Effectiveness of 20mm vs Wings..

[Bullets]

Flew a few sorties against bots this morning and after a few victories I noticed none of my kills involved parts being blown of the aircraft.. Now I don't know about you but I think if a 20mm HE round goes through a wing (Which after a while I made sure mine did as I was specifically aiming for the wings) it should 9/10 times blow that wing off.. Even AP rounds should have a higher chance of destroying a wing... Nearly all of my recent kills online and offline have been via destroying the engine or killing the pilot. (This is normally because I am for the biggest part of the aircraft) However I do notice the explosions coming from the wings when my 20mm rounds miss their original target and hit the wings or other parts of the aircraft and nothing much seems to happen.

 

Anyone else agree planes seem to be a little too tough in general, especially the wings..? 

 

[Finkeren]

No, honestly I think the major revision of the damage model that happened back in 1.009 gave us the absolute best DM that's ever been put in a WW2 combat flight sim. It's not 'perfect' by any stretch, but it is IMHO as good as it can realistically be done. Both ClOD and DCS have DMs that are in many aspects more detailed, but both are so caught up in the details, that BoS/BoM ends up actually being far more believable.

 

As for the planes being 'too tough', that was actually one of the major changes in 1.009, that the planes were generally made structurally tougher. Before the changes  many aircraft had what you'd call a 'glass wing' problem (especially the Yak-1 and Bf 109) where they'd lose a wing at the slightest provocation. Air combat was radically different back then as well. Essentially everyone was just pulling angles and doing insane deflection shots just to get in the one, single 'kill shot' as fast as posible, because they knew, that as soon as they were hit even once themselves, they'd be toast.

 

When the changes in 1.009 happened there were those who loved it instantly (like me) and those who complained that planes were now 'tanks' (I think the oppinion was split roughly 60/40 in favor of the changes) By now I think that most people have just gotten used to the changes, learned to actually aim their guns to get a good burst in (a full second concentrated burst from any of the fighters in BoS/BoM, except the I-16 with no cannons, is still pretty lethal) Your complaint is the first such I've seen in months.

 

As for whether or not "a 20mm HE round should blow off a wing 9/10 times": No, it shouldn't. Even the heavy German Minengeschoss wouldn't do that a majority of times. The 30mm MK 108 is a different story though. 

 

20mm rounds (be they HE, AP or a combination) were incredibly lethal to WW2 aircraft, as they are in BoS/BoM now. But they were not a guaranteed one-shot-kill, which is why the Germans started transitioning to 30mm guns in the last two years of the war to get a situation, where they really only had to achieve one hit to put an aircraft out of the fight.

[Finkeren]

BTW: If you doubt the effectiveness of the guns, I really think it's just gunnery practice you need. I'm not trying to be demeaning or anything, I was a really crap shot, when I first started out with BoS (despite over 20 years of flight sim experience) and I still am from time to time, when I'm tired or have been away from the sim for a while.

 

But when I actually hit my target, the guns seem pretty damn lethal to me. Just this morning I flew a quick mission, where I intercepted Ju 87s in a LaGG-3 (default weapon loadout - no 23mm). I easily shot down the 4 Stukas and still had a handful of cannon shots and a bit more .50cal left from the LaGGs very limited ammo supply (I think the LaGG has less than 10 sec total firing time)

 

That's what I love about the DM: You don't feel too safe, because even a quick burst (or even occationally a single stray shot) can still take you out. You can't rely on your plane soaking up the damage. On the other hand, you really do have to get in a good, well aimed burst to be guaranteed of a kill, you can't just rely on that single, lucky hit to do the job.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Finkeren

[LLv24_Zami]

I think the DM is spot on the way it is today. As Finkeren said above, before 1.009 patch it was too easy to obliterate any plane with one hit. Careful aiming is the key to success now, like it should be.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Zami

[Alkyan]

I think the DM is very convincing, and that 1.009 was a huge improvement. However I kind of agree about the canon being (slightly) underpowered compared to the MGs. Being out of canon in the yack or 109 does't bother me at all.

