Fuel explosion

[Denum]

P40 

P47-D22/28

P51 

Bf110 

P38 (was pretty bad before also)

 

I've also detonated a 109 with a single M4 but haven't replicated it since. 

 

 

These seem to explode with alarming consistency. 

 

I'm assuming because we aren't running full fuel. But it seems to be considering the empty tank is explosive also possibly? 

 

 

I'm 2 for 2 so far tonight in the P47.

 

Will try to record a track.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Denum

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The 110 explodes too... A lot. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I have had a bunch of 110s, a ju88, and multiple ju52s all blow up on me in the last few weeks. This was not happening a few patches ago...you can see two of them in this video at 3:10 and 6:55.

 

 

[Denum]

6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The 110 explodes too... A lot. 

Been flying allied as of late. But heard that also.

 

I haven't made one happen with the .50s at all. 

[Diggun]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

I haven't made one happen with the .50s at all. 

That axe must be pretty sharp by now dude, give it a rest.

 

 

[Denum]

2 minutes ago, Diggun said:

That axe must be pretty sharp by now dude, give it a rest.

 

 

Are you adding anything useful here?

 

It's a simple statement of fact. 

 

Getting one shot popped by 190s consistently isn't fun. 

 

Getting blown up in the 110 all the time isn't fun. 

 

 

[Diggun]

3 minutes ago, Denum said:

It's a simple statement of fact. 

Your first line was. The second was, once again, an attempt to hijack a thread. It is as tedious as it is obvious. I guess I've been suckered into offering sustenance to a mythical creature said to reside under river crossings. So I'll take my leave at this juncture

[Denum]

9 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Your first line was. The second was, once again, an attempt to hijack a thread. It is as tedious as it is obvious. I guess I've been suckered into offering sustenance to a mythical creature said to reside under river crossings. So I'll take my leave at this juncture

Well, A 

 

It's my thread. Not sure how I can hi-jack it.

 

B 

My sorties in the past 4 days have been .50 aircraft. I haven't made anyone explode. But have been on the receiving end an alarming amount. Like over 60% of my deaths have been full on confetti. A fire was one thing.

 

Get getting insta killed by long range pot shots. That's a Jimmie rustler.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Denum

[Hitcher]

Everything explodes now, in maybe 1 out of 5 shootdowns my opponent explodes in my face, usually knocking out my prop/ripping a wing off.

Needs sorting out, did Micheal Bay recently join the team? 

[354thFG_Rails]

Working as intended. Move along…

[gimpy117]

yeah...fuel explosions are way overdone. should be very rare. fires yes, explosions no. Interestingly enough it seems, yet again HE ammo being way to strong is the culprit. 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by gimpy117

[Thad]

Yea, but they look soooo cool. ?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

yeah...fuel explosions are way overdone. should be very rare. fires yes, explosions no. Interestingly enough it seems, yet again HE ammo being way to strong is the culprit. 

 

Out of the planes I shoot down online, like 1 out of 4 blow up recently...never 109s or 190s, but ju-88s, ju-52s, and bf-110s seem to blow up way too much. FWIW, I haven't blown up in the Spit V/IX, but I have been pilot sniped recently.

Edited August 22, 2021 by drewm3i-VR

[Denum]

8 hours ago, Thad said:

Yea, but they look soooo cool. ?

 

Being on the receiving end by planes with HE that has a 7m blast radius isn't. 

 

We were trying to do a P47 flight yesterday, me and the other fellow both got exploded by small hits. He lost his wing and went in. I had a tank explosion but my pilot died right away. This was within 30 seconds of each other. 

[RedKestrel]

I had hoped the fuel re-works would actually help the .50 cals rather than make HE even more powerful but here we are.

[Denum]

I agree, I was hoping to see some improvement for AP but doesn't even seem to be the case. 

HE is wild now. I sixed up a 110 and detonated him at 200+ yards with this

 

 

Split second blip on the trigger and I nuked this poor guy. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Denum

[Hitcher]

The system seems to punish aircraft with multiple fuel tanks, p51, p47, p38, 110 ect all have many fuel tanks.

To me it's the aux tanks or tanks that are barely filled from the start of the sorty that are exploding.

If you take the p47 and dont fill its aux tank your practically sitting infront of a bomb ready to explode when HE looks at it funny.

I doubt fuel tanks being completely empty of fumes if they arnt filled is modelled.

Either way aircraft are exploding at an alarming rate but if anyone has anything to prove its correct go ahead. 

