37mm damage

[oc2209]

Again, not sure if this is the damage output model of Russian guns (including the 37mm), or the damage intake model of the 109; but I still find this occasion riotously funny:

 

 

I've never seen a plane lose its canopy (without being immediately followed by a bailout). And, more to the point, how can a 37mm HE shell to the upper fuselage not kill the pilot or stop the engine, and yet still blow off the canopy? On a different sortie, I saw my shell directly hit a 109's engine from above, and it still didn't seize or flame.

 

I think I did eventually get credit for the above plane, though. I'm not complaining. My Russian career was lackluster, flying mostly the MiG-3 and a few sorties in the Yak-1; 37 kills in 23 sorties. After getting the Yak-9T, I scored 26 kills in 9 sorties; and that figure's a little deceptive, as I had one botched sortie where I had zero contact with the enemy, and I was screwed out of 2 confirmed (by me, that is) kills for whatever reason in another sortie.

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Again, not sure if this is the damage output model of Russian guns (including the 37mm), or the damage intake model of the 109; but I still find this occasion riotously funny:

 

 

I've never seen a plane lose its canopy (without being immediately followed by a bailout). And, more to the point, how can a 37mm HE shell to the upper fuselage not kill the pilot or stop the engine, and yet still blow off the canopy? On a different sortie, I saw my shell directly hit a 109's engine from above, and it still didn't seize or flame.

 

I think I did eventually get credit for the above plane, though. I'm not complaining. My Russian career was lackluster, flying mostly the MiG-3 and a few sorties in the Yak-1; 37 kills in 23 sorties. After getting the Yak-9T, I scored 26 kills in 9 sorties; and that figure's a little deceptive, as I had one botched sortie where I had zero contact with the enemy, and I was screwed out of 2 confirmed (by me, that is) kills for whatever reason in another sortie.

I really don't understand why the assumption is that a 37mm HE hit is a guaranteed destruction of an aircraft. Yes there's a chance but it's also possible for it not to be so two or three shots to a fighter or bomber seems reasonable. Russian pilots were trained to fire in short bursts (for a litany of reasons) including ensuring destruction of the targeted aircraft if the shells hit.

 

You may say, but Shamrock, the 37mm is a big shell traveling at a high velocity and carrying a lot of high explosive! And you'd be right. But that doesn't mean that every round is a guaranteed killer. Say the round hits but just grazes the aircraft and the fuse doesn't immediately go but goes off a fraction of a second later. Pressure and shrapnel damage sure and the aircraft could even be a mission kill but not destroyed. It might even still be in fighting shape although in real life few pilots would probably do that.

 

The 37mm is not a sniper shot, one hit kill. It's a sledgehammer meant to deal the maximum amount of damage possible. Double tap it.

 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Edited September 4, 2020 by ShamrockOneFive

[Cpt_Siddy]

9 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I really don't understand why the assumption is that a 37mm HE hit is a guaranteed destruction of an aircraft

 

 

 

the 30mm on the same spot is insta death in 99% of cases....

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

the 30mm on the same spot is insta death in 99% of cases....

 

I'd challenge the 99% assertion. I assume were talking about the MK108 cannon. I've seen MK108 hits cause a one hit kill and I've seen it require a few extra shots and with its 600 rpm fire rate it's easy to hit twice without even knowing you'd done it.

[SAS_Storebror]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I really don't understand why the assumption is that a 37mm HE hit is a guaranteed destruction of an aircraft.

Probably it's because two hits with a german 20mm HE bullet are.

Or three hits with a german 13mm HE bullet for the same effect.

 

It's quite interesting to see how on one hand, when people complain about lack of cal .50 effectivity vs seemingly - slightly? - over-effective 20mm guns, the standard reply is "see, HE is that effective and AP just isn't", and now when you see what weird (and ineffective) damage a massive round like that 37mm HE does, the reply is "see, HE isn't always that effective".

 

Can you guess how that feels to those who - rightfully? - raise such issues to the attention of others, hopefully including the devs?

 

Mike

[Avimimus]

On 9/2/2020 at 4:42 PM, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

It seems to me that the Yak-9 is a bit stiffer to control at higher speeds and the 9T is obviously more nose-heavy.  The 9's also seem to have a much better cooling system (both oil and water).

 

Now you've got me interested!

 

22 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

My personal preference is the Yak-9 because the elevator authority at higher speeds appears reduced.  This means smoother turns and more energy maintained.  At slower speeds it turns into a 1b.

 

So a light elevator isn't always good... at least when one doesn't actually have to pull on a real stick!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Now you've got me interested!

