Damage modelling reflections

[Bemused]

Caveats: Love the game, play daily, some but not huge experience, interested in thoughts and discussion and not causing an argument.

 

I saw this video today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yMT0H8qe9k&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm

 

If you look at the 110 G2 attack on the B17 from 7:15 onwards I was surprised by a couple of things, most notably how little damage seemed to be done to the engines.  That got me to thinking about recent discussions about damage modelling.  We have ongoing requests that 50 cals get buffed and I myself have wondered about the robustness of the P47 which doesn't seem to be able to take that much more damage (if any at all) compared to other, smaller framed fighters.  On the whole people seem to want a lower "time to kill".  

 

So I would be interested in people's thoughts on this - we want an enjoyable game so that we are not flying hours to try to find some contact.  People enjoy shooting planes down.  Has this resulted in planes that are less robust than their historical counterparts?  Again, interested in understanding and I'm not calling for anything to be changed.

 

Thanks in advance to all who contribute thoughts in a considered manner.

[[DBS]Browning]

Whatever the damage model is like, it will always be possible to argue that things should be more or less tough because there is no objective data that we can reference to tell us how much damage every weapon in every scenario will do and how the airframe and components will react to that damage.

Instead, we must mostly use best guesses and subjective sources.

 

Because of this, I think "Is the damage model accurate?" is a poor question as it can never be sufficiently answered.

A better question might be "Is the damage model plausible?". I'd say it is, although I'd always welcome changes and tweaks.

Edited November 19, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[Bemused]

I agree Browning that evaluating "accuracy" in the damage modelling is likely hard to address.  Plausibility seems a good question to consider and in so doing, to recognise that some hits can be critical, hitting a pilot, setting a fire etc.  This also has to put in the context that this is a game and I am not sure that we want things to be overly "realistic".  I just rarely see or experience anything like I referenced in the gun cam footage - I think those kinds of hits from 110 cannons would result in lots of streaming, engine smoking and fires.  Could be a limitation of the camera footage?

[unreasonable]

Just now, Bemused said:

People enjoy shooting planes down.  Has this resulted in planes that are less robust than their historical counterparts? 

 

As I massive generalisation, I suspect that this is correct, due to incentives that you identify. Certainly if you look at the history of DM threads the number claiming that damage is too high is very small compared to those claiming that my [insert gun/ammo here] is nerfed. The developers need to sell an appealing game: there are people who complain that there is any random element at all: if they are in the right firing position they think that they have "won". The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

This is not helped by the fact that weapons in general are OP because they do not jam from Gs or low temperature, fuses always work etc.  It is very difficult, however, to identify specific cases where planes are less or more robust due to the lack of systematic contemporary tests. Even the documents we do have, have only limited application: specific test set ups, target types etc. Meanwhile we have many pilot accounts, but it impossible to account for selection bias.

 

So with rare exceptions the DM has to be based on fairly impressionistic rules of thumb. Overall I think it does a pretty good job, but it is (will always be?) a WIP. Where people can identify a specific element that needs tweaking the developers may get to it eventually.

 

Remember also that the guncams you link were of late war USAF bombers that did have fairly good protection for engines: also that our player base probably shoots much better in the game than the average wartime pilot in reality.

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by unreasonable

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I would like to see systems damage model and it's consequences to particular plane,  I mean hydraulic,  pneumatic and electrical damage model. Some planes would be more fragile than others since there could be one pump for variety of systems in one and other could have backups or different mechanism responsible for  particular function. 

[RedKestrel]

59 minutes ago, Bemused said:

Caveats: Love the game, play daily, some but not huge experience, interested in thoughts and discussion and not causing an argument.

 

I saw this video today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yMT0H8qe9k&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm

 

If you look at the 110 G2 attack on the B17 from 7:15 onwards I was surprised by a couple of things, most notably how little damage seemed to be done to the engines.  That got me to thinking about recent discussions about damage modelling.  We have ongoing requests that 50 cals get buffed and I myself have wondered about the robustness of the P47 which doesn't seem to be able to take that much more damage (if any at all) compared to other, smaller framed fighters.  On the whole people seem to want a lower "time to kill".  