Especially with the yack : closing on your target is often hard and I prefer the high muzzle and rate of fire of the MGs to hit the rad or engine.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Not read the other posts but if you hit the rudder or elevators with a single 20mm you can often get a kill as they spin out of control

 

Happens a lot with high angle deflection shots 

[Alkyan]

Agreed with Emil its ok at tearing stuff from the tail, but cutting apart the entire wing is quite hard (at least if the guy is aware of you and don't offer you the perfect burst)

[EAF19_Marsh]

'Cutting' the wing basically means destroying the main spar, which are made to support many times the aircraft's weight so are quite robust things.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

'Cutting' the wing basically means destroying the main spar, which are made to support many times the aircraft's weight so are quite robust things.

 

 

Definitely doable in a 190 but in a 109 with a single gun it's pretty much impossible but then it seems realistic to me.

[Finkeren]

Definitely doable in a 190 but in a 109 with a single gun it's pretty much impossible but then it seems realistic to me.

In any case, the OP was talking about a single 20mm HE round ripping off a wing 9 times out of 10. Clearly that doesn't happen and neither should it.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

In any case, the OP was talking about a single 20mm HE round ripping off a wing 9 times out of 10. Clearly that doesn't happen and neither should it.

 

I think that's what I said in a roundabout way

[Sokol1]

 Now I don't know about you but I think if a 20mm HE round goes through a wing (Which after a while I made sure mine did as I was specifically aiming for the wings) it should 9/10 times blow that wing off

 

 

"Hollywood BS". Lots of German 20mm hitting allied aircraft in this newsreel and not this  9/10 "de-wings".

 

[Bullets]

Its not my aim   The "glass wing" to an extent was realistic, if damage was to happen to a wing even if it was not blown off, the load that wing could carry would be severely diminished! People forget we fly these aircraft harder and faster than any real WW2 pilot would. We fly these planes on the limits of their performance even when they are damaged. If a 20mm round were to hit my wing and If I were pulling a high G turn I would expect that wing to be a goner?! If however I was flying slow and straight and got hit I would just expect a big old hole   Until I either speeded up or pulled a hard turn. 

 

In my 1st post I should have stated that I thought a 20mm round should cause enough damage to a wing that it cant support the aircraft any more so it tears off, not "blown off" by the actual round   

And I was specifically talking about the wings, I for one am happy with all other aspects of the DM (apart from the visuals     hehe) 

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bullets

[TP_Jacko]

From dead six I think it will be hard to cut the wing because its a thin profile. with a high angle deflection you have a chance even more if g's are being pulled. So I think the model is ok. In fact I would be disappointed it a single 20mm blew a wing off, not even the old IL2 1946 did that.

[Bullets]

From dead six I think it will be hard to cut the wing because its a thin profile. with a high angle deflection you have a chance even more if g's are being pulled. So I think the model is ok. In fact I would be disappointed it a single 20mm blew a wing off, not even the old IL2 1946 did that.

 

Read what I just wrote =) I am not talking about "cutting" a wing off.. There is no tearing your wings off in this game if they are damaged! The only aircraft I have torn wings off were the He111 when diving.. 

[Finkeren]

The "glass wing" to an extent was realistic, if damage was to happen to a wing even if it was not blown off, the load that wing could carry would be severely diminished! People forget we fly these aircraft harder and faster than any real WW2 pilot would. We fly these planes on the limits of their performance even when they are damaged. If a 20mm round were to hit my wing and If I were pulling a high G turn I would expect that wing to be a goner?! If however I was flying slow and straight and got hit I would just expect a big old hole   Until I either speeded up or pulled a hard turn. 

 

True, and that is very well modeled in the sim already. It happens quite often, that I seem to deal (or recieve) only superficial damage to a wing or part of the tailplane, only to watch it tear off in a very dynamic way seconds or even minutes later, when more stress is put on the wing. This modeling is a carry-over from RoF (where it works and looks even better IMHO) because warping, tearing and breaking of wings and spars was much more of a threat in WW1 kites. So it is there, and works as it should, but you're very mistaken, if you think any 20mm hit (even high explosive) will just magically make the wing unable to bear the loads of air combat. Virtually all aircraft wings in WW2 fighters were twin spar, and they were usually made with a strength such that the plane could continue fighting even if one spar failed completely. So even in the unlikely the event, that a heavy Minengeschoss shell hit a wing spar dead center and blew it completely apart, it still wouldn't cause the wing to just fly off (at least not immediately) And let's not forget: The far majority of times, you're not hitting the spars or any other crucial load bearing parts directly, when hitting the wings. You're hitting control surfaces, landing gear, fuel tanks or just blowing (relatively) harmless holes in the skin. These other types of damage can be serious enough by themselves, but they will not make the wing fall off. What can make the wing fall off is cumulative damage from many hits by cannon shells or even LMG bullets to an area of the wing. This combined with the heavy stress of air combat can actually tear the wing apart, and that's exactly how it works in BoS.