 

 

It looks like running the Yak 9s full-out on the throttle and RPM, it takes longer to overheat, even with heavy turning at low-to-medium speeds - which disrupts the optimal air flow-through of the radiator.  Obviously, straight and level at high speed is the best cooling effect.   

 

The only thing I've notice about the Yak 9s that I don't like is that (similar to the Yak 7) the engine seems to be tuned that once you get near supercharger stage 2 altitude, you will have to be more attentive to mixture settings because it smokes so much they enemy might assume you're already on fire!  ?

Below 1000m I'd take the 9s over the 1b any day though.  

8 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Probably it's because two hits with a german 20mm HE bullet are.

Or three hits with a german 13mm HE bullet for the same effect.

 

It's quite interesting to see how on one hand, when people complain about lack of cal .50 effectivity vs seemingly - slightly? - over-effective 20mm guns, the standard reply is "see, HE is that effective and AP just isn't", and now when you see what weird (and ineffective) damage a massive round like that 37mm HE does, the reply is "see, HE isn't always that effective".

 

Can you guess how that feels to those who - rightfully? - raise such issues to the attention of others, hopefully including the devs?

 

Mike

 

From what I can tell, the 37mm AP punches through everything so cleanly that it only leaves a 37mm hole - so getting it to punch engine blocks (even on troop trucks) is vital.

The 37mm AP seems to explode on contact so a lot of that shrapnel is on the outside of the surface instead of penetrating first, then exploding.  The actual explosion and shrapnel from the bullet might not actually be all that good at de-skinning a plane or damaging internal structure but, good for exploding ammo stores on the ground and injuring nearby troops.  I doesn't appear to me that the 37mm was actually intended to be an air-to-air gun.   

 

I don't know if it's modeled so that a 37mm can enter a previously-made damage hole in the skin and then explode inside the plane's structure when it hits something else but, it seems that might be a key to it's overall effectiveness.  

Edited September 4, 2020 by 69th_Mobile_BBQ

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, von_Tom said:

My personal preference is the Yak-9 because the elevator authority at higher speeds appears reduced.  This means smoother turns and more energy maintained.  At slower speeds it turns into a 1b.

 

I do notice the smooth turns in the 9T. It feels like it's harder to overcorrect in it, as opposed to the Yak-1. 

 

8 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I really don't understand why the assumption is that a 37mm HE hit is a guaranteed destruction of an aircraft. Yes there's a chance but it's also possible for it not to be so two or three shots to a fighter or bomber seems reasonable. Russian pilots were trained to fire in short bursts (for a litany of reasons) including ensuring destruction of the targeted aircraft if the shells hit.

 

The 37mm is not a sniper shot, one hit kill. It's a sledgehammer meant to deal the maximum amount of damage possible. Double tap it.

 

No, not 3. Not in a fighter. A bomber might take 3 hits. I seem to recall reading a B-17 could barely take 3-5 30mm hits, and those were among the toughest planes ever built. 

 

According to one of my Osprey books (Yakovlev Aces of WW2), the author says the following: "The NS-37 proved a powerful weapon, needing only two hits at most to destroy virtually any type of enemy aircraft." 

 

If any single-engine fighter could take multiple 37mm strikes, I would bet good money on the P-47, the Hellcat, or the Corsair. Maybe throw in the Fw-190 or the Tempest/Typhoon for honorable mention. But the 109? That was never known as a robust design; and as one of the smallest planes of the war, it should be extremely susceptible to shrapnel from a large explosive shell, as the blast radius is much more likely to strike a vital area than in a physically larger plane. The 190 was smallish, but better armored and more heavily constructed. If any WWII plane should be consistently downed from one 37mm hit, it's the 109. And probably the Yak and the Zero, in terms of light construction. 

 

Beyond that (as my screenshot indicates), my point wasn't about the number of shells, but the location of the strike. The shell exploded with enough force and proximity to knock the canopy clear off (which it wouldn't do if the tail or wing was hit instead), yet did no damage to the engine or pilot. I call that... kind of strange.

[ShamrockOneFive]

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I do notice the smooth turns in the 9T. It feels like it's harder to overcorrect in it, as opposed to the Yak-1. 

 

 

No, not 3. Not in a fighter. A bomber might take 3 hits. I seem to recall reading a B-17 could barely take 3-5 30mm hits, and those were among the toughest planes ever built. 

 

According to one of my Osprey books (Yakovlev Aces of WW2), the author says the following: "The NS-37 proved a powerful weapon, needing only two hits at most to destroy virtually any type of enemy aircraft." 