 

So I would be interested in people's thoughts on this - we want an enjoyable game so that we are not flying hours to try to find some contact.  People enjoy shooting planes down.  Has this resulted in planes that are less robust than their historical counterparts?  Again, interested in understanding and I'm not calling for anything to be changed.

 

Thanks in advance to all who contribute thoughts in a considered manner.

 

Watching that video, it looks like a lot of the rounds are hitting from dead six o'clock on the trailing edge of the wing or the tail. I didn't see any direct hits to the engines themselves. The two inboard engines which appear to be hit also contain the landing gear and housing, which would likely absorb quite a bit of damage and protect the engines somewhat depending on the shot angle. Given the non-response of the tail turret during the attack its likely that the attack itself disabled the turret or killed the gunner early on. 

It really shows how dead six attacks aren't all that advisable from a damage point of view. Most of the vital areas of the plane are behind a lot of aircraft structure - and on a big plane like a B-17, you need to damage the structure quite a lot before catastrophic failure. Not like the fighters we have, which are much smaller, even the Jug.

As for the P-47, I fly it a LOT, and when I fly smaller planes like the Spitfires I definitely feel more vulnerable. I often shake off enemy fighters and limp home in the Jug - but if I take significant hits in the Spitfire I'm done for. But the P-47 is not going to be an order of magnitude more durable, and in most fights where you take any more than just incidental hits, airframe durability is going to be moot. It's made of the same stuff of other fighters, its still a thin duralumin skin wrapped around a skeleton that is only as heavy as it needs to be, with a bunch of flammable and explosive materials packed into it. 

 

 

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I would like to see systems damage model and it's consequences to particular plane,  I mean hydraulic,  pneumatic and electrical damage model. Some planes would be more fragile than others since there could be one pump for variety of systems in one and other could have backups or different mechanism responsible for  particular function. 

I'd love to see this as well but unless systems actually have their own hitboxes we're not gonna get very realistic results imo. As long as it's up to some form of rng then we won't have realistic results, believable maybe but not realistic.

 

I still think Il2 has the best DM in the flight sim world but I want to see it improved even if it means more demands for my pc.

We need hitboxes for the systems like Main spars, oil system, coolant system, fuel, control rods, cylinders, crankcase, hydraulics, electrical, landing gear, supercharger, turbo, etc. All these systems need their own hitboxes to get realistic results. Leaving it up to rng just doesn't cut it imo even if it looks ok.

If DCS can do it then Il2 can certainly do it.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I'd love to see this as well but unless systems actually have their own hitboxes we're not gonna get very realistic results imo. As long as it's up to some form of rng then we won't have realistic results, believable maybe but not realistic.

 

I still think Il2 has the best DM in the flight sim world but I want to see it improved even if it means more demands for my pc.

We need hitboxes for the systems like Main spars, oil system, coolant system, fuel, control rods, cylinders, crankcase, hydraulics, electrical, landing gear, supercharger, turbo, etc. All these systems need their own hitboxes to get realistic results. Leaving it up to rng just doesn't cut it imo even if it looks ok.

If DCS can do it then Il2 can certainly do it.

Definitely rng is not as good as separate objects with hitboxes , the result of rng used in FC for wings spars/tensions cables and control surfaces was recivied as step back not evolution unfortunately.  Second issue is the visual damage which have only 3 types of skins. You could have broken spar but see only holes in the wing.  Not easy for developers , I appreciate what they did working with technical restrictions and computing limits. 

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Bemused said:

So I would be interested in people's thoughts on this - we want an enjoyable game so that we are not flying hours to try to find some contact.  People enjoy shooting planes down.  Has this resulted in planes that are less robust than their historical counterparts?  Again, interested in understanding and I'm not calling for anything to be changed.