 

And I was specifically talking about the wings, I for one am happy with all other aspects of the DM (apart from the visuals     hehe) 

 

I'm not particularly happy about specific aspects of damage visuals. Bullet holes look awful, and I can't help but think that some of the vapor/smoke trails don't hit the mark either. However, the actual damage modeling is really spot-on.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Finkeren

[Wulf]

Its not my aim   The "glass wing" to an extent was realistic, if damage was to happen to a wing even if it was not blown off, the load that wing could carry would be severely diminished! People forget we fly these aircraft harder and faster than any real WW2 pilot would. We fly these planes on the limits of their performance even when they are damaged. If a 20mm round were to hit my wing and If I were pulling a high G turn I would expect that wing to be a goner?! If however I was flying slow and straight and got hit I would just expect a big old hole   Until I either speeded up or pulled a hard turn. 

 

In my 1st post I should have stated that I thought a 20mm round should cause enough damage to a wing that it cant support the aircraft any more so it tears off, not "blown off" by the actual round   

And I was specifically talking about the wings, I for one am happy with all other aspects of the DM (apart from the visuals     hehe) 

 

 

I think it's probably fair to say that in WW 2 era air combat -  all things were possible.  So, would a single 20 mm HE round remove a wing?  In most cases probably not but in circumstances where the aircraft was under max G-loading - and the main spar was hit; quite possibly I'd have thought.  My Father flew in medium bombers during the War (so not fighter aircraft which are obviously a bit different).  During the period when he was actively involved (about a year) he was shot down twice - on both occasions by fighters.  On the first occasion being bounced after takeoff from Malta and secondly by crashing into North Africa after an action over the Med.   On the latter occasion the aircraft (which apparently stayed largely together on impact) had over 160 bullet/cannon rounds through it.  On a previous unrelated occasion, the vertical stabilizer on his aircraft was shot through and flopped from side to side in the slipstream until eventually collapsing on landing.  So my point being, in a somewhat round about sort of way, that all sorts of stuff can and did happen depending on individual circumstances.  

[DD_Arthur]

  My Father flew in medium bombers during the War (so not fighter aircraft which are obviously a bit different).  During the period when he was actively involved (about a year) he was shot down twice - on both occasions by fighters.  On the first occasion being bounced after takeoff from Malta and secondly by crashing into North Africa after an action over the Med.   On the latter occasion the aircraft (which apparently stayed largely together on impact) had over 160 bullet/cannon rounds through it.  On a previous unrelated occasion, the vertical stabilizer on his aircraft was shot through and flopped from side to side in the slipstream until eventually collapsing on landing.  So my point being, in a somewhat round about sort of way, that all sorts of stuff can and did happen depending on individual circumstances.  

 

Bloody hell Wulf!  You're 'kin lucky to actually exist m8

[Wulf]

Bloody hell Wulf!  You're 'kin lucky to actually exist m8

 

 

Hahaha ..Yeah I guess.  On his very first combat operation, after being posted from an OTU,  the squadron  was vectored up the Norwegian coast where they watched 190s spiril-up above the airfield at Stavanger before attacking them en mass.  They lost 4 aircraft in the ensuing fight as they desperately tried to make a run for it back out to sea.  Welcome to Coastal Command!     

[DD_Arthur]

  Welcome to Coastal Command!     

 

Lordy, Coastal Command anti-shipping strikes from the UK!  How did that work?

 

 Oh yeah, it went 'take several dozen of our finest young men, teach 'em to fly an expensive aircraft far out to sea in daylight to an enemy held coast under radar and fighter cover and see if they can sink a few trawlers, dredgers, barges and coasters and deny the German garrison their supplies of wurst for a month and accept a twenty per cent loss rate'.

