Jump to content
Sky_Angel-0-

Is the P51 made out from the panzer armor?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

Im not so sure, in this case it will be easy to increase durability for radial engines. (or there is just slider for each plane, but with increased durability of engine its also increased durability for each part of the plane).

 

Also after the first massive overhaul of planes durability (which was too much imho) they quickly reduced durability to something between them and I think it was too quick to take care of each planes separately.

 

 


If that was the case I'd be able to de-wing a P-38 as easily as a BF-110..when that isn't so

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


If that was the case I'd be able to de-wing a P-38 as easily as a BF-110..when that isn't so

 

 You do not dewing a P 38. You chop it in two

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who complain about planes being too durable and guns being weak are just crap shots don't @me and are swollen with confirmation bias

Everything in BoX is so ridiculously fragile that suddenly when your target doesn't die in a handful of hits it freaks everybody out

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But - the P-51 can quite often take multiple hits by 20mm and 13mm to engine and cooling system and fly much longer than 6 minutes. For example this Mustang was hit less than 1 minute into a QMB mission:

 

ALLIED_10.thumb.jpg.b4cceb5a77c22717862ed84472845d31.jpg

 

And landed after about 10-1/2 minutes with the engine still running:

 

ALLIED_11.thumb.jpg.3c2d40a7545e64bffa504a9fd937291d.jpg

 

One way is to compare German guns effectiveness against P-47 with their effectiveness against P-51. This is most readily apparent with wing root damage and engine durability.

 

ALLIED_7.thumb.jpg.180af1f99b644cc29eac700e9e7423a0.jpg

 

When people report (as many are) that P-51 is stronger than P-47 they are not joking.

 

The issue is a little bit with the ammo, but it's a whole lot with the individual aircraft damage models it seems.

 

My 1st thoughts fighting the P 51 regularly on Single Player one v one missions were...

 

" This thing is made of Indestructible-anium "

 

Combined cannons and 30mm rounds seem to cause appropriate damage, as would be expected. 

 

Single 20mm cannon plus MGs on the other hand, seem to cause very little damage at all and as others have said, it just flies on regardless, climbing, dog fighting etc.

 

Not scientific but based on countless hours shooting practice in a 109 G2/F4 with single cannon. The P 51 just stuck out as particularly hard to damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Im not saying that its a bad thing, but it feels weird when you can de-wing, de-tail other fighters so easily.

I really liked the previous damage model. I found it more rewarding getting a kill. Multiple kills, especially those ace in a day moments were exceptionally rare during WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can some of you all point me to where these UberPony's are? 

I mean, is "literally a bullet sponge" an option in the loadout because I've found that even glancing shots when they hit the center of the fuselage near the radiator or the engine is sufficient to effectively mission kill the Mustang and make me look at the map and question if I can make it back onto the allied lines 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I really liked the previous damage model. I found it more rewarding getting a kill. Multiple kills, especially those ace in a day moments were exceptionally rare during WWII.

Agreed. I think it was decent, and with a bit of fine tuning it would have been great. Problem is many players want the instant kill gratification that de-wing or pretty explosions give, they don't want to wait for pilots to bail out after a while or for the engine to quit on the way back to base.

People want instant gratification not realism.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed. I think it was decent, and with a bit of fine tuning it would have been great. Problem is many players want the instant kill gratification that de-wing or pretty explosions give, they don't want to wait for pilots to bail out after a while or for the engine to quit on the way back to base.

People want instant gratification not realism.

Yup, "AIR Quake"  disorder

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that there are 3 different damage models in game:

 

1. Normal

2. Everyone kills you instantly, but it takes forever for you to kill someone

3.You kill everyone instantly, but it takes forever for everyone to kill you.

 

By default, everyone is at #1. But the devs can activate #2 or #3 if they like you or not. It really has nothing to do with the fact that you need to practice (I know my aerial gunnery is unmatched, personally, so it must be the devs out to get me, and everyone else is cheating) So think twice before complaining on the forums next time.