[CountZero]

if this is how HE ammo worked in real ww2, there was a lot of stupid ppl who fight to have AP ammo in belts, HE is best topsecret super weapon of WW2.

[oc2209]

21 hours ago, Denum said:

 

Being on the receiving end by planes with HE that has a 7m blast radius isn't. 

 

 

I'm not here to pick a fight. What I am here to say, is this:

 

If you want to logically break down the problem, do so without distracting people with useless information. The supposed 7m blast radius has nothing to do with explosion probabilities, or else things like this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Wouldn't occur. It should not be possible, ever. If you can explain to me how a shell with a 7m effective radius could hit the P-47 so many times near the fuel tank area without setting it off, that'd go a long way in solidifying your argument.

 

Observe the following exploded P-47, using the same 50% load as above:

 

Spoiler

 

 

What's the difference between the first and second clips?

 

The only major difference I can see is the angle the shells are impacting. In the second clip, I'm firing into the fuel tank behind the pilot from an almost 90-degree angle. In the first clip, my fuselage strikes are from moderate to shallow deflection. I believe that's why the tank doesn't detonate even though there are a lot more HE strikes near it than in the second clip.

 

8 hours ago, Denum said:

I agree, I was hoping to see some improvement for AP but doesn't even seem to be the case. 

HE is wild now. I sixed up a 110 and detonated him at 200+ yards with this

 

Split second blip on the trigger and I nuked this poor guy. 

 

Is this really conclusive evidence of anything? You hit him with an equal amount of AP and HE shells.

 

For all you know, an AP penetrated a fuel tank, and a simultaneous HE hit nearby set it off. Why is this definitive proof of an HE problem?

 

Without seeing the angles of the impacts and the hit locations, the effective radius of HE shells cannot be decisively blamed. 

 

If you want to show an HE impact on a wing tip causing an explosion, that would be a different matter entirely.

[Denum]

Here to nuke another discussion that clearly several people are seeing the same issue with.

 

Cool.

[357th_KW]

 

 

Not enough explosions!  Somebody get Michael Bay on the line to fix these films!  Nobody will buy tickets without explosions!

[CountZero]

11 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

 

Not enough explosions!  Somebody get Michael Bay on the line to fix these films!  Nobody will buy tickets without explosions!

Thats claerly fake fotage now that we know how ww2 ammo behaves you can see how many fake ww2 gun cams are there

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

23 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'm not here to pick a fight. What I am here to say, is this:

 

If you want to logically break down the problem, do so without distracting people with useless information. The supposed 7m blast radius has nothing to do with explosion probabilities, or else things like this:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Wouldn't occur. It should not be possible, ever. If you can explain to me how a shell with a 7m effective radius could hit the P-47 so many times near the fuel tank area without setting it off, that'd go a long way in solidifying your argument.

 

Observe the following exploded P-47, using the same 50% load as above:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

What's the difference between the first and second clips?

 

The only major difference I can see is the angle the shells are impacting. In the second clip, I'm firing into the fuel tank behind the pilot from an almost 90-degree angle. In the first clip, my fuselage strikes are from moderate to shallow deflection. I believe that's why the tank doesn't detonate even though there are a lot more HE strikes near it than in the second clip.

 

 

Is this really conclusive evidence of anything? You hit him with an equal amount of AP and HE shells.

 

For all you know, an AP penetrated a fuel tank, and a simultaneous HE hit nearby set it off. Why is this definitive proof of an HE problem?

 

Without seeing the angles of the impacts and the hit locations, the effective radius of HE shells cannot be decisively blamed. 

 

If you want to show an HE impact on a wing tip causing an explosion, that would be a different matter entirely.

Here's how accurate your beloved "tests" are with the current state of the damn DM.

 

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/808214961150099472/879389104620572752/UnsightlyInsignificantCuckoo-mobile.mp4

[gimpy117]

On 8/23/2021 at 7:05 PM, oc2209 said:

 

I'm not here to pick a fight. What I am here to say, is this:

 

If you want to logically break down the problem, do so without distracting people with useless information. The supposed 7m blast radius has nothing to do with explosion probabilities, or else things like this:

 

deal.