 

Madness.

[216th_Peterla]

I'm just curious guys, did you ever blown an aircraft in the sim? It never happened to me but I'm a terrible shooter. I don't know if is really possible or even if in the real life was something common. I remember that use to happen quite often in the old il2 at least with the cannons.

[Finkeren]

I'm just curious guys, did you ever blown an aircraft in the sim? It never happened to me but I'm a terrible shooter. I don't know if is really possible or even if in the real life was something common. I remember that use to happen quite often in the old il2 at least with the cannons.

An actual explosion that completely destroys an aircraft and blows it to smithereens is really only posible, if you manage to detonate a bombload on that plane. Something that is very hard to do, even with direct cannon hits to the bombs, because bombs are built specifically not to detonate except under very specific circumstances (for obvious reasons) An exploding fuel tank will not do it, even though it may superficially look like a forceful 'explosion', the huge fireball created by a bursting fuel tank produces a really puny shockwave (which is why burning gasoline 'explosions' are used in place of real detonations in movies - it looks impressive but is really quite safe)

 

So in general: No, planes in BoS (and in real life) don't 'explode' except during a high speed impact with the ground or another aircraft (and in that case it's really the impact that tears the aircraft to shreds, not any explosion) or in very, very rare cases of bombs detonating (which is such a rate occurance that I'm glad they left it out of the BoS DM)

[216th_Peterla]

Thanks for the info Finkeren.

Regards!

[Voidhunger]

An actual explosion that completely destroys an aircraft and blows it to smithereens is really only posible, if you manage to detonate a bombload on that plane. Something that is very hard to do, even with direct cannon hits to the bombs, because bombs are built specifically not to detonate except under very specific circumstances (for obvious reasons) An exploding fuel tank will not do it, even though it may superficially look like a forceful 'explosion', the huge fireball created by a bursting fuel tank produces a really puny shockwave (which is why burning gasoline 'explosions' are used in place of real detonations in movies - it looks impressive but is really quite safe)

 

So in general: No, planes in BoS (and in real life) don't 'explode' except during a high speed impact with the ground or another aircraft (and in that case it's really the impact that tears the aircraft to shreds, not any explosion) or in very, very rare cases of bombs detonating (which is such a rate occurance that I'm glad they left it out of the BoS DM)

Actualy i manage to explode Bf109 with La 5. I was very close and pumped a lot of cannon rounds in to the belly. So its possible in BOS

[JtD]

An actual explosion that completely destroys an aircraft and blows it to smithereens is really only posible, if you manage to detonate a bombload on that plane. Something that is very hard to do, even with direct cannon hits to the bombs, because bombs are built specifically not to detonate except under very specific circumstances (for obvious reasons) An exploding fuel tank will not do it, even though it may superficially look like a forceful 'explosion', the huge fireball created by a bursting fuel tank produces a really puny shockwave (which is why burning gasoline 'explosions' are used in place of real detonations in movies - it looks impressive but is really quite safe)

 

So in general: No, planes in BoS (and in real life) don't 'explode' except during a high speed impact with the ground or another aircraft (and in that case it's really the impact that tears the aircraft to shreds, not any explosion) or in very, very rare cases of bombs detonating (which is such a rate occurance that I'm glad they left it out of the BoS DM)

If you ignite gasoline fumes, they create a powerful explosion. Hence all the effort to suppress fumes in fuel tanks, such as flexible tanks that contain only fuel no gas or exhaust fumes / inert gas feed. All of this could fail to some extent, and a small leak in a fuel tank may cause havoc if the fumes spread. A related side note: Aviation fuel was considered a real danger to capital warships carrying aircraft, be it a few scouts on cruisers and battleships or a full fledged wing on a carrier. The Japanese carrier Taiho, then the newest carrier of the IJN, blew up on its first combat operation because gasoline tanks were leaking and the fumes were ignited. That's 20000t of steel, not 2t of wood or aluminium. It's quite powerful.

[Finkeren]

I'm not saying a rupturing fuel tank wouldn't wreck havoc and in most cases down the aircraft immediately. I'm saying it wouldn't blow an aircraft to smithereens the way an actual detonation of explosives with high brisance would.