 

Edited by GreenSound
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peen said:

People who complain about planes being too durable and guns being weak are just crap shots don't @me and are swollen with confirmation bias

Everything in BoX is so ridiculously fragile that suddenly when your target doesn't die in a handful of hits it freaks everybody out

Well said, unfourtunatly you are wasting your time responding/commenting. Some People complain so much about everything if it doesn't got their way, instead of just enjoying how superior of a ww2 sim this is. I'm just glad the developers tune alot of this crying out.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed. I think it was decent, and with a bit of fine tuning it would have been great. Problem is many players want the instant kill gratification that de-wing or pretty explosions give, they don't want to wait for pilots to bail out after a while or for the engine to quit on the way back to base.

People want instant gratification not realism.

In SP i dont think people would have much of a problem if the AI feared for its life ever. Seems the only option is to tangle with the AI until their out of ammo or wingoff. Otherwise shooting an aircraft until it leaks and engaging another target just means that you'll get shot to shit by it in a minute. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A complaint is neither whining nor immediately valid.  The commentary is that compared to other planes the P51 seems inordinately tough.  Some agree.  Others do not.  It might really be true.   It might be badd shooting.   

 

Go to QMB and take up a Dora against P51s, one at a time.  Set pilot to novice - you want an easy target.  Fly several times.  How many can you destroy before running out of ammo?

Do the same thing against a P47 and P38.  What are your results against these planes?

Record the QMBs as videos.

 

Now you might have a better idea as to whether the complaint is valid.  Statistics 101: a sample size of one is usually not statistically valid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

In SP i dont think people would have much of a problem if the AI feared for its life ever. Seems the only option is to tangle with the AI until their out of ammo or wingoff. Otherwise shooting an aircraft until it leaks and engaging another target just means that you'll get shot to shit by it in a minute. 

The question arises whether the AI routines changed ingame over time. I did all sp campaigns until BoBP and AI had routine that ordered it rtb if it had sufficient fuel/oil leaks. While flying Kuban in SP I was engaged many times by enemy that had leaked all over. In that case, rendering it inoperable at one moment is the only rational choice to make. From my perspective the DM was changed in a way that engine kills are far less frequent, both when I am hit and when I damaged other planes.

58 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Go to QMB and take up a Dora against P51s, one at a time.  Set pilot to novice - you want an easy target.  Fly several times.  How many can you destroy before running out of ammo?

Do the same thing against a P47 and P38.  What are your results against these planes?

Record the QMBs as videos.

Testing that with 2xMG151 + 2xMG131 is not a good choice because this combination should destroy bombers with relative ease and at a distance. Better set a single 15mm to 20mm with different ammobelts and see how plane reacts.

 

Mustang may have a durable airframe but the engine should react to any damage caused.

 

Radial engines as a whole ingame are not durable, even those that have armored engine. Take it on La5/FW190/P47 all those fail from machinegun fire be it HE or AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the usual bias at work. We all get it at some point or another: your target takes a ridiculous amount of hits before going down, and you end up focusing on that more than the time you set a plane on fire with a single golden BB.

 

Having flown the mustang, it doesn't feel any more resilient than my other ride, with the exception of the P-47 which has a ridiculously weak engine (I'm never managed to nurse a damaged engine back home in it). The P-38's elevator is also pretty weak, but it's a huge target so I don't know if that's realistic or not (it may be a function of how the game handles control surface damage).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not performing similar test to the one that was done long ago for German and Russian planes? Set up a private server, guy No.1 sits on a ramp in He-111 or Ju-88 gunner station, guy No.2 taxis in front of him, in chosen fighter. No.1 hits the engine or chosen structural area of No.2 with 20 mm or 7,92 mm, various angles, repeat multiple times. Then repeat for other fighter. Save tracks or record with TacView or whatever. Write a report and post it.