 

Thanks in advance to all who contribute thoughts in a considered manner.

 

Wanted to address this part of it.  My feeling is no, this is not the case.  In terms of how many bullets/shells it takes to bring down a plane I don't think the DM is weak at all.

 

Here's what I do think: the average sim pilot gets a heck of a lot more shells on target than a real pilot did.  There are probably 50 reasons why this is true but I do believe it to be true.

1. The sim planes are more stable than their real life counterparts.  Less turbulence and other physics happening than real life.  It's just easier to hit the right mass of pixels in the game than it was to hit an actual moving airplane from another moving airplane.

2. We have hundreds and hundreds of hours of experience with over half a century of analysis on how to do this right.  The real guys had tens of hours and were learning as they went.

3. We are more aggressive because we have a refly button, something not available to real WWII pilots.

 

Those are some thoughts.  

[Legioneod]

27 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Definitely rng is not as good as separate objects with hitboxes , the result of rng used in FC for wings spars/tensions cables and control surfaces was recivied as step back not evolution unfortunately.  Second issue is the visual damage which have only 3 types of skins. You could have broken spar but see only holes in the wing.  Not easy for developers , I appreciate what they did working with technical restrictions and computing limits. 

Agreed, I think they have done great work with the DM and it is far better now then what it once was. I just hope they keep improving on it in the future and hope they take the step to using hitboxes for most if not all systems one day. The visual damage model isn't something I'm overly concerned with but any improvement in this area is welcome.

 

Either way, devs are doing a great job.

[kendo]

10 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Agreed, I think they have done great work with the DM and it is far better now then what it once was. I just hope they keep improving on it in the future and hope they take the step to using hitboxes for most if not all systems one day. The visual damage model isn't something I'm overly concerned with but any improvement in this area is welcome.

 

Either way, devs are doing a great job.

 

I believe they said that the big 4.005 DM revision was only to address the airframe/structural side.

 

They said they will revamp the engines DM more fully later (though some 'stop-gap' improvements were made for this in 4.005 too - distinguishing more between inlines and radials I believe).

 

When the new fuel management system is finished there will be a rework of DM for that aspect - self-sealing tanks, etc, etc. They also mentioned about hydraulic system DM improvements too.

 

Work on these aspects may already have been started behind the scenes? Who knows. But they are in the plans.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

I believe they said that the big 4.005 DM revision was only to address the airframe/structural side.

 

They said they will revamp the engines DM more fully later (though some 'stop-gap' improvements were made for this in 4.005 too - distinguishing more between inlines and radials I believe).

 

When the new fuel management system is finished there will be a rework of DM for that aspect - self-sealing tanks, etc, etc. They also mentioned about hydraulic system DM improvements too.

 

Work on these aspects may already have been started behind the scenes? Who knows. But they are in the plans.

 

They didn't had the plan to  work on engine damage but eventually did during airframe and  structure damage work,  so I would not wait for additional  work spent on engine damage. 

With coming fuel systems and fuel tanks  work they might add incendiary ammo type. Didn't heard about work on hydraulic systems in that time. 

[kendo]

42 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

They didn't had the plan to  work on engine damage but eventually did during airframe and  structure damage work,  so I would not wait for additional  work spent on engine damage. 

With coming fuel systems and fuel tanks  work they might add incendiary ammo type. Didn't heard about work on hydraulic systems in that time. 

 

 

AnPetrovich said a lot about the DM revisions in DD243, a few weeks before 4.005 was released:

 

Quote

For sure, making such a large-scale work to improve the DM of an airframe, it was reasonable to take a look at the other areas of the DM. Firstly, we slightly changed the settings of the combat damages of an engine from various projectiles. This was only a preliminary step, and I think that in the near future we will conduct an equally thorough review of the DM for engines and various aircraft systems: control systems, fuel systems, onboard weapons, etc.

 

Updated control system DM came through after that. And reading back over the 4.005 release notes there was already a lot of work done in it on fuels systems damage too, with notes of more detail and revisions when the fuel system update comes through.