 

actual "explosions" take a fuel tank with a vapor mixture that is at a perfect fuel/air mixture (stoichiometric ratio) to actually explode. so, a fuel tank actually going boom takes a goldy-locks moment to go bang. After TWA 800 went down over New York (center tank fuel air explosion) NASA did a bit of research into this kind of incident. Even with a purposeful ignition source in a simulated tank, NASA was unable to reproduce said explosion. Granted, This was in jet fuel but even in gasoline it's exceedingly unlikely. NASA essentially gave up and more or less said "we know TWA 800 blew up from a fuel explosion, but we're unable to make one happen". So sure, maybe it should be modeled but at like 1:1,000,000 chance. otherwise it should be a fire. 

 

as to HE ammo setting it off regularly, with the overperforming of HE it stands to reason that it's triggering fuel tank explosions regularly because of either the amount or shrapnel or the amount of damage it causes. If AP did this two It would be different. But, with a 7 Meter blast radius just lobbing a HE shell anywhere might blow up a tank with the current system.        

 

so:

 

HE spreads damage to widely ---> Fuel tanks Explode far to easily---> Therefore, HE triggers fuel tank explosions regularly. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by gimpy117

[354thFG_Rails]

On 8/23/2021 at 4:05 PM, oc2209 said:

 

I'm not here to pick a fight. What I am here to say, is this:

 

If you want to logically break down the problem, do so without distracting people with useless information. The supposed 7m blast radius has nothing to do with explosion probabilities, or else things like this:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Wouldn't occur. It should not be possible, ever. If you can explain to me how a shell with a 7m effective radius could hit the P-47 so many times near the fuel tank area without setting it off, that'd go a long way in solidifying your argument.

 

Observe the following exploded P-47, using the same 50% load as above:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

What's the difference between the first and second clips?

 

The only major difference I can see is the angle the shells are impacting. In the second clip, I'm firing into the fuel tank behind the pilot from an almost 90-degree angle. In the first clip, my fuselage strikes are from moderate to shallow deflection. I believe that's why the tank doesn't detonate even though there are a lot more HE strikes near it than in the second clip.

 

 

Is this really conclusive evidence of anything? You hit him with an equal amount of AP and HE shells.

 

For all you know, an AP penetrated a fuel tank, and a simultaneous HE hit nearby set it off. Why is this definitive proof of an HE problem?

 

Without seeing the angles of the impacts and the hit locations, the effective radius of HE shells cannot be decisively blamed. 

 

If you want to show an HE impact on a wing tip causing an explosion, that would be a different matter entirely.

[Creep]

Give @oc2209 a break guys; this forum is the only PvP he gets.

[Talisman]

To be honest, I have not been getting that much stick time in since we have had the new explosion modelling and what few explosions I have seen have appeared OK to me so far.  My thoughts on this are as follows:

 

1.  It is realistic that empty fuel tanks or partially empty tanks are more susceptible to explosion from gun/cannon fire than full tanks.  Therefore, I think it is good to see the developers trying to model this sort of thing.

 

2.  Lots of real life WW2 combat reports that I have seen do document aircraft exploding when attacked and it appears to be rather a common event.

 

3.  It is common practise for PC pilots on MP servers to short fuel aircraft and this is now going to increase the risk of explosions when under attack.

 

4.  I don't think it was common practise to purge fuel tanks that were not to be used prior to a sortie, so the increased risk of short fuel loadouts would appear to be fair; I stand to be corrected if anyone can show that it was common to purge tanks.  I am aware that some large Allied bombers (Lancaster) had a purging system, or at least a trial purging system.  For example.  From this reference: AP 3368, HMSO 1963.  

("By 1942/43, the RAF Operational Research Section (ORS) had amassed considerable scientific data that supported the fact that the main cause of bomber losses in the air was fire - i.e. the flammability of the fuel tanks, especially when well into enemy territory, when some cells within the tanks were empty and contained fumes (fuel/air mixture). In April 1943, in the face of the overwhelming evidence, Bomber Command demanded that all four-engine bombers be equipped with a system that would introduce nitrogen into the empty tanks, reducing the flammability.")

 

5.  I think the fuel tank fire and explosion modelling is going to be an interesting factor when drop tanks are more readily available in IL-2 GB.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

 

 

[the_emperor]

On 8/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Denum said:

HE is wild now. I sixed up a 110 and detonated him at 200+ yards with this

that is indeed wild.

The Hispano is not known to be a reliable fuel igniter.  Its virtues lie elsewhere.

 

[Denum]

Bomber fuel tanks are substantially larger than what you'd find in the 110 or say the fuselage tank on the P47. 