 

It won't answer all questions, but it wil narrow down conclusions.

Edited by Art-J
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 8:34 AM, RedKestrel said:

Honestly, its probably not that the 51 is too strong, but rather that the P-47 in game loses wings at the root VERY easily, as well as control surfaces etc. Its engine also seems pretty fragile, more fragile that in-line engines in game in my experience.

 

This is pretty much what's going on - and it involves many planes other P-47 only.

 

In the screen I posted with the P-47 having it's wing blown off - it was 20mm from a G-14...hit the wing root a few times and *poof* the P-47 wing comes off. P-47 engine is also less durable than P-51 engine.

Edited by CUJO_1970
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

This is pretty much what's going on - and it involves many planes other P-47 only.

 

In the screen I posted with the P-47 having it's wing blown off - it was 20mm from a G-14...hit the wing root a few times and *poof* the P-47 wing comes off. P-47 engine is also less durable than P-51 engine.

Yes, in general wings probably come off too easily in the sim, but it seems (key word, seems) that it happens more often in the P-47, especially considering how robust the aircraft was purported to be. 

We know the sim calculates forces on the wings when they've been damaged. So you can have a damaged wing and fly OK, but if you pull some G it tears off. My suspicion is that the P-47 is especially vulnerable to this because it is such a heavy aircraft that the sim calculates extremely high forces on a damaged wing that is about the same strength as on other planes, and assumes it just pops off under the high load. 

As for the engine, it may be that the sim models the engine as fragile because of its relatively more complex operation compared to some of the other sim's engines. The other radial engines in the sim don't seem particularly fragile, but then I don't find them all that much more durable than in-lines either.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

As for the engine, it may be that the sim models the engine as fragile because of its relatively more complex operation compared to some of the other sim's engines. The other radial engines in the sim don't seem particularly fragile, but then I don't find them all that much more durable than in-lines either.

 

Agreed. My impression matches yours, that there isn't much of a difference durability wise between inline water cooled and radial air cooled engines.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 12:15 PM, 77.CountZero said:

P-47 was tuff at start, then axis complained that it takes to many 30mm to blow it up so it was fixed, we already had axis complained about to good turning ability so tempest got fixed as it turned to good at low alt, and also hispanos are to good so that will get fixed, sone im sure,  and now P-51 needs to be fixed also to brake like glass, no panic guys it will be fixed sone and youll be able to blow up 51s same like 47s in no time.

So you are insinuating that the devs on purpose disregard historical data in order to balance the game so axis is favored? 
Dont know about you guys, but thats a pretty serious issue, and might need looking into further, what a shame... Obviously it not just you being sad that your favorite UFO's are getting fixed so they perform like they should, realistically? 
  As far as feelings go, i'v not found the mustang to be more durable than the 109 shooting at it, the P-38 is imo harder to bring down (makes sense that it is), unless you hit the elevator with  a 30mm, that usually ends the fight rather quick. 
   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 6:15 AM, 77.CountZero said:

P-47 was tuff at start, then axis complained that it takes to many 30mm to blow it up so it was fixed, we already had axis complained about to good turning ability so tempest got fixed as it turned to good at low alt, and also hispanos are to good so that will get fixed, sone im sure,  and now P-51 needs to be fixed also to brake like glass, no panic guys it will be fixed sone and youll be able to blow up 51s same like 47s in no time.

 

Meanwhile, Axis pilots will be able to fly like the are rodeo riding on a dying fish out of water while having an epileptic seizure whenever they get tailed and have no penalty.  I thought physiology update was supposed to fix this. 

On 11/19/2019 at 6:46 PM, Legioneod said:

Agreed. I think it was decent, and with a bit of fine tuning it would have been great. Problem is many players want the instant kill gratification that de-wing or pretty explosions give, they don't want to wait for pilots to bail out after a while or for the engine to quit on the way back to base.

