IL2 Is Tank Shell Proof!?

[DaddyCat]

I've suspected the IL2 was over armoured in game for a while but on a number of occasions now I've hit an IL2 (both on the wing and the engine) with tank shells (Pz.IVs and Panthers) with both APHE and HE rounds and the result is always neglible. There's a puff of black smoke, it usually hurls 25 rockets at me and it flies off like nothing happened.

I understand that damage models must be difficult to get right but surely direct hits with anti-tank rounds that can detonate T34s should be doing signifcantly more damage on an aircraft. It makes me wonder if other weapons like the German 151s are also not dealing the damage they should do.

[Mtnbiker1998]

IL-2s are ridiculously durable in game. Pretty much unkillable unless you tear off the tail. Pilot is unkillable, engine is unkillable, never seen one catch fire, and radiator damage in general doesn't do much in game.

 

It is the legendary "Flying tank" of communist propaganda (something known for its complete accuracy and total objectivity) of course, so no one complains even though a third of the IL-2s produced (which is more than literally any military aircraft) were shot down.

 

And yet other legendarily rugged aircraft like the P-47 get no special treatment because "anecdotal stories can't be trusted!"

 

I love this game, its by far the best ww2 sim on the market, but damn I do hate the double standards they apply to aircraft sometimes. 

[jollyjack]

It's done on purpose ... The IL2 is the companies name and must be the surviving mascot in any battle ...

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, JellyEel said:

I've suspected the IL2 was over armoured in game for a while but on a number of occasions now I've hit an IL2 (both on the wing and the engine) with tank shells (Pz.IVs and Panthers) with both APHE and HE rounds and the result is always neglible.

Track?

 

4 hours ago, JellyEel said:

it usually hurls 25 rockets at me and it flies off like nothing happened.

That makes for a good track as well.

[Pict]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

That makes for a good track as well.

 

Even a whole album, not that it would get much spin time on the radio.

[Knarley-Bob]

Unless one is flying the plane. Doesn't seem to take much to be shot down then......

[Noisemaker]

34 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Unless one is flying the plane. Doesn't seem to take much to be shot down then......

Was going to say the exact same thing.  Every mission, either shot down, or critical damage to the control surfaces requiring full left rudder and aileron to bring it home after one, yes, one hit from either AA or enemy aircraft.

[Mtnbiker1998]

1 hour ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Unless one is flying the plane. Doesn't seem to take much to be shot down then......

 

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

Was going to say the exact same thing.  Every mission, either shot down, or critical damage to the control surfaces requiring full left rudder and aileron to bring it home after one, yes, one hit from either AA or enemy aircraft.

Really? Now THAT I'd love to see a track of. Because I've flown so many missions in the IL-2 tanking round after round of 20mm AA guns, shredding the plane from wingtip to wingtip and still being able to take my time expending all my ordinance and head home. You can let a 109 park itself on your tail and expend most of its cannon rounds in your cowling and cockpit to no avail. I've also seen how keeping the canopy closed makes you literally immune to pilot death, with the screen turning red but never even going fully unconscious. Don't need a track for this, it's easily reproducable. The IL-2 is grossly overmodeled in game, and I would have much less of a problem with that if only they were consistent in their treatment of "rugged" planes. All or none.

 

I think you both just need to seriously get good if you can't handle a single bullet's worth of damage to an IL-2. if this were a German pilot complaining about shooting down IL-2s that'd be exactly what this thread would be full of, people saying "Oh JuSt ShOoT bEtTeR i KiLl ThEm AlL tHe TiMe"

[Knarley-Bob]

Seems flying them is a whole lot different than shooting them down. Maybe I'm just used to the P-47 folding up like a cheap chair.............

[Dakpilot]

 

 

Am no expert on Il-2 or P-47 but it seems a bit silly to compare armour

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

The IL-2's thickest armor is at about 24mm behind the pilot. Engine cowling etc are of about 4-5mm. Enough to deflect rifle caliber, but the M2 and 20mm tore through it. 

 

The mythos around the IL-2 is strong, hyped up since WW2. To borrow the now again more and more whitewashing getting and adored Stalin: A blatant lie becomes the truth when you repeat it enough. Add to the mix the extremely effective propaganda machine that still is present you get a heap of overblown myths taken as truths. 

 

TL;DR The game is only a view of it's makers. 

[DaddyCat]

13 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Track?

 

I don't usually record anything. I'm going to try flying the IL2 online today and ask one of the Blues to get me with their main gun for some evidence on this. 

 

It has happened to me on six or so seperate occasions though. 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, JellyEel said:

 

I don't usually record anything. I'm going to try flying the IL2 online today and ask one of the Blues to get me with their main gun for some evidence on this. 

 

It has happened to me on six or so seperate occasions though. 

When I hit an IL2 (or any ground attacker) with the tanks main gun, then that was always the end of them.

[Enigma89]

21 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

IL-2s are ridiculously durable in game. Pretty much unkillable unless you tear off the tail. Pilot is unkillable, engine is unkillable, never seen one catch fire, and radiator damage in general doesn't do much in game.

 

It is the legendary "Flying tank" of communist propaganda (something known for its complete accuracy and total objectivity) of course, so no one complains even though a third of the IL-2s produced (which is more than literally any military aircraft) were shot down.

 

And yet other legendarily rugged aircraft like the P-47 get no special treatment because "anecdotal stories can't