 

 

 

Personally my average fuel load is only 700 litres which wouldn't fill the main tank. Yet I'm detonating and being lit on fire from wing strikes. So this shrapnel is penetrating through the wing in its entirety, my fuselage skin AND the fuel tank.. seems pretty far fetched to me. Meanwhile the .50 will fail to penetrate the 109s elevator at 200 yards. That's a yikes from me. 

 

As indicated before, having the appropriate mixture to cause an explosion is basically a unicorn. 

 

In that article above in some cases these rounds didn't have enough explosive energy to even rupture the tanks. 

 

So what is it? We have HE with better penetration then historical references or we have an explosive radius issue or potentially both. 

 

No matter the case it feels highly unrealistic. I can promise you it wasn't the AP popping these planes.

 

These changes have made HE even more powerful and leaves a significant amount of aircraft hilariously ineffective by comparison. 

 

With how strong these explosions are I don't even take MGs on my Griffon. It's a waste. 

 

[gimpy117]

12 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

To be honest, I have not been getting that much stick time in since we have had the new explosion modelling and what few explosions I have seen have appeared OK to me so far.  My thoughts on this are as follows:

 

1.  It is realistic that empty fuel tanks or partially empty tanks are more susceptible to explosion from gun/cannon fire than full tanks.  Therefore, I think it is good to see the developers trying to model this sort of thing.

 

2.  Lots of real life WW2 combat reports that I have seen do document aircraft exploding when attacked and it appears to be rather a common event.

 

3.  It is common practise for PC pilots on MP servers to short fuel aircraft and this is now going to increase the risk of explosions when under attack.

 

4.  I don't think it was common practise to purge fuel tanks that were not to be used prior to a sortie, so the increased risk of short fuel loadouts would appear to be fair; I stand to be corrected if anyone can show that it was common to purge tanks.  I am aware that some large Allied bombers (Lancaster) had a purging system, or at least a trial purging system.  For example.  From this reference: AP 3368, HMSO 1963.  

("By 1942/43, the RAF Operational Research Section (ORS) had amassed considerable scientific data that supported the fact that the main cause of bomber losses in the air was fire - i.e. the flammability of the fuel tanks, especially when well into enemy territory, when some cells within the tanks were empty and contained fumes (fuel/air mixture). In April 1943, in the face of the overwhelming evidence, Bomber Command demanded that all four-engine bombers be equipped with a system that would introduce nitrogen into the empty tanks, reducing the flammability.")

 

5.  I think the fuel tank fire and explosion modelling is going to be an interesting factor when drop tanks are more readily available in IL-2 GB.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

 

 

 

1. yes and no. still takes that perfect ratio of Fuel to air to make it a bomb. it would just burn otherwise

2. ammo in the wings? lots of 190's did because of this

3. still should not cause explosions 

4. flammability not explosions. were talking burning vs. an explosion

5. Drop tanks will likely be dropped first combat. besides, it Seems like HE is the biggest culprit, so, aircraft that face less HE will still benefit

 

bottom line fuel explosions now give aircraft with more HE an even larger advantage. Jason needs to fix some stuff before I open my wallet again.   

[Talisman]

Stock Photo - Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera

Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera, Stock Photo, Picture And Rights Managed Image. Pic. MEV-11956370 | agefotostock

 

[Talisman]

On 8/22/2021 at 4:23 PM, Thad said:

Yea, but they look soooo cool. ?

 

If you would like to see cool then check out the air-to-air shoot downs in the link below at 2.45 and 2.58.

 

Incredible WWII Gun Cam Action | Military.com

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Eisenfaustus]

11 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

 

1. yes and no. still takes that perfect ratio of Fuel to air to make it a bomb. it would just burn otherwise

2. ammo in the wings? lots of 190's did because of this

3. still should not cause explosions 

4. flammability not explosions. were talking burning vs. an explosion

5. Drop tanks will likely be dropped first combat. besides, it Seems like HE is the biggest culprit, so, aircraft that face less HE will still benefit

 

 

Of course fires, systems failure, structural failure and injured pilots all are probably more common ways for aircraft to have been shot down. Still exploding airplanes are so common in pilot memoirs that the NASA findings don’t seem to apply to WWII aircombat. Of course these could all have been caused by exploding ammo/payload and the documented fear of exploding fuel tanks by pilots and engineers stem from a lack of knowledge - but maybe the variables that differ make the difference? 
Like rapid maneuvering and changing of altitudes? Or the used HE or incendiary ammo? Or WWII aviation fuels?