[Finkeren]

And about the Taihō: It obviously wasn't blown into pieces when the fuel vapor that filled the hull ignited, as you said yourself: We are talking thousands of tons of steel, to think that a gasoline explosion would blow that apart is ridiculous. It didn't even 'blow up' in the sense that the battleship Hood did while battling the Bismarck (an explosion caused by detonation of high explosive ammunition, not fuel) The explosion on the Taihō was sufficiently powerful to partly destroy the wooden planking on the deck and blow out the thin sidewalls just below deck. That's still a mighty powerful blast, but we are talking several thousand cubic meters of fuel/air mixture, and it didn't even take the unarmoured deck clean off. BTW: Notice that the blast didn't even set off the likely several hundred tons of bombs the carrier was most likely carrying. That's how resistant to damage the bombs of the era were.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Finkeren

[JtD]

I think you're underestimating how powerful a fuel vapour explosion actually can be. It has the same energy density TNT has. It's slow burning, but that will become irrelevant if the vapour is trapped inside a closed space. The only problem is that the vapour needs to fill the structure, but if it does, it will blow it into tiny pieces. Midair explosion of aircraft not carrying bombs did occur in real life and while your "smithereens" might be limited to smaller pieces than what I think qualifies, aircraft were ripped apart and into tiny pieces by fuel vapour explosions.

A fuel vapour explosion is not the huge slow fireball you see in Hollywood movies, that's excess fuel burning, a different thing. Anyway, feel free to believe what you like.

 

Outside of (fuel vapour and) bombs, you can also blow up a plane by setting off the ammunitions.

[Finkeren]

I think you're underestimating how powerful a fuel vapour explosion actually can be. It has the same energy density TNT has. It's slow burning, but that will become irrelevant if the vapour is trapped inside a closed space. The only problem is that the vapour needs to fill the structure, but if it does, it will blow it into tiny pieces. Midair explosion of aircraft not carrying bombs did occur in real life and while your "smithereens" might be limited to smaller pieces than what I think qualifies, aircraft were ripped apart and into tiny pieces by fuel vapour explosions.

 

Liquid aviation fuel (or even regular gasoline) has an extremely high energy density, much higher than most high brisance explosives. The problem lies in getting it to release that energy in a way that will produce a powerful detonation. Optimised fuel vapor has slightly lower energy density than TNT (if you count the entire energy output of TNT combustion, which includes some oxidation and this is not part of the initial detonation - if you only count the initial detonation, fuel vapor has a much greater energy density than TNT) and good deal lower than for instance dynamite and PETN. But it's really hard to compare, because those explosives exist as solids, have a high brisance and don't depend on oxidation in an enclosed space to deliver a supersonic shockwave and produce temperatures of over 4000 degrees centigrade. As we all know, liquid fuel doesn't burn, and combustion only occurs with full force in the right mixture of oxygen rich air and fuel vapor. Even in a mostly empty fuel tank, you're never gonna get a very large mass of air/fuel mixture, and therefore the amount of energy that will be released in that enclosed space, will be rather limited, because only the vaporised fuel will actually combust, the liquid fuel in the tank might ignite if the initial combustion breaks open the tank and throws out the rest of the fuel into the air as vapor, but by then it'll be outside the enclosed space and produce in impressive fireball but with limited concussive force. The initial explosion might still be enough to down the aircraft instantly, maybe even in rare cases blow off a wing or cause the fuselage to break, but it's not gonna completely blow it to bits, like we saw in the old IL-2.  

 

Add to that the fact, that many combat aircraft of this period had systems in place to prevent a combustible fuel/air mixture from forming in the tanks. One of the simplest was the inert gas system, which was used in most Soviet fighters AFAIK, which led part of the exhaust gasses (which are completely drained of oxygen, if mixture is properly managed) back into the fuel tanks, such that the fuel vapor collecting in the tanks as they empty couldn't combust, simply because there was no oxygen. A 20mm hit to the fuel tank might completely shred the tank and send lots of vapor into the open air where it might ignite, but again this combustion is happening outside the enclosed space that might allow it to properly detonate. 