 

And don't remember where I read it (may have been a comment by Jason to a question? ), but there was talk of future hydraulics DM work being able to depict the dropping down of landing gear after damage.  

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

 

AnPetrovich said a lot about the DM revisions in DD243, a few weeks before 4.005 was released

Yes before but not after, and he decided to do this work earlier than he though before.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Wanted to address this part of it.  My feeling is no, this is not the case.  In terms of how many bullets/shells it takes to bring down a plane I don't think the DM is weak at all.

 

Here's what I do think: the average sim pilot gets a heck of a lot more shells on target than a real pilot did.  There are probably 50 reasons why this is true but I do believe it to be true.

1. The sim planes are more stable than their real life counterparts.  Less turbulence and other physics happening than real life.  It's just easier to hit the right mass of pixels in the game than it was to hit an actual moving airplane from another moving airplane.

2. We have hundreds and hundreds of hours of experience with over half a century of analysis on how to do this right.  The real guys had tens of hours and were learning as they went.

3. We are more aggressive because we have a refly button, something not available to real WWII pilots.

 

Those are some thoughts.  

 

Regarding the OP, first of all:

 

Thanks for the link. As RedKestrel said, I'm not seeing a lot of hits on the engines themselves. I agree with you, though: at face value, it looks like at least two of those B-17's engines should be burning. But the bright flashes indicating strikes were more likely everywhere but the engines themselves. Even if only a few inches off, this was the reason 20mm were eventually considered inadequate against heavy American bombers. The shrapnel/explosive charge just wasn't enough without direct hits.

 

It's also worth mentioning that B-17s were insanely tough. Probably the toughest plane of any nation. So comparing its survivability to general aircraft survivability is not the best metric.

 

Secondly, regarding the post I quoted:

 

I largely agree with this assessment. You can see the effects of turbulence on a lot of the other guncam footage in the same video; you can also see how the pilots (especially in the 109 that took a few long potshots before evading) are responding to defensive fire that we can't see because of the bad film quality. So between turbulence and fear of getting shot, and the massive adrenaline surge going on at that moment (that we lack in real life, obviously), aiming will suffer.

 

The Bf-110 segment in particular was interesting because the tail and ventral (ball) gunner were clearly dead or injured. The pilot had no (evident) fear, and could quite literally park behind the B-17. The Bf-110's inherent stability as a gun platform was also on display; it seemed less affected by turbulence than single engine planes. With all those things in the pilot's favor, you would assume the B-17 should be a smoking ruin.

 

The only clear explanation for me, for that particular incident, is the inadequacy of the 20mm shell against a behemoth like the B-17. Only the 30mm allowed pilots to just spray and pray with a decent chance at success. And by the time the Germans were fielding large amounts of 30mm on their planes, the war was kinda over.

 

If you really want to analyze it in detail, think about it: throughout 1943, the Luftwaffe was still able to inflict pretty decent (but not quite catastrophic) damage on US bombers. Despite not having 30mm guns as a regular armament on most of their planes. Why? Most likely for two reasons: the Germans still had decent pilots left, and the bombers still didn't have full escort coverage. Meaning the Germans could take their time picking formations apart.

 

Fast forward to early '44. Coverage had been perfected, German pilot quality had decreased. Meaning opportunities to make passes through bomber formations are dramatically cut. Any chances the Germans did have probably amounted to only one or two passes before being chased off by fighters. So a low-quality pilot given only a few seconds to fire at a tank like a B-17... probability for survival was 100% on the Allies' side here. This is why 30mm upgrades were necessary across the board. But they came too late to matter, much like virtually everything the Germans did in response to ~1000-bomber raids around the clock.

 

If the Luftwaffe had 30mm guns on all its bomber interceptors from early '43 on, I'm guessing they could have bled the bomber offensive white. Temporarily, of course.

[the_emperor]

16 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The only clear explanation for me, for that particular incident, is the inadequacy of the 20mm shell against a behemoth like the B-17.