There is also the possibility that the pilots simply exaggerated what they saw - the stories of seamen, hunters and soldiers are to be taken with a grain of salt. 
 

I have to admit that I‘m not sure what it is - yet the occasional explosion I experience ingame fits the memoirs and biographies I read. 

[357th_KW]

2 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

Stock Photo - Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera

Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera, Stock Photo, Picture And Rights Managed Image. Pic. MEV-11956370 | agefotostock

 

Theres a fair number of these style of explosions seen in US gun camera film, from strikes on drop tanks which we can see this 110 carrying.  

 

2 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

 

If you would like to see cool then check out the air-to-air shoot downs in the link below at 2.45 and 2.58.

 

Incredible WWII Gun Cam Action | Military.com

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

There are actually 3 different examples of FW190 wing explosions in that video, all from strike on its ammo stores (190s don’t have wing fuel tanks).  Amusingly all these examples are from US fighters, using .50 HMGs firing armor piercing incendiary ammo, which the devs have decided not to model in game.  It used to be possible to get 190 wing ammo explosions with 50 cals, like the ones seen above prior to 4.005, but this doesn’t seem to be possible anymore.

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

Stock Photo - Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera

Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera, Stock Photo, Picture And Rights Managed Image. Pic. MEV-11956370 | agefotostock

 

That looks more like droptank on fire then wing fuel tank

[gimpy117]

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

That looks more like droptank on fire then wing fuel tank

I agree

 

Fireball =/= explosion. 

 

a large puff of flame is not a bomb. it's what you see in Hollywood when they do the old "shoot the gas tank" trope. we also have to remember we're seeing reverse survivor bias. These gun cam footages survived by cause they were unusually dramatic.   

[Talisman]

10 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

I agree

 

Fireball =/= explosion. 

 

a large puff of flame is not a bomb. it's what you see in Hollywood when they do the old "shoot the gas tank" trope. we also have to remember we're seeing reverse survivor bias. These gun cam footages survived by cause they were unusually dramatic.   

 

When considering how much gun cam footage would have been taken in the war, I think it is rare in percentage terms for gun cam footage to survive at all.  Additionally, from the gun cam footage that does still exist, some is very mundane, so just because something might be considered dramatic is not necessarily the reason it has survived.  Most gun cam footage has been lost and a lot of what might be considered dramatic by some these days, but common at the time, will have been lost too.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited August 27, 2021 by ACG_Talisman

[Barnacles]

On 8/23/2021 at 4:01 PM, Hitcher said:

The system seems to punish aircraft with multiple fuel tanks, p51, p47, p38, 110 ect all have many fuel tanks.

To me it's the aux tanks or tanks that are barely filled from the start of the sorty that are exploding.

If you take the p47 and dont fill its aux tank your practically sitting infront of a bomb ready to explode when HE looks at it funny.

I doubt fuel tanks being completely empty of fumes if they arnt filled is modelled.

Either way aircraft are exploding at an alarming rate but if anyone has anything to prove its correct go ahead. 

Hopefully this thread will be taken into account when they dot the i's and cross the t's on the new fuel model. Let's hope someone doesn't try to FUD or otherwise derail this thread (like every other [edited] DM thread), to protect their precious meta, hint hint. 

[Denum]

22 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

It used to be possible to get 190 wing ammo explosions with 50 cals, like the ones seen above prior to 4.005, but this doesn’t seem to be possible anymore.

 

 

I have tried and tried and tried, I can't make anyone explode with the .50s. Its incredible how differently these guns behave.

 

I'm one tapping planes at 300+ yards in the Typhoon with ease. 

 

But the Mustang? I absolutely soaked a fighter with them. Got a fire. Sometimes a PK But no explosions of any kind. No quick snap shot kills. Just holding the trigger and waiting. 

Its almost painful that they're going to launch the P51B like this. 

 

On 8/25/2021 at 10:31 PM, gimpy117 said:

Jason needs to fix some stuff before I open my wallet again.   

 

 

Feeling the same way. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Denum

[gimpy117]

13 hours ago, ACG_Talisman said:

Most gun cam footage has been lost and a lot of what might be considered dramatic by some these days, but common at the time, will have been lost too.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

I still doubt that highly. if it was dramatic and "cool" it would be far and away more likely to be saved. of course dramatic stuff was lost...but at a much lower rate than even a normal shoot down. 

 

think about when your I phone runs out of storage...what do you delete?