 

If historically fuel explosions did happen that utterly blew apart an entire aircraft (and honestly I'm more inclined to believe, that we're talking about anecdotal exaggerations here) I content, that it would have to happen under very special circumstances. I won't even begin to speculate, what those might be.

 

Outside of (fuel vapour and) bombs, you can also blow up a plane by setting off the ammunitions.

 

Indeed, and much more easily so than the bombs. Some have hypothesised, that exploding ammunition might a major cause of many of the ripped-off wings we see in gun cam footage. Still, outside of perhaps heavy 30mm or 37mm HE shells, I kinda doubt, that there would be enough force in such an explosion to completely blow apart an aircraft, it's gonna be really hard to set off all the ammo at once, but I'm not gonna say for certain, that it couldn't happen. 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

To be absolutely clear: An exploding fuel tank on an aircraft is catastrophic damage, that will almost certainly in all instances bring down the aircraft instantly, maybe even kill the crew. But I simply don't see it completely tearing the plane apart in the air. 

[216th_Peterla]

This discussion is quite interesting but my point is if the plane model in BOS can be obliterated by a fuel or ammo explosion in a way that you can't even switch to a external camera because is nothing to show...just like when your plane hit the ground with enough energy. This never happened to me.

I remember to had an explosion in a Heinkel and my wing go off, the whole crew dead and we fall to the ground having some secondary explosions but was not obliterated.

[Finkeren]

That's how I understood your question peterla, hence my repeated use of the phrase "blown to smithereens", and that's what I've tried to adress and explain why it shouldn't happen. Heck, it doesn't even really happen in most cases where a plane impacts the ground at full speed, but I can understand, why the devs chose to model ground impact that way. You want to get rid of excess polygons, that aren't gonna do anything anymore

Edited September 3, 2015 by Finkeren

[216th_Peterla]

Thanks again Fink ;-)

[Czar66]

Very interesting discussion.

About the simulator capabilities of one aircraft exploding mid air: what would happen in BoS and subsequently in the future BoM, if two fighters hit each other head to head, propeller to propeller at high speed? If the sim has any capability of having a aircraft disintegrate mid air, this method would probably show. 

 

I'm not talking about the fuel explosion modeling for being out of my knowledge.

 

Also, any report on being hit directly by a bomb dropped by another aircraft?

 

These two methods of aircraft obliteration was quite the thing on early Il-2s 

 

This discussion just woke my curiosity. Good stuff.

 

Good flying all. 

[Finkeren]

About the simulator capabilities of one aircraft exploding mid air: what would happen in BoS and subsequently in the future BoM, if two fighters hit each other head to head, propeller to propeller at high speed? If the sim has any capability of having a aircraft disintegrate mid air, this method would probably show. 

 

Actually, that's the only instance in BoS, where I've seen an aircraft disintegrate in mid-air the same way it does when it hits the ground at high speed. A mid-air collision at high relative speed (the speed at which the two aircraft hit each other, which can be very different from their air speed) can actually result in one of the aircraft obliterating completely, just as if it had hit the ground (I've never seen it happen with both aircraft, the other usually loses a wing or breaks in half) I guess the reason is, that the engine handles collisions with other objects (aircraft, vehicles, buildings etc.) in much the same way as it handles collisions with the ground, with the difference that the ground doesn't move when hit.

 

Also, any report on being hit directly by a bomb dropped by another aircraft?

 

These two methods of aircraft obliteration was quite the thing on early Il-2s 

 

I think I once made one of my flight members lose a wing by dropping a bomb on him, because he passed right under me, while I was bombing in a He 111. I think the bombs are treated as other objects, meaning you collide with them at a certain relative speed and damage occurs accordingly. The bomb didn't explode, as it would have in the original IL-2, but I think this is quite realistic (See my earlier comments about WW2 bombs being quite hard to detonate by accident) but obviously dropping a several hundred lbs heavy metal object onto an aircraft in flight isn't gonna be pleasant and will likely bring down the unlucky recipient.  

 

It's definately also posible to down an aircraft that's pusuing you at very low altitude by simply dropping the bomb such that it explodes on the ground right underneath your pursuer  I have had this happen to me on a few occasion with He 111s carrying the huge blockbuster bombs.

[LLv24_Zami]

Very interesting discussion.