 

Another one could be, that we dont see any high explosive mineshells (mineshells dont have tracers) but solely Incendiary/AP rounds, as we dont know the load out of the 110 since there was never a standard loadout for german fighter aircraft, only recommendations since it was mainly dictated by supply and what was available.

 

30 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

. With all those things in the pilot's favor, you would assume the B-17 should be a smoking ruin.

the outer left engine seems to be on fire at the  end, and wheel hydraulics seem to fail, dropping the landing gear. the Outer right engine is about to quit and the midsection is leaking and smoking quite heavy at the end, and the tailsection also seems to have endured some structural damage...but you are absulitely right, amazing tough that B-17 still beeing able to fly after all that hammering.

 

22 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The Bf-110 segment in particular was interesting because the tail and ventral (ball) gunner were clearly dead or injured.

in the start of the sequence they seem to fire and after that beeing not able to operate their stations any longer....quite dramatic

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

If the Luftwaffe had 30mm guns on all its bomber interceptors from early '43 on, I'm guessing they could have bled the bomber offensive white. Temporarily, of course.

 

They did.  Americans curtailed deep penetration bombing raids for awhile as the losses were unsustainable.  The Germans knew exactly where the Spits and Thunderbolts had to turn back and simply waited for them to do so.  As you point out, this was with 1943 armament.  With 1944 armament like the 30mm and R4M rockets it would have been a bloodbath.

 

Everything that we do, however, is against much smaller targets than a B-17.  it seems to correspond well enough to gun camera footage that I have seen.

 

I watched the same film.  I noticed that the attacking LW pilots did not press the attack as one might expect and really didn't seem to accomplish much.  The 110 pilot was the exception.  He absolutely closed to point blank and seemed close to a collision.  

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I noticed that the attacking LW pilots did not press the attack as one might expect and really didn't seem to accomplish much.

 

I think this can be attributed to several factors; but the biggest would be that, for the Luftwaffe, the war simply wasn't psychologically sustainable anymore. 

 

The Germans had been fighting non-stop from '40 on (more intensely than '39, which is why I cut those months off). Psychological and physical burnout would really be setting in by '43. Contrast with the Americans, who were fresh as daisies (in the ETO) in the critical year of '43. By '44 any loss of freshness and enthusiasm was easily made up by the fact the war was plainly won, and just a matter of finishing off a mortally stricken enemy. The Germans were in the opposite situation of not only being exhausted, but becoming increasingly aware of fighting for a lost cause with decreasing material efficacy.

 

That, in a nutshell, can pretty easily explain why American elan by late '43 and early '44 was almost identical to that of the Luftwaffe's in '40 and '41. The average (poorly trained, post '43) German pilot likely considered their duty done by taking a few shots at a bomber formation and breaking away. No one could realistically blame them, of course. Except for, you know, Göring.

 

When you see or hear about ~800 enemy bombers with ~600 escort fighters, and you take off to attack that giant deathblob in the sky with a few groups of maybe 30 planes each, half of whom are raw, worthless pilots... does it really make sense to fight to the bitter end under such absurd circumstances?

 

German aggression might've returned if they had been able to routinely attack bomber streams in organized waves of at least 500 total planes. That's about what it would've taken to not only shatter the American bomber offensive, but to much more importantly dissuade them from future air offensives. Buying a couple weeks or months of relief wouldn't be enough. It'd have to be the same level of catastrophe that compelled the British to largely abandon daylight bombing.

 

In which case the Americans would just switch to night bombing too, and overwhelm the wholly inadequate German night fighter force even more than the British did. In the end, it all washes out pretty much the same.

[Cpt_Siddy]

Its not that the 20mms are over performing its that the 109 is way too damage resistant at the moment. 

[Legioneod]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

They did.  Americans curtailed deep penetration bombing raids for awhile as the losses were unsustainable.  The Germans knew exactly where the Spits and Thunderbolts had to turn back and simply waited for them to do so.  As you point out, this was with 1943 armament.  With 1944 armament like the 30mm and R4M rockets it would have been a bloodbath.