People want instant gratification not realism.

 

If this is how it's supposed to be now, I've been ripped off.  Most of my targets still have to crawl off and die.  No insta-splode though I seem to get 1-shotted a lot.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 12:15 PM, 77.CountZero said:

P-47 was tuff at start, then axis complained that it takes to many 30mm to blow it up so it was fixed, we already had axis complained about to good turning ability so tempest got fixed as it turned to good at low alt, and also hispanos are to good so that will get fixed, sone im sure,  and now P-51 needs to be fixed also to brake like glass, no panic guys it will be fixed sone and youll be able to blow up 51s same like 47s in no time.

 

Exactly..... and seems this movie never ends.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll second observing the P-47 engine often dies after a surprisingly small number of rounds...
 

However, the 47 wing root is not continuous and each wing is connected by only two hinges, whereas the Mustang main spar runs all the way through.

 

Its easy to find photos of P-47s whose wings have folded up, even the CAF one... and there are many stories of damaged 47 engines running for long periods. So, perhaps the wing attachment was a relatively accurate but less-reported issue on the 47 (after all, most cases probably didn’t return to talk about it). And perhaps the engine damage model could be improved.

52923505-E738-4007-BDB5-289EF2115C7B.jpeg

6AF1806D-3807-4EB8-9375-52799AC8E1A3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kurtj said:

 

Its easy to find photos of P-47s whose wings have folded up,

 

Yeah...after a crash.

That's not the conversation however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched most available videos and pictures if P 47. I have yet to see a wing blow off.
I do not doubt that it happened. But some compare a two engined plane with this issue and that is deeply concerning. 
I am ot a engineer , but I read a lot of books and articles on designs of aircraft and why things is not that easy. Having engines on the wing is a totally different story than in the fuselage. 
I love the P 47. And it is obvious its damage model is too fragile both conserning wing and engine. 

Personally I like it as it is in P 51 , I fly 50/50 lw and allied in cb. Even with current dm my demise is imminent flying low with bombs in both P 51 and 47 it is just more believable in the p 51. I go down mostly in one piece. Not in bits like the P 47. It is kind of what I did not expect  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 12:23 AM, 357th_Dog said:

Can some of you all point me to where these UberPony's are?

 

I never saw one. A one second cannon burst and it is horsemeat sausage.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Yeah...after a crash.

That's not the conversation however.

My point is that while perhaps the engine modeling might be overly-fragile on a 47, we may be missing the nuance of the actual physics at play if we lump wing losses together with engine durability.

 

I find it potentially informative in the CAF 47 crash that the wing failed at the root while the landing gear strut did not. To me, this is strong evidence the P-47 wing root is not terribly robust relative to the rest of the airframe. The weakest link is what breaks...
 

Getting back to the 51, its spars run all the way through, so at least from a wing durability standpoint, it seems unlikely to lose a wing at the root. This of course does not have any bearing to engine durability.

131B5EA0-64A5-4BB3-A5F1-81965B55DDA8.jpeg

Edited by kurtj
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kurtj said:

My point is that while perhaps the engine modeling might be overly-fragile on a 47, we may be missing the nuance of the actual physics at play if we lump wing losses together with engine durability.

 

I agree.

 

2 minutes ago, kurtj said:

 

I find it potentially informative in the CAF 47 crash that the wing failed at the root while the landing gear strut did not. To me, this is strong evidence the P-47 wing root is not terribly robust relative to the rest of the airframe. The weakest link is what breaks...
 

 

 

 

Given the type of force, probable direction and the fact that it's a short, robust piece of metal being thrust into the wing itself, I don't find it that surprising on the surface...but then what do I know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kurtj said:

I’ll second observing the P-47 engine often dies after a surprisingly small number of rounds...
 

However, the 47 wing root is not continuous and each wing is connected by only two hinges, whereas the Mustang main spar runs all the way through.