 

If any single-engine fighter could take multiple 37mm strikes, I would bet good money on the P-47, the Hellcat, or the Corsair. Maybe throw in the Fw-190 or the Tempest/Typhoon for honorable mention. But the 109? That was never known as a robust design; and as one of the smallest planes of the war, it should be extremely susceptible to shrapnel from a large explosive shell, as the blast radius is much more likely to strike a vital area than in a physically larger plane. The 190 was smallish, but better armored and more heavily constructed. If any WWII plane should be consistently downed from one 37mm hit, it's the 109. And probably the Yak and the Zero, in terms of light construction. 

 

Beyond that (as my screenshot indicates), my point wasn't about the number of shells, but the location of the strike. The shell exploded with enough force and proximity to knock the canopy clear off (which it wouldn't do if the tail or wing was hit instead), yet did no damage to the engine or pilot. I call that... kind of strange.

 

Good book! It's one of my favourite reads for sure.

 

Again, the 1-2 hits assumes that all shots connected properly and that the fuse for the explosive shell exploded at the right moment. You make a fair point that a hit on the cockpit *should* do plenty of catastrophic damage around it. And here's where the limitations of simulation can come into play and sometimes things just don't work quite correctly. There's an artifice to this experience that we have to accept.

 

It still works. And 1-shot kills are possible and even frequent but not always.

[Cpt_Siddy]

To be frank, the 109 is somewhat an outlier plane in IL-2 series.

 

I have a lots of TAW's on the red side under my belt, and i can say that from all type of enemy fighter, the 109 is somewhat indestructible if engaged from dead 6. 

It was like that long before 4.005 and has probably something to do with the size of the model and how damage is calculated.

For reference, the P-47 was far more fragile than 109 when it first appeared. If i had to guess, id say it has something to do how the fragmentation and hit boxes of plane are done. 

 

For some reason, attacks on 109 from dead six or close usually results in radiator leaks and detached flaps, but rarely anything worse unless you really are hammering him. 

I have fired good 3 second burst from Migs 20mm on 109 behind and worst that happened was detached flaps and leaks... Now, this might be due to myriad reason (multiplayer has lots of variables outside of the game), but this still highlights the trend. Even P-39's 37mm rarely if ever delivers lethal blows from dead 6 on 109 in my experience. You usually need a bit of deflection to get good results engaging 109. 

Only expedition, the AP 23mm and 20mm AP belt on La-5, that usually results in either pilot kill or engine fire (lol how???) if you fire 109 from dead 6. 

This said, i once had 109 lose its tail, when i shot it head on with 23mm AP... so go figure  

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

To be frank, the 109 is somewhat an outlier plane in IL-2 series.

 

I have a lots of TAW's on the red side under my belt, and i can say that from all type of enemy fighter, the 109 is somewhat indestructible if engaged from dead 6. 

It was like that long before 4.005 and has probably something to do with the size of the model and how damage is calculated.

For reference, the P-47 was far more fragile than 109 when it first appeared. If i had to guess, id say it has something to do how the fragmentation and hit boxes of plane are done. 

 

For some reason, attacks on 109 from dead six or close usually results in radiator leaks and detached flaps, but rarely anything worse unless you really are hammering him. 

I have fired good 3 second burst from Migs 20mm on 109 behind and worst that happened was detached flaps and leaks... Now, this might be due to myriad reason (multiplayer has lots of variables outside of the game), but this still highlights the trend. Even P-39's 37mm rarely if ever delivers lethal blows from dead 6 on 109 in my experience. You usually need a bit of deflection to get good results engaging 109. 

Only expedition, the AP 23mm and 20mm AP belt on La-5, that usually results in either pilot kill or engine fire (lol how???) if you fire 109 from dead 6. 

This said, i once had 109 lose its tail, when i shot it head on with 23mm AP... so go figure  

Since the last few updates, I'm getting mostly wing tip removal from a quick burst (aimed at the wing obviously, not the tail) from dead six.  This is with both the P40's 6x50cals and the Yak1b's cannon and machine gun (My current campaigns).  It's my go to for 109s since I discovered it accidentally with an out of convergence shot.  It seems to be the weak spot for the 109 at the moment.

[Cpt_Siddy]

8 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Since the last few updates, I'm getting mostly wing tip removal from a quick burst (aimed at the wing obviously, not the tail) from dead six.  This is with both the P40's 6x50cals and the Yak1b's cannon and machine gun (My current campaigns).  It's my go to for 109s since I discovered it accidentally with an out of convergence shot.  It seems to be the weak spot for the 109 at the moment.

 

Thanks, ill try it out, i am about done shooting at the 109 i sneak up from 6 in the tail or wing root area, as the shots tend to be eaten up by radiators, flaps and tail force field. 

