Jump to content
-[HRAF]BubiHUN

I'm desperete

Recommended Posts

woods.jpg

 

What means this graph? nothing

 

That wood (what kind?) It is more resistant to the type of force compared to metal (such as metal?) the oak is more elastic than aluminum? (yes i know aluminum is not an elastic metal)  that is more resistant to traction, to torsionally and compression, to heat?

 

Aluminum then that in itself has no major mechanical properties is combined with other elements to make it a much better league, but the planes of wood they needed special care against humidity metal ones do not need, Yak9 it was metal, who knows why :lol: :lol:

Edited by 150GCT_Pan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe because of availability after the danger of running out of resources early?

 

It could be a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 in the vvs had advanced so that the wood regressed to Iron Age :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the use of wood for aircraft design, even for those high performance world war 2 aircraft. De Havilland Mosquito proves that.

 

Mosquito was famous for its speed, not for its resistance to bullets, that was the B17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mosquito was famous for its speed, not for its resistance to bullets, that was the B17

 

There was nothing overly or unusually resilient about the thin metal that covered the B-17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was nothing overly or unusually resilient about the thin metal that covered the B-17.

 

b17allamerican.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mosquito was famous for its speed, not for its resistance to bullets, that was the B17

Tell that to this guy:

633-09.jpg

or

15e3ff3a279b6bd9ddd01aa95819572d.jpg

 

Or to No. 140 Wing pilot who flew his Mosquito on 31 October 1944 into the roof of University of Aarhus, he struck roof loosing tail wheel and half of its port side of a tail. Aircraft got back home safely. 

 

Actually Mosquito is known for speed, ruggedness, reliability and flight characteristics. 

 

@up

One does not contradict the other. B-17 was covered with thin aluminum skin and its frame was made of aluminum as well. It was however structurally very strong. Not to mention that 4-engine bomber is simply a bigger target and thus there is more to damage and more that can "keep it together".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 in the vvs had advanced so that the wood regressed to Iron Age :lol:

What is interesting is that  the Regia seriously considered building wooden types in the end of the war as the very interesting Ambrosini SAI 207 project proves.

 

Hiromachi is right: there is nothing wrong in building wooden types. The French tried too with the VG33. But the most successful  were AFAIK the Soviet and the De Havilland company.

Edited by Yak9Micha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with wooden planes is when you pass in the fireball of your victim.

cd6d313f06.png

cd6d54a13e.png

The wood seems to be okay there. The problem is the canvas.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really, really annoyed me and Asgar as we tried to down this Pe-2

Quite interesting, these russian planes.

 

 

Edit: It is without sound, since all we did is screaming about the Laz0000r-gunners of the Pe-2.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Memphis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find the discussion on the B-17 interesting. The pictures I always see have plenty of holes but there are no major structural or control failures. All of the ones that had those failures went down. Obviously a lot of planes are going to come back with holes because the majority of an airframe, especially something as large as a B-17 can take a lot of fire without having critical components hit just because of the sheer surface area not covering critical components.

 

People ooo and ahhh over holes, but if you really consider the physical implications of having a hole in the skin of an aircraft, it's not that big of a deal, especially when most holes were always in surfaces that don't provide lift, such as the fuselage and tail. And even if you lose parts of your airfoil, you only need enough to keep you stable and up in the air.

 

All of the B-17s that made it back with major damages were still structurally sound, had their airfoils enough in tact for stability and lift, and had all their critical control surfaces(mainly elevator). You could strip the skin off the entire fuselage and lose half the skin on the rear stabilizer and I bet you it, along with many other well designed planes would still make it home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You could strip the skin off the entire fuselage and lose half the skin on the rear stabilizer and I bet you it, along with many other well designed planes would still make it home

 

One word comes to mind when I read this statement , :blink:  "monocoque", not entirely true I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find the discussion on the B-17 interesting. The pictures I always see have plenty of holes but there are no major structural or control failures. All of the ones that had those failures went down. Obviously a lot of planes are going to come back with holes because the majority of an airframe, especially something as large as a B-17 can take a lot of fire without having critical components hit just because of the sheer surface area not covering critical components.