 

Its easy to find photos of P-47s whose wings have folded up, even the CAF one... and there are many stories of damaged 47 engines running for long periods. So, perhaps the wing attachment was a relatively accurate but less-reported issue on the 47 (after all, most cases probably didn’t return to talk about it). And perhaps the engine damage model could be improved.

52923505-E738-4007-BDB5-289EF2115C7B.jpeg

6AF1806D-3807-4EB8-9375-52799AC8E1A3.jpeg

 

The forces being applied in a landing or crash are different from when flying in the air. The P-47 wing getting shot off in flight is a completely different issue from it coming off in a crash landing imo.

I'd expect the wing to come off in a crash or very hard landing (especially when fire is involved) but I don't expect it to be shot off at least not a common as it is in-game.

 

In the CAF P-47 crash, did the wing fail on landing or after?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have led off with this video, which has been in the back of my mind... look how small the bushings are that hold the P-47 wings on... not much larger than a .50 round! Far different than large spars that run through the fuselage. I can imagine AP 20 or 30mm would do some pretty decent work on something that small, and that's before wing loading and the aircraft weight (as mentioned before) is considered. I wonder if the simulation has uncovered a historical weakness that wasn't widely known due to survivorship bias... not a good chance of RTB after losing a wing :)

 


 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, kurtj said:

Perhaps I should have led off with this video, which has been in the back of my mind... look how small the bushings are that hold the P-47 wings on... not much larger than a .50 round! Far different than large spars that run through the fuselage. I can imagine AP 20 or 30mm would do some pretty decent work on something that small, and that's before wing loading and the aircraft weight (as mentioned before) is considered. I wonder if the simulation has uncovered a historical weakness that wasn't widely known due to survivorship bias... not a good chance of RTB after losing a wing :)

 


 

 

It's not a significant weakness. You have the hinges the bolts and the bushings, that's a significant piece of metal that you'd have to destroy in order to take the wing off plus you have four of them connecting the wing to the fuselage. Destroying only one wouldn't necessarily be enough to take the wing off and destroying all four would be unlikely.

 

Unless it's a direct or very close hit, it's unlikely that a 20 or 30mm would do enough damage to destroy or shear off the hinge and bolt. I've seen guncam of P47 getting hit near the wing root, no wing came off. I've also seen photos of a P-47 that got damaged by a 500lbs bomb, the wings didnt come off.

 

I think you're reading to much into the fact that it's not a solid spar, structurally it's just as strong and has to be in order to hold the weight of the P-47 and the forces exerted on it in-flight.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the CAF P-47 picture is a red herring. The wing broke as the result of an engine fire, not impact and not combat damage. 

 

 

I think the important factor to note is you generally do not see aircraft in gun camera footage loosing wings from cannon impacts. Almost all that you see is Fw-190 wing ammo exploding in European theatre footage and Japanese aircraft in the Pacific. I think all aircraft are loosing wings too readily.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, WW2 wing-root failures are the norm in IL2 when they should be the exception. It's the arcade-DM white elephant in the sim's room.

Edited by J3Hetzer
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying this is an irrelevant matter, but for sure it gets more fuss than it deserves. 

 

In any plane, no structural element is superfluous and thus, any single lucky bullet in the right place can cause a wing to separate.

 

Now, nobody expects the sim to model perfectly the structural elements of all craft, that would be crazy. The next best thing is (I am guessing) what they do: if a bullet hits more or less close to a certain place in the craft, there is a probability that it will cause certain damage types. Can we really expect it to be any different? 

 

So as in RL, if a bullet hits close to the wing roots, they may - just may - fall off. That's precise enough for me. Anything beyond that is a pointless discussion: in RL dewinging happened "x %" of the time (which we don't know cause the data is nonexistent) whereas 

in the game it happens "y %" of the time (which we really don't know either, only isolated reports by simmers who "kinda" feel it happens too often).

Edited by danielprates
  • 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...