 

 

[CountZero]

9 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

Since the last few updates, I'm getting mostly wing tip removal from a quick burst (aimed at the wing obviously, not the tail) from dead six.  This is with both the P40's 6x50cals and the Yak1b's cannon and machine gun (My current campaigns).  It's my go to for 109s since I discovered it accidentally with an out of convergence shot.  It seems to be the weak spot for the 109 at the moment.

Coming sone temporary fix to prevent 109 losing wingtips, we can't have toughest airplane in ww2 losing parts when hit by bullets

On 9/5/2020 at 12:03 AM, oc2209 said:

 

I do notice the smooth turns in the 9T. It feels like it's harder to overcorrect in it, as opposed to the Yak-1. 

 

 

No, not 3. Not in a fighter. A bomber might take 3 hits. I seem to recall reading a B-17 could barely take 3-5 30mm hits, and those were among the toughest planes ever built. 

 

According to one of my Osprey books (Yakovlev Aces of WW2), the author says the following: "The NS-37 proved a powerful weapon, needing only two hits at most to destroy virtually any type of enemy aircraft." 

 

If any single-engine fighter could take multiple 37mm strikes, I would bet good money on the P-47, the Hellcat, or the Corsair. Maybe throw in the Fw-190 or the Tempest/Typhoon for honorable mention. But the 109? That was never known as a robust design; and as one of the smallest planes of the war, it should be extremely susceptible to shrapnel from a large explosive shell, as the blast radius is much more likely to strike a vital area than in a physically larger plane. The 190 was smallish, but better armored and more heavily constructed. If any WWII plane should be consistently downed from one 37mm hit, it's the 109. And probably the Yak and the Zero, in terms of light construction. 

 

Beyond that (as my screenshot indicates), my point wasn't about the number of shells, but the location of the strike. The shell exploded with enough force and proximity to knock the canopy clear off (which it wouldn't do if the tail or wing was hit instead), yet did no damage to the engine or pilot. I call that... kind of strange.

When Yak-9T com out you could see replays i even posted some  with up to 5x37HE hiting 109s tails, so 3-5 30HE enought to get B-17, 3-5 37HE maybe get 109 ?

[oc2209]

19 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

And here's where the limitations of simulation can come into play and sometimes things just don't work quite correctly. There's an artifice to this experience that we have to accept.

 

It still works. And 1-shot kills are possible and even frequent but not always.

 

Right, and as I said, I'm really not complaining. My kills per sortie nearly doubled after starting the 9T. That said, I'm still not the death-dealing murder machine I am in a 109F-4, G-6, or K-4.

 

In terms of damage output inconsistencies, I'm starting to think the problem is on the 109's end, and not the Yak's 37mm. Besides what everyone else has said above, I'm also noticing clear differences in my Tempest career (which I just started in earnest last night).

 

In the same sortie, I sometimes encounter both 109G-14s and Fw-190A-8s. The latter prove far easier to down in one pass, than the former; and in any number of ways: exploding, killing the pilot, tail shredding, etc. The only way I safely drop the 109 is by mid-wing detachment.

 

If I had to guess just about my screenshot scenario, I'd say the 37mm struck the canopy directly. While I know each bullet/shrapnel isn't reflected 1:1 in the damage effects, you can see there are bigger holes in both the wing roots, and then the damage dissipates into little holes further out. So my guess is that the shrapnel radiated from the canopy area, but was somehow absorbed/negated by the canopy itself. That's how the pilot directly beneath it survived. In reality, I imagine a 37mm detonating anywhere near the cockpit would result in pilot soup.

 

Something I wish Sturmovik would add: catastrophic instrument panel damage. More than just a few cracked dials. I feel like the whole cockpit needs to be torn up much more easily, both for immersion, and the very real inconvenience of losing functionality because a switch or wheel or crank is blown to pieces.

 

11 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

I have a lots of TAW's on the red side under my belt, and i can say that from all type of enemy fighter, the 109 is somewhat indestructible if engaged from dead 6. 

It was like that long before 4.005 and has probably something to do with the size of the model and how damage is calculated.

For reference, the P-47 was far more fragile than 109 when it first appeared. If i had to guess, id say it has something to do how the fragmentation and hit boxes of plane are done. 

 

For some reason, attacks on 109 from dead six or close usually results in radiator leaks and detached flaps, but rarely anything worse unless you really are hammering him. 

I have fired good 3 second burst from Migs 20mm on 109 behind and worst that happened was detached flaps and leaks... Now, this might be due to myriad reason (multiplayer has lots of variables outside of the game), but this still highlights the trend.