 

People ooo and ahhh over holes, but if you really consider the physical implications of having a hole in the skin of an aircraft, it's not that big of a deal, especially when most holes were always in surfaces that don't provide lift, such as the fuselage and tail. And even if you lose parts of your airfoil, you only need enough to keep you stable and up in the air.

 

All of the B-17s that made it back with major damages were still structurally sound, had their airfoils enough in tact for stability and lift, and had all their critical control surfaces(mainly elevator). You could strip the skin off the entire fuselage and lose half the skin on the rear stabilizer and I bet you it, along with many other well designed planes would still make it home

It's really funny you mention that, because that exact sort of bias happened historically.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

 

See "In the military" under "Examples"

Edited by 19//curiousGamblerr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That really, really annoyed me and Asgar as we tried to down this Pe-2
 

Yes, it is also my perception that Pe-2 is the most robust aircraft in game. Second to that is Ju-88 but VVS at least has that 23 mm on LaGG which makes it easier. 

It scares me what A-20 will be like. With more .50 caliber guns and robust structure that might be a nightmare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot of that with engine limits to a certain degree, one reads a dramatic tale of a P-47/FW-190 getting home with half the engine missing or a Mustang/Bf-109 running at overboost all the way home, without any regard for the many/majority that did not make it, and the only books they feature in are loss statistics

 

But it makes for a good story  :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One word comes to mind when I read this statement , :blink:  "monocoque", not entirely true I'm afraid.

You're right. Not the whole thing, but most. The B-17 was only partly monocoque, so obviously the ones that made it back had enough of the structural skin in tact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really, really annoyed me and Asgar as we tried to down this Pe-2

 

Quite interesting, these russian planes.

 

 

Edit: It is without sound, since all we did is screaming about the Laz0000r-gunners of the Pe-2.

PE-2 gunner are insane, they are snipers even through heavy smoke, rarely even if you shot many shots are rendered harmless ...

A russian fighter can approach slowly from 6 o'clock to a german bomber without risk, a russian fighter can be behind a german bomber for many minutes without being hit and without suffering heavy damage. Without the pressure of the german gunners can easily take aim and shot down a german bomber, all the things that a german fighter are almost impossible to do.

This is normal!

And with these differences in approach they want to teach you how to shot down a Pe2...

I have never seen a russian plane exploded under the shots of a german gunners, I have never seen a german gunners kill a pilot of a russian plane ...

I dont  think that depends only on the difference in caliber, sometimes even a small caliber could do much harm, but not here!

Perhaps it is for this reason that anyone has any doubt about the russian aircraft...

 

S! and sorry for my bad English

Edited by ITAF_Cymao
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PE-2 gunner are insane, they are snipers even through heavy smoke, rarely even if you shot many shots are rendered harmless ...

A russian fighter can approach slowly from 6 o'clock to a german bomber without risk, a russian fighter can be behind a german bomber for many minutes without being hit and without suffering heavy damage. Without the pressure of the german gunners can easily take aim and shot down a german bomber, all the things that a german fighter are almost impossible to do.

This is normal!

And with these differences in approach they want to teach you how to shot down a Pe2...

I have never seen a russian plane exploded under the shots of a german gunners, I have never seen a german gunners kill a pilot of a russian plane ...

I dont  think that depends only on the difference in caliber, sometimes even a small caliber could do much harm, but not here!

Perhaps it is for this reason that anyone has any doubt about the russian aircraft...

 

S! and sorry for my bad English

And I have experienced the opposite.

 

I can shoot down Pe-2s and I've also had german bombers shoot me down in a fighter with their gunners.

 

In fact I fly the Pe-2 4x as often as the JU-88 and my AI gunners in the JU-88 have killed 3x as many enemy fighters.

 

My Pe-2 AI gunners have only killed one enemy aircraft. The rest were from me moving into the gunner seat or winning a dogfight with them.

 

I've also been instantly killed a lot in the Pe-2 and their engines catch fire pretty easily. Just the other day, one 20mm burst from a 109 instantly set my engine on fire.

 

Something else worth mentioning: You CANT directly compare the Pe-2 to german bombers/attackers except the 110. The Pe-2 was designed as a high altitude fighter like the 110. My gunner in the 110 has actually killed more enemy fighters than my Pe-2 AI gunner has.