It's interesting that the bombers could have had better protection if the AAF would have given the thunderbolts drop tanks earlier (which they had already developed but never supplied until later for some reason) lot of lost life that maybe could have been prevented to some small degree.

 

Greg goes into detail about it, lot of stuff I found pretty interesting.

 

[Voidhunger]

18 hours ago, kendo said:

And don't remember where I read it (may have been a comment by Jason to a question? ), but there was talk of future hydraulics DM work being able to depict the dropping down of landing gear after damage.  

I dont think so, maybe i missed it , but i remember one answer from Han long long long ago, that is maybe possible to model that feature.

[unreasonable]

Just now, Legioneod said:

It's interesting that the bombers could have had better protection if the AAF would have given the thunderbolts drop tanks earlier (which they had already developed but never supplied until later for some reason) lot of lost life that maybe could have been prevented to some small degree.

 

Greg goes into detail about it, lot of stuff I found pretty interesting.

 

 

The USAAF strategic bombing advocates were suffering from theory blindness: having decided theoretically that their large formations of well armed heavy bombers did not need escorts, which they needed to assume in order to get the funding for large formations of well armed heavy bombers, they refused to accept anyone else's data that suggested that they were wrong, and only changed their mind when the truth had been rubbed in their faces in the form of catastrophic losses.

 

But back on topic:  there are two ways in which one can approach the DM:

 

1) Game impact: is it fun? Is it balanced? Is it immersive? Does it help or hinder "my side", if I have one?  These are predominantly subjective assessments, but every individual can access their answer directly.

 

2) Realism: does what happens when a large sample of munition X hits component Y in the game, match what happened in reality?   This is objective, but exceedingly difficult to determine in practise.

 

Then there is an entirely legitimate conversation about whether the DM should seek to satisfy some consumer weighted version of (1), or go for (2). Or pretend to go for (2) while actually going for (1).    

[Mollotin]

 

I feel like the current damage model is reasonable and ok.

 

I would like to point out if we saw this happening in game, a lot of people would say that the skyraider should not have been able to land safely with half of a wing missing. I know i would lol.  

 

About .50 cals and their damage. Now imagine u fire 500 rounds of .50s to enemy wings and cause similar damage as seen on the video. Most would assume that there is no way that the fighter is still controllable.

 

Maybe this is more related to FM but i feel like it fits this DM discussion too.

 

edit: every gun missing icendiary rounds of course affects the damage they currently are capable in game. Currently some guns might suffer more from this than other guns.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Mollotin

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

1) Game impact: is it fun? Is it balanced? Is it immersive? Does it help or hinder "my side", if I have one?  These are predominantly subjective assessments, but every individual can access their answer directly.

 

2) Realism: does what happens when a large sample of munition X hits component Y in the game, match what happened in reality?   This is objective, but exceedingly difficult to determine in practise.

 

I'd say the overall BoX experience is a balance of the two.

 

The chief quality of the damage model, in my opinion, is that it's highly variable. Some people might see that as a negative. I see it as a positive, in that variability is inherently realistic.

 

In other words, every time a certain situation occurs (like being shot in a certain area with a certain number of shells/bullets), the result shouldn't always be the same. There are times when I can shoot down a plane with 20 rounds, and there are times when I waste hundreds. There are times when 5 or so 20mm rounds to a target's wing will send it into a death spiral. There are times when 20 or so 13mm rounds will do the same. And there are other times when the enemy survives those hits and retains mobility. I consider that disparity broadly realistic.