 

About the simulator capabilities of one aircraft exploding mid air: what would happen in BoS and subsequently in the future BoM, if two fighters hit each other head to head, propeller to propeller at high speed? If the sim has any capability of having a aircraft disintegrate mid air, this method would probably show. 

 

 

I have seen plane to "explode" in mid air collision. I think it was a bomber. So it is possible.

[Czar66]

I think I once made one of my flight members lose a wing by dropping a bomb on him, because he passed right under me, while I was bombing in a He 111.

 

 

oh dear

 

 

 

The bomb didn't explode, as it would have in the original IL-2, but I think this is quite realistic (See my earlier comments about WW2 bombs being quite hard to detonate by accident) but obviously dropping a several hundred lbs heavy metal object onto an aircraft in flight isn't gonna be pleasant and will likely bring down the unlucky recipient.

 

Even with delayed fuse off? In he original IL-2 I had me in pieces in a lot of instances when bombing too low (I had no idea about delayed fuse and so on..). Good to know  that is realistic!

 

 

It's definately also posible to down an aircraft that's pusuing you at very low altitude by simply dropping the bomb such that it explodes on the ground right underneath your pursuer  I have had this happen to me on a few occasion with He 111s carrying the huge blockbuster bombs.

 

 

In early access this was happening almost daily with me but the shock wave just ripped my wings off.

 

Now that you said, I think I saw mid air collisions resulting in explosions on BoS. Can't remember if AI or MP, probably the second.

 

Fair enough, good stuff Finkeren 

I have seen plane to "explode" in mid air collision. I think it was a bomber. So it is possible.

 

So it is possible after all! 

Edited September 3, 2015 by FeliusCzar

[Finkeren]

Even with delayed fuse off? In he original IL-2 I had me in pieces in a lot of instances when bombing too low (I had no idea about delayed fuse and so on..). Good to know  that is realistic!

 

In the concrete example the He 111 I hit with a bomb was right beneath me, so the bomb wouldn't have hit the plane in the right way to be triggered anyway. You can imagine a scenario, where a bomb dropped from up high would hit a plane hundreds or thousands of feet below in such a way, that it might set off the detonator and make the bomb explode, but such an event would be so extraordinarilly rare, that I think there's no need to model it.

 

I really can't repeat this enough: Bombs are generally made not to explode except when triggered just right by the detonator or a fuse. They are very sturdy too; apart from the engine block, the bombs on an aircraft are the most durable thing on the plane, and for very good reason: If bombs were easy to set off, you couldn't fly bombers in close, protective formations because of the risk of one plane blowing up in a huge blast and taking the rest of the squadron with it. Just imagine what would happen if the 8000 lbs bomb load on a B-17 suddenly went off inside a tight combat box formation. It would be mayhem

 

Why do you think to this day we find so many bombs dropped during WW2 that have survived in the ground all those years? They were dropped from perhaps 20,000 feet only to bury themselves deep in the ground and never detonate, despite the colossal force of the impact. If the detonator doesn't hit right, or the fuse fails or the bomb doesn't arm correctly, it just doesn't go off almost no matter what you do to it. Those bombs can often be more dangerous today that back then, because the decay of time might have weakened the protective shell or posibly done something to the detonator or the explosive itself to make it more volatile, but back then, bombs were fairly safe things (though there are a few noticeable exceptions, where things went horribly wrong in the storage or handling of bombs).

Edited September 3, 2015 by Finkeren

[Gunsmith86]

Here are some infos you may want to read:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Armament%20in%20the%20Air%20War.pdf

 

^^( GAF = German Air Force )

Edited September 3, 2015 by Gunsmith86

[FuriousMeow]

I'm not saying a rupturing fuel tank wouldn't wreck havoc and in most cases down the aircraft immediately. I'm saying it wouldn't blow an aircraft to smithereens the way an actual detonation of explosives with high brisance would.

 

There are diaries and statements from pilots that shot up another fighter which exploded and they flew through the debris of the aircraft. Not smithereens, still large parts of the aircraft there but just in several large pieces falling to the earth. These were strict fighters, not bomb laden, so it would have only been the fuel tank that could have blown. Rare? Maybe, but it's certainly happened.