 

The durability of the 110 is less than the Pe-2 for sure, but AFAIK, that's historically accurate. Not by much though. If I had to choose between taking out a Pe-2 or 110, it's a closer choice than everyone on the German side seems to think. And once the G-2 gets fixed? Ohhhh buddy. Can't wait. With that power, I can easily get back with one engine no problem

 

The gunners on the Pe-2 aren't too accurate. The problem with them lies with their ACCURACY MODEL. They seem to be unaffected by high G maneuvers or smoke, so on that part of your post, I can agree with. However, their overall accuracy? It's pretty bad compared to a human gunner

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50GCT_Veltro, on 23 Oct 2016 - 22:14, said: 1) My question is about Pe-2 (DM and gunners sniping capabilities). Actually Pe-2 is more similar to a B-17 "Flying Fortress" than a medium bomber, and it's really going to ruin the game online. It's really exagerrated. Are you planning to review this aircraft, or do you think is realistically modelled? 2) What do you think about MG151/20? 1

 

- We have checked and re-checked. Pe-2 is weaker than Ju-88 and He-111, but stronger than Il-2. 2

- It's burst summary damage capabilities are near to be the same with ShVAK. ShVAK have more fire rate, more muzzle velocity, while MG have more HE damage. CSAF_Shephard, on 24 Oct 2016 - 07:16, said:

 

Most insightful post from Han. According to devs stuctural strength from strongest to weakest is  1) Ju88/He111 2) Pe-2 3) Il-2

Now I fly allied and axis and from my experience, in terms of hardness to kill numbers 1 and 2) are reversed 3) is maybe even with 1)

 

Leaves only one conclusion IMO it´s -like Asgar said- an HE vs AP problem. There will always be certain instances when hitting one spot will do more damage, but in general HE should be more powerful. Since devs know the structural strength values, the list should not be reversed with 20mm Minengeschoß as it is the case right now

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A russian fighter can approach slowly from 6 o'clock to a german bomber without risk, a russian fighter can be behind a german bomber for many minutes without being hit and without suffering heavy damage.

 

This is false. I get engine damage very quickly in any fighter on any bomber's six.

 

The only exceptions are on aircraft with only top gunners (IL-2, Bf 110, Ju 87, Ju 52) when you are very careful to stay underneath them. But the 110 and 87 gunners can deflect downwards a surprising amount, so as soon as you slip from six to five or seven they'll get you.

 

I'm not saying there's no problem with the Pe-2, I won't comment either way on that, but all gunners are dangerous and to say you can approach a German bomber slowly from six is incorrect.

 

 

 

I have never seen a russian plane exploded under the shots of a german gunners, I have never seen a german gunners kill a pilot of a russian plane ...

 

And this too- just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. WoL stats tells me you fly 100% Axis for months now, averaging 75% fighters. I don't think you have the experience to back up these claims given you don't fly Russian fighters against German bombers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys,

i did some testing since we now have 37mm cannons on German and Russian planes that are capable of single shot with selective ammo types. crude test, so don't take it too seriously, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious that AP is way to strong against aircraft, no one would've bothered to create anti air HE shells if AP would be that effective ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjHXVWPe8Gs

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this too- just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. WoL stats tells me you fly 100% Axis for months now, averaging 75% fighters. I don't think you have the experience to back up these claims given you don't fly Russian fighters against German bombers. 

And here lies the true problem in the Axis' whining. They refuse to see things from both sides

no one would've bothered to create anti air HE shells if AP would be that effective ;)

That was Ishtaru's point. And I can definitely agree with that.

 

I feel like AP should do lots of engine damage, but HE should reign supreme when it comes to destroying control surfaces/wings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PE-2 gunner are insane, they are snipers even through heavy smoke, rarely even if you shot many shots are rendered harmless ...

A russian fighter can approach slowly from 6 o'clock to a german bomber without risk, a russian fighter can be behind a german bomber for many minutes without being hit and without suffering heavy damage. Without the pressure of the german gunners can easily take aim and shot down a german bomber, all the things that a german fighter are almost impossible to do.

This is normal!

And with these differences in approach they want to teach you how to shot down a Pe2...

