically it wouldn't catch fire so quickly. But then again...I'm no aero engineer.

[startrekmike]

I am going to hold out any opinions on the frequency of burning aircraft until I have some hard data to back my opinions up, I can't really trust my limited knowledge or my experience from other WWII sims to give me a accurate opinion to go on.

 

  That said, I tend to lean on the side of the BoS dev's in terms of weapon damage modeling, other WWII sims seemed extremely conservative when it came to the overall destructive potential of aircraft mounted guns.

 

  Adding on to that, I have read a great deal of quotes from WWII pilots talking about very decisive effects from just a quick burst or two, I tend to believe them since they were indeed their and experienced it first hand as opposed to experiencing it in their favorite flight sim from the past.

[Sokol1]

Uriah, on 08 Sept 2014 - 20:53, said:

 

how about in real life.  Did they burn that easily?

 

Depends on where - and with that - are hit:

 

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/WH2-1RAF/WH2-1RAF016a.jpg

 

This one in above picture the German propaganda said that returned to base, but probable the rear crew dont have luck.

 

Back to the game:

 

In this video I hit a He 111 with cannon and MG and only did damage, but but luckily one 20mm or two

hit the left fuel tank of second He 111 and put then on fire.

 

Sokol1

 

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Sokol1

[=CFC=Conky]

Nice shooting' Tex 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Fuel doesn't slow burn, it explodes.

 

Fuel tanks don't burn, even if hit with incendiary rounds ( there are always exceptions)

 

Why ? Because fuel needs oxygen to burn. The only oxygen is the air, traveling at a couple of hundred miles an hour past the wing surface. It's just as likely to snuff out a fire as maintain one.

 

Fuel type fires are much more likely to be the result of fuel lines being cut within the enclosed structure and the fuel being ignited by some other means, hot engine, sparks etc. why do you think fire extinguishers were provided for engines but not fuel tanks ? Self sealing tanks and inert gasses all played their part in minimizing aircraft fires.

 

Secondly, flak is just as likely in the sim to start a wing (fuel tank fire), go figure that one out . It tends to suggest wing fires are not restricted to specific types of damage by specific type rounds.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Fuel doesn't slow burn, it explodes.

 

Fuel tanks don't burn, even if hit with incendiary rounds ( there are always exceptions)

 

Why ? Because fuel needs oxygen to burn. The only oxygen is the air, traveling at a couple of hundred miles an hour past the wing surface. It's just as likely to snuff out a fire as maintain one.

 

Fuel type fires are much more likely to be the result of fuel lines being cut within the enclosed structure and the fuel being ignited by some other means, hot engine, sparks etc. why do you think fire extinguishers were provided for engines but not fuel tanks ? Self sealing tanks and inert gasses all played their part in minimizing aircraft fires.

 

Secondly, flak is just as likely in the sim to start a wing (fuel tank fire), go figure that one out . It tends to suggest wing fires are not restricted to specific types of damage by specific type rounds.

 

That is absolutely correct. I hate to be "that guy" but in the military the combustible property of gas tanks in armored and unarmored vehicles is something that comes up. I was specifically taught that the only way to set off the gas tank of a car, for example, by shooting it is to hope that it's half empty and you hit the top half, igniting the fumes mixed with oxygen, and even then it's certainly not guaranteed.

 

And of course you're also right about flak, which was/is intended to either kill the pilot/crew via shrapnel or blow apart the aircraft with a direct/near hit.

[Pharoah]

loving the explanations which all sound logical....so when you apply this to the current He-111 'flying torch', is there a potential problem?

[Brano]

When you have never fired a real MG in your life,you will never understand its devastating impact on objects hit.

+LaGG3,La5 and Yak1 have all their firepower concentrated to small area with Shkas and UB placed on top of engine cowling and Shvak firing thru propeller shaft (for La5 2xShvak ot top of cowling)

+2sec burst from 2xShkas equals ~100 bullets!