 

Something else worth remembering is that how a plane's damage appears doesn't necessarily match how its damage is affecting its flight model. This is from last night:

 

 

I hit this Fw with 2 explosive 37mm rounds from the Yak 9T. One strike was squarely in the middle of the left wing; the other appeared to be in the lower right fuselage behind the cockpit. I'm not getting into a whine-fest about the 37mm's lethality here; I'm only pointing out something for the purpose of this discussion. In reality, I'm guessing a 37mm HE round would leave one large hole in the wing, and not the scattershot effect visible here. But the game doesn't model giant holes specific to what a 37mm would do. Consequently, it's hard to judge just how much this Fw's flight model should be impaired by the 37mm hits.

 

By the way, it took a 3rd strike to set Mr. Fw on fire. Sometimes a single 37mm to the wing will blow it clean off. So, variability. Maybe it's realistic, maybe not. My verdict is, it's 'close enough.' In reality, things like the following could happen (if memory serves, a Japanese George with 4 20mm did this, and the Corsair landed with this damage):

 

 

Again, American planes should not be judged as a standard for overall survivability. Their adamantium airframes are reinforced with 'can-do-attitudium'.

[Yogiflight]

27 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

In reality, I'm guessing a 37mm HE round would leave one large hole in the wing, and not the scattershot effect visible here.

Depends on how the fuse works. If the round explodes after it already left the wing, the picture might be quite similar to what the 190 in your pic looks. I am not an expert, but from what I read here in the forums, it seems the german mine shells exploded immediately after hitting, while allied high explosives took a bit longer.

[357th_KW]

This is slightly off-topic, but the idea that the 8th AF was trying to operate without fighter support to fulfill some particular theory or doctrine, or suppressing drop tank usage is complete nonsense.  Per Roger Freeman (probably the preeminent 8th AF historian) 8th Fighter Command started working on getting drop tanks in October of 1942, which was before they even had their first P-47 in service.  They obtained 200 gallon ferry tanks from Republic and started using them in July of 1943 (before the first Schweinfurt raid), but these conformal ferry tanks had a lot of problems (leaks, lack of pressurization, poor durability, problematic release) and only slightly extended the range of the P-47.  They used 75 gallon P-39/P-40 tanks starting in August 1943, but could only use one on the belly as the early P-47 had no provisions for carrying anything under the wings.  They had a 100 gallon steel tank (which was about the max size for a round belly tank on a P-47 due to ground clearance) locally sourced that became available in September 1943, but due to shortages of steel in the UK, these couldn’t be produced in large numbers.  Eventually by late 43/early 44 the pressed paper 108 gallon tanks were developed, and wing pylons and plumbing were retrofitted.  In summer and fall of 1944 “flat” belly tanks of 150 and 200 gallons respectively were made available.

 

The 5th Air Force in New Guinea (who had no focus on strategic bombing) had the exact same issue with their P-47s - not enough range to carry out the necessary missions, and no supply of drop tanks to fix the issue.  They arrived at a similar solution to the 8th AF, having a “flat” belly tank built locally in Australia.

 

There was no magical 200 gallon tank available in 1942/43 that worked properly, as Greg claims in that video.  And while you could certainly argue that the 8th shouldn’t have tried any deep penetration raids without adequate fighter cover, only a handful were actually conducted after the German defenses started stiffening up in mid 1943:  Schweinfurt once in August 43 and again in October 43, and Stuttgart in September 43.  The 8th’s first P-38 escorts (which they had been trying to get since mid 43 when it was already apparent that P-47s weren’t going to have adequate range for their needs anytime soon) became active a week after the second Schweinfurt raid.

 

TLDR, the 8th was trying to find ways to extend the range of their P-47s before they even had them but technical and supply issues made it a long process to get a significant increase in range, and they added longer range fighters within 2 months of their first really heavy losses over Schweinfurt.

 

 

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Depends on how the fuse works. If the round explodes after it already left the wing, the picture might be quite similar to what the 190 in your pic looks. I am not an expert, but from what I read here in the forums, it seems the german mine shells exploded immediately after hitting, while allied high explosives took a bit longer.

 

That's very reasonable, yes. But nevertheless, the game currently doesn't model massive holes/tears like in the Corsair picture. So it's difficult to tell what's going on by visuals alone.