I have never seen a russian plane exploded under the shots of a german gunners, I have never seen a german gunners kill a pilot of a russian plane ...

I dont  think that depends only on the difference in caliber, sometimes even a small caliber could do much harm, but not here!

Perhaps it is for this reason that anyone has any doubt about the russian aircraft...

 

Sorry, but that is some ridiculous [Edited] right there. Take into account that the Pe-2 has vastly superior FoV for its gunners, that they've got .50 cals, and are a smaller target.

 

Besides, I'm almost 100% certain that that was a human gunner. The AI gunners are awful in player controlled planes, and besides, the 109 was close and only maneuvering in one dimension in relation to the Pe-2. Go figure you get hit flying like that...

Edited by Bearcat
Language
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that all AI gunners are snipers, the video clearly shows that all your attacks against that Pe2 were from it's most favorable quadrants for defensive fire.

 

Do you have an aversion to attacking head on or from the sides, from the bomber's weakest defensive angles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to Ju-88 thats not true. Particularly its top gunners wrecked my LaGG/MiG more than a few times. And those are small caliber machine guns up there only, unlike in Pe-2 where you have Berezin.

 

 

 

Take into account that the Pe-2 has vastly superior FoV for its gunners, that they've got .50 cals, and are a smaller target.
 

Yes, it has superior FoV and its a 12.7 mm machine gun. But like all others of its time its a hand operated gun. It's surprisingly effective for what it is, although part of it might be due to mouse aiming. Mouse is extremely precise tool and player aiming with it can react faster and more accurately than in reality gunner could swing his big gun. 

 

Makes me wonder about Zeros in Midway expansion, with those two MG FFs in the wings it will be a nightmare to tackle even a damn TBF not to mention A-20 or whatever else. On the other hand gunners will have a dream come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, mouse aim is something I agree is an issue ATM (in all planes with gunners). Balancing in a tight, cramped space inside a fast flying bomber, wearing thick clothing, shifting a fairly heavy automatic weapon should clearly not be modeled as being as easy as pointing your cursor at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Sshadow, maybe you should Google it. Any periodic table will tell you Sodium (Na) is an akali metal and Chlorine (Cl) is a non-metal. Together they make table salt (NaCl) which is a salt, not a metal. The classification of metal is at the elemental level, it makes absolutely no sense to say a mineral like table salt is a metal.

 

You not even need to be a chemist in order to get that fact elaborated - he should have just made a quick search at Wiki... :rolleyes:  well, but living in "post-factum" times it might be that some still consider sodium chloride to be a metal though... :biggrin:

Edited by Geleitzug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asgars video seems to show HE repeatedly hitting the tail of the pe2 with no apparent effect. Surely that is something wrong with either the ammo or the DM?

Yeah, I'd say I agree with the verdict he made about AP vs HE being wildly off. The AP should wreck an engine like it did, however when it comes to shooting the tail, I would think HE should be much better than AP. Something does seem off

 

As far as DM for VVS vs Luft, I don't see a problem though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really, really annoyed me and Asgar as we tried to down this Pe-2

 

Quite interesting, these russian planes.

 

All this one shows is that your gunnery is like mine = poor.  What happened to this PE 2 after you went down? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really, really annoyed me and Asgar as we tried to down this Pe-2

 

Quite interesting, these russian planes.

 

 

Edit: It is without sound, since all we did is screaming about the Laz0000r-gunners of the Pe-2.

 

And the PE has continued flying forever ..... lol

 

Even smoking, leaking, continues to fly...... :o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the PE has continued flying forever ..... lol

 

Even smoking, leaking, continues to fly...... :o:

I admit, that it took a lot of hits, but why would smoking and leaking make it drop out of the sky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the PE has continued flying forever ..... lol

 

Even smoking, leaking, continues to fly...... :o:

Are you using all HE? I think we've established pretty well those rounds are very inferior to AP...

 

Plus, I've had this happen to me in a 110 before, it's not just Russian planes.

 

Up until the very end, you never caused anything but fuel and coolant leaks. Any plane can get pretty far with that level of damage. You chased him a LONG WAY, so it's not surprising he made it back considering he would have already been close to home anyway and could have glided in without engines if he used the last of his engine time to get some altitude... which is also something that's very doable in a 110 with failed engines

I admit, that it took a lot of hits, but why would smoking and leaking make it drop out of the sky?