 

Yeah, the hitbox theory makes sense. I'd say the 109's just as tough to take down in single player, so network issues can't be the only explanation.

[III/JG52_Al-Azraq]

On 9/4/2020 at 2:09 PM, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

the 30mm on the same spot is insta death in 99% of cases....

 

It is not insta-death in my experience, but a single 30 mm shot puts that plane out of the action 100% of the times with a very high chance that it won't make it back to base.

 

On the topic, I have been flying the Yak lately and it is a joy to fly. It is more powerful than I thought and climbs well. Also managing the engine is fun and I can see myself flying it a lot more from now on. I tried the Yak-9 and Yak-1b but I need to put more time into them to spot differences although with the current discount, it is totally worth to get both as the Yak-9 is not available in 1942 missions.

 

And well, the only downside is that the Yak doesn't carry a lot of ammo so I should change my shooting habits from the 109 and 190.

Edited September 9, 2020 by III/JG52_Al-Azraq

[HR_Tumu]

37mm dont work fine....  Expeacialy perforant.... enemy planes are empty and no suffer damage if no hit pilot.

DM is totally inconsistend... some times one hit in a wing ( explosive is enought) but many times one hit isnt enought... the best is  enemy lost some speed but still been well handable. , considering LW planes are bugged in  terms of damage recibed... u easy can need 3-4 shots for kill a bf  , foke, macci, etc, etc. 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by HRc_Tumu

[Noisemaker]

On 9/6/2020 at 2:37 AM, oc2209 said:

 

In reality, I imagine a 37mm detonating anywhere near the cockpit would result in pilot soup.

 

Something I wish Sturmovik would add: catastrophic instrument panel damage. More than just a few cracked dials. I feel like the whole cockpit needs to be torn up much more easily, both for immersion, and the very real inconvenience of losing functionality because a switch or wheel or crank is blown to pieces.

Something I wish IL-2 GB would add is pilot soup in the pilot killed airplanes.  That and our own blood on the canopy and damaged instrument panel when we get shot up..

[BlitzPig_EL]

That would mess with the rating system, causing some areas to limit sales, etc...

 

 

[Noisemaker]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

That would mess with the rating system, causing some areas to limit sales, etc...

 

 

Yeah, the loss of that 13-17 year old demographic would really hurt the bottom line...

[Fritz_X]

2 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

Yeah, the loss of that 13-17 year old demographic would really hurt the bottom line...

 

You might have a point, sort of. Yet I still feel like simply neglecting the younger audience, which sure is a minority, is quite unfair.

 

My first flight sim was Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 1. I was immediately hooked to the genre and switched over to IL-2 as soon it was released back in 2001. I was 14 at the time.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Fritz_X

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Yeah I have seen a canopy being torn appart from times to times.

 

In face, I have seen this more often than guns jamming or being damaged which is a total nonsense.

[BCI-Nazgul]

I have yet to see any German fighter survive two or more 37 mm HE hits.  One is usually enough.  The only problem with the Russian 37 mm is the ammo supply, but, of course, that is to be expected.

[oc2209]

On 9/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Noisemaker said:

Something I wish IL-2 GB would add is pilot soup in the pilot killed airplanes.  That and our own blood on the canopy and damaged instrument panel when we get shot up..

 

How not to do blood spatter effects:

I always use The Departed as the most idiotic example of blood spatter possible.

 

Seriously though, a little blood visible on the canopy or on the pilot himself, would be a good, useful, visual indicator of whether you should disengage your target. I have often seen a pilot slumped over, only to later find they revived and fly on normally.

[Otto_bann]

On 9/4/2020 at 2:14 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I'd challenge the 99% assertion. I assume were talking about the MK108 cannon. I've seen MK108 hits cause a one hit kill and I've seen it require a few extra shots and with its 600 rpm fire rate it's easy to hit twice without even knowing you'd done it.

I confirm, it's not so easy to limit at only 1 bullet when you pull the trigger of a Mk108

[JG7_X-Man]

On 9/4/2020 at 3:27 AM, oc2209 said:

...I've never seen a plane lose its canopy (without being immediately followed by a bailout).

 

LOL - In a couple of of TAWs ago (Winter Stalingrad), I was running back to base on the deck with a Spit V in tow. I opened my canopy at highspeed hoping for a jettison and believe it or not, it worked! Hitting the prop cone of the trailing Spit which immediately it went down. The pilot and I chatted for a bit about the last ditch effort and had a great chuckle about it. I lost the Tacview track in a reinstall regrettably.

 

Sometime we tend to complain about things the development team does wrong. Maybe we could take as much time to congratulate them on what they get right! 

Edited October 1, 2020 by JG7_X-Man