Forget about comparison to CloD.There it is all about covergence (Hurri,Spit and even Emil to some extent with wing mounted MGFF).Anything flying out of set convergence will be just sprayed all over.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Brano

[SeriousFox]

At least real He 111 had a way to extinguish the engine on fire   

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Spitfires and Hurricanes fired ~160rds per second. Pre-war studies already had shown that rifle caliber weaponry was enough only to reliably bring down lightly armored aircraft, but as armor became more and more used and thicker, they were rendered quite useless as you needed a longer burst to do critical damage than with cannons and heavy caliber machine guns, like the .50cal. This exposed the attacker to counter measures like enemy fighters and defensive fire longer. Also the rifle caliber round loses it's energy fast thus making it obsolete at any long range shooting, missing the hitting power to do any serious damage. A 20mm HE shot still explodes causing damage even it has lost it's E, but a rifle caliber is too small to have enough HE to make any difference.

 

 Before you jump in and scream that a .303cal can shoot up to 1000yds..Yes it can, in static conditions on the ground. Aerial gunnery is a totally different beast than shooting from a tripod or similar support. Much harder to aim and keep a reluctant target in sight while flying. In general aerial gunnery in games is easier than in RL, our hit % is a lot higher than what the RL pilots had. We have zoom and whatnot to help with those 800m shots. Try hit something that far away that moves and twists, with sights having no range finder or gyros, and also see how small the plane is at that range. Add to the mix G-forces, how your plane moves and wings bend and all that..Even gun cams show that it took the pilots a lot more than a squeeze of trigger to hit and bring down an enemy plane.

 

 Games are games

[=LD=Hethwill]

Yep, flanker has the point on in games ballistics, but we are not using 6x .50 or 8x .303 we on the realm of 2x machine guns, which is too little mass to do anything more than scratches.

 

Sorry but I seldom use MGs for big flying crates, I immediately feel the urge to dakka dakka big gunz.

 

Don't think the 2 small dakka guns could consistently mangle engine blocks and such. I say consistently because luck can play a part as well

[354thFG_Leifr]

Had a pair of Russian's on my six last night, I was extending away with some pace and thought to be clear of the worst of their machine gun spraying (it was passing a solid 100m to either side). Well, got nicked by the smallest burst on my dead six at extreme range and went up in flames straight away - tank was full too!

I'm finding it quite distasteful really to see so many aircraft go up in smoke and flames with such regularity - CLoD models it much better.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Leifr

[Gunsmith86]

Maybe someone can translate this documents into english.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/1211-test-mit-brandgeschossen-und-patronen-allgemein-792-mm-x-57/?do=findComment&comment=24511

 

they give a good imagination how effective incendiary projectile are.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Gunsmith86

[StickMan]

I love when guys use the game that they trashed so badly that it closed shop in a years time as their model of how things should be in a sim DM now. Especially to use that DM as an example, the DM where yesterday I pumped at least 10 rounds of 20mm into a spit at 100 yards and all it did was smoke a little. Try colliding into an aircraft at high speed and watch yourself explode as the other flys off without a scratch. You guys make me laugh.

Edited September 9, 2014 by GeneralZod

[DD_Arthur]

When you have never fired a real MG in your life,you will never understand its devastating impact on objects hit.

 

 

This.

[TheBlackPenguin]

I know from the book, Combat Crew, that engine fires were real and an extremely dangerous situation if not handled immediately and effectively. Basically, the combat journal from this book mentioned an engine fire handled by an experienced pilot on their very first mission, which didn't raise alarm amongst the rookie crew, however after seeing B-17's blow up after engine fires the author said if they ever got another fire they would automatically attach their parachutes and prepare to bail.

 

Also I know of two VC's given to Bomber command personnel for putting out engine fires by walking, errr crawling out onto the wings. Diving was also another tactic.

 

Is it overdone? I don't know to be honest. You can definitely down an /ac with a short close range burst, but that also matches pilot accounts. 

[Vaxxtx]

I love when guys use the game that they trashed so badly that it closed shop in a years time as their model of how things should be in a sim DM now. Especially to use that DM as an example, the DM where yesterday I pumped at least 10 rounds of 20mm into a spit at 100 yards and all it did was smoke a little. Try colliding into an aircraft at high speed and watch yourself explode as the other flys off without a scratch. You guys make me laugh.

And some people from that "game that was trashed" are working on BoS. And picked up the IL2 title. The game was only saved by Team Fusion. And most that play BoS also like the other IL2's as well. Why you think is a VS. thing is beyond me.

 

Now the fact that I have yet to see a plane go down without tons of thick smoke in BoS makes me scratch my head. It is obviously being questioned. When a wing catches fire and the pilot dies without the cockpit on fire, its also very odd. There are plenty of guncam footage from both sides and even many bursts did not always make a torch. Something is off in BoS.