It wouldn't. That has to be caused by AP round induced structural failure, engine fire, or loss of elevator.

 

What the video definitely proves is HE needs to be looked at. A lot of puffs and no real damage to the ailerons or tail......... when he actually managed to hit it, of course

My advice besides work on gunnery? Just take AP. I've heard people say this before, but never gave much credit to it. These vids show they're right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this one shows is that your gunnery is like mine = poor.  What happened to this PE 2 after you went down? 

he finally went down after one of his engines died (credit to me, because i'm awesome like that :P )

 

My advice besides work on gunnery? Just take AP. I've heard people say this before, but never gave much credit to it. These vids show they're right

German planes don't have that luxery. you can't choose your ammo and only certain Russian planes have it. like La-5 with ammo mod.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German planes don't have that luxery. you can't choose your ammo and only certain Russian planes have it. like La-5 with ammo mod.

Aw that's rough.

 

I'm really tempted to demand they keep HE the same now because I already get shot down by Germans so much....

 

But I can't do that. The videos really do raise some concerns. I'll have to try some testing myself as well.

 

As far as AP, I can't really say that it looks TOO powerful. I think the lack of damage from the HE is much more pronounced than the effectiveness of AP

Does anyone happen to know of any real war gun cam footage that demonstrates HE and AP rounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the entire tail of a Pe-2 falling of because 3,7cm piece of metal punches a hole is a bit overdone. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is false. I get engine damage very quickly in any fighter on any bomber's six. 

Nobody said that if you shoot a bomber from its 6  dont make damage, we are saying that a russian fighter behind a H111 doesnt risk anything even if it comes slowly...

A german fighter often  is heavly damnaged when it arrives on the Pe2 to over 700km\h, in the few tenths of a second when it's in range of russian gunners.

 

 

 

And this too- just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen

I will wait confidently some videos that will confirm the existence of this miracle!

 

 

WoL stats tells me you fly 100% Axis for months now, averaging 75% fighters. I don't think you have the experience to back up these claims given you don't fly Russian fighters against German bombers.

Its true I fly exclusively with German aircraft, not for ideology (always good to say that), so I know very well what it means attack an Pe2 and what it means to be attacked by a russian fighter when you're on a H111.

The difference is embarrassing!

 

 

 

that is some ridiculous bull**** right there

Some ridicolous [Edited]  that unfortunately I see often when I play online!

 

S! and sorry for my bad English

 

Surely you can post without using profanity yes? 

Edited by Bearcat
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said that if you shoot a bomber from its 6  dont make damage, we are saying that a russian fighter behind a H111 doesnt risk anything even if it comes slowly...

A german fighter often  is heavly damnaged when it arrives on the Pe2 to over 700km\h, in the few tenths of a second when it's in range of russian gunners.

 

 

 

I will wait confidently some videos that will confirm the existence of this miracle!

 

 

Its true I fly exclusively with German aircraft, not for ideology (always good to say that), so I know very well what it means attack an Pe2 and what it means to be attacked by a russian fighter when you're on a H111.

The difference is embarrassing!

 

 

 

Some ridicolous bull**** that unfortunately I see often when I play online!

 

S! and sorry for my bad English

The majority of the time I get attacked by fighters, I lose my Pe-2 and the fighter gets home. Also the fighter always gets lots of hits before my gunner even touches them. The only time my gunners kill an enemy fighter is when I auto level the plane and hop in the gunner seat myself, and I still lose more Pe-2s than kill enemy fighters. Once I have enough examples, I'll try to make a video

 

You haven't flown any Russian planes. You haven't seen things from the other side. That's a heavy indicator that you'll have a biased opinion. The only cases people tend to remember well are the bad times and not the good. I bet if you go and really consider the statistics of it, you'll find that the two sides are a lot more even than you think.

 

My Pe-2 has shot down 4 fighters this month on WoL. Only one was from an AI gunner. The rest were human gunner and front gun kills. I've lost many more Pe-2s than that. I also have more AI gunner kills in the 110 and JU-88 than my Pe-2

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...