 

16 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Its not that the 20mms are over performing its that the 109 is way too damage resistant at the moment. 

 

If the 109 itself won't drop, the pilot's still squishy enough:

 

 

Later on I'll try to see how few bullets it will take to kill a 109's pilot using the P-38. I've got the Yak-9 down to a science. Granted, lousy AI pilots aren't human pilots, but still. A G6 (pictured here) can't do much to escape a Yak-9 at low level. Maybe a zoom climb or a climbing turn. But there's always that window of vulnerability before it's out of effective range.

 

Edit: The P-38 and P-51(!) both fail to catch the 109 G6 (not Late version) in a climbing turn. At least when I'm piloting the former. In the Yak-9, it's easy to latch on to its tail before it's far away, which then forces to AI to break the turn and begin slow-speed jinks. That's how I reliably kill the pilot. It's harder to catch the 109 in the 9T, but easier to shoot down the 109 from afar, for obvious reasons. The Spitfire IX and Tempest catch it easily, the latter extremely so: I blew both wings off the 109 with a ~60 round burst while turning. Anywho, off-topic now, shutting up.

Edited November 20, 2020 by oc2209

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

This is slightly off-topic, but the idea that the 8th AF was trying to operate without fighter support to fulfill some particular theory or doctrine, or suppressing drop tank usage is complete nonsense.  

 

Lucky that no-one has posted either of those ideas, then. What is true, is that the early long range raids without escorts were carried out in accordance with USAAF doctrine. These raids stopped because they suffered totally unsustainable levels of losses.  The USAAF learned the hard way that giving priority to enlarging and enhancing the escort capabilities was absolutely essential, rather than merely desirable. There is nothing remotely controversial about this.

 

Easy to read summary from "Air Force Magazine" by  https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/19-141-The-Tactical-School.pdf 

 

 

 

 

[357th_KW]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Lucky that no-one has posted either of those ideas, then. What is true, is that the early long range raids without escorts were carried out in accordance with USAAF doctrine. These raids stopped because they suffered totally unsustainable levels of losses.  The USAAF learned the hard way that giving priority to enlarging and enhancing the escort capabilities was absolutely essential, rather than merely desirable. There is nothing remotely controversial about this.

 

Easy to read summary from "Air Force Magazine" by  https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/19-141-The-Tactical-School.pdf 

 

 

 

 

 

That is quite literally the idea that was posted which you first replied to:

 

21 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It's interesting that the bombers could have had better protection if the AAF would have given the thunderbolts drop tanks earlier (which they had already developed but never supplied until later for some reason) lot of lost life that maybe could have been prevented to some small degree.

 

Greg goes into detail about it, lot of stuff I found pretty interesting.

 

Here are the details of 8th Bomber Command mission #1 (from Donald Caldwell).  The very first heavy bomber mission mounted by the US over western Europe.  And as you can see, doctrine be damned, there was a fighter escort.  Kindly supplied by the RAF in this case, as the only US fighters present in the UK were being briefly used over Dieppe and about to be sent to North Africa, which was the primary focus of US resources at the time.  If you look at the details of 8th AF raids in 1942 and 1943, they were made with fighter escort whenever it was possible.  In the few cases it wasn't available (often due to long approach routes over the North Sea to strike targets like Wilhelmshaven), fighters were still used to sweep Luftwaffe base areas in France in the hope of drawing some of the defensive fighter force away.  Only a handful of really deep raids were made, and even these used escorts to whatever extent was possible given the limited range of Spitfires and early Thunderbolts.  Had fighters with adequate range or better drop tanks been available, they obviously would have been used.  On the notorious first Schweinfurt raid in August of 1943, the 78th FG made some claims on Me 110's and 210's near Aachen.  They had just started flying missions with the pressurized 75 gallon belly tanks on July 30th 1943.

 

So as I said, the idea that the 8th was flying unescorted bomber missions by choice in order to prove some theory is simply false.