[Requiem]

Just go back to RoF to how this likely works in BoS.

 

In RoF the amount of fuel you fill up with is related to how often fires occurred:

If you have a high amount of fuel on board = less fuel vapor in the fuel tank = less chance of a fire.

If you have a low amount of fuel = more fuel vapor in the fuel tank = more chance of a fire.

 

So, if you don't want to be set on fire easily just don't take 20% fuel or something low like that, regardless of what side you fly for.

Edited September 9, 2014 by SYN_Requiem

[=LD=Hethwill]

Actually wouldn't a half full fuel tank have more chances of exploding ( as opposite to simple fire ) due to more gases contained ?

[BraveSirRobin]

I think some people see black smoke and just assume that the aircraft is on fire.  That isn't always the case.  I've been shot down plenty of times without the aircraft catching fire.

[354thFG_Leifr]

Just go back to RoF to how this likely works in BoS.

 

In RoF the amount of fuel you fill up with is related to how often fires occurred:

If you have a high amount of fuel on board = less fuel vapor in the fuel tank = less chance of a fire.

If you have a low amount of fuel = more fuel vapor in the fuel tank = more chance of a fire.

 

So, if you don't want to be set on fire easily just don't take 20% fuel or something low like that, regardless of what side you fly for.

 

In both the 111s and 109s that I fly, I always take over 80% tank irregardless of the mission or objective based on exactly what you've said.

Flames still keep a burnin'!

[sallee]

Fire 2 machine guns and 20mm cannon into your car for a good 2-3 seconds and see if it catches fire too easily. I think you will get a better feel of what these weapons did to machinery then judging by other sims.

I checked with my insurance company first and they told me I shouldn't. Do you think it would be as good if I did it to my neighbour's car?

[Requiem]

In both the 111s and 109s that I fly, I always take over 80% tank irregardless of the mission or objective based on exactly what you've said.

Flames still keep a burnin'!

Those were just some guidelines that I vaguely remember from RoF resulting from changes after it was widely believed that the flamer kills should have been rarer than represented in RoF during that time period. The devs made some changes accordingly a while back, I don't remember when it was, where they lowered the % chance of flamers/explosions and said that the % chance increased with the lower amount of fuel you have in the tank. I agree that it does seem a bit too easy to set the planes on fire, so hopefully the devs can make some adjustments like they did with RoF.

[FuriousMeow]

The RoF model made sense though, lower amount of fuel = more gas vapor in tank = higher possiblity to catch fire. Very simple.

 

RoF model only works in BoS with very basic fuel tanks. No armor around certain areas of fuel tanks and more importantly - no self-sealing elements.

 

Aircraft with self-sealing tanks should catch fire on a much smaller percentage, and even if they catch fire there should be the possibility they go out on their own - or in a dive. The latter was present in RoF, so sould be in BoS.

[Brano]

Shkas AP ammo has 11mm steel plate penetration power at 450m.Standard ammo belt composition was:

50% API (armor piercing incendiary)

25% API-T (armor piercing incendiary traced = tracer made of phosphorus!)

25% Incendiary

All of these ammo types were specially designed for use in Shkas.(thicker primers cups and case heads,bullets firmly crimped into the cases)

[StickMan]

Take a look at the first minute of this, at least. Looks like some German stuff catching fire and smoking pretty easily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c25xFStNVw Of course to keep this on topic I haven't found anything with an HE-111 in it yet.

Edited September 9, 2014 by GeneralZod

[HagarTheHorrible]

This might be of some interest.

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/Chapter-2.pdf

[HagarTheHorrible]

Another reference, self sealing tanks and projectile test.

 

http://youtu.be/jwvlZISfMeg

Edited September 9, 2014 by HagarTheHorrible

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Liberator, good example :D The biggest torch there has ever been, due to it's "genious" self sealing tanks (which just spreaded gasoline fumes all over the fuselage, so that a single HE bullet could burn the whole plane  )

[Brano]

He111 weak spots (and recommended to soviets pilots to shoot at) were engines with no armor protection and fuel tanks.Although they were selfsealing,they did not have system of inert gases injection into them.Now imagine yourself shooting your Yak1 2xShkas MGs with ALL of its ammo incendiary coupled with Shvak fed by ammobelt with 30% HEI and 70% API.Every bullet fired at He111 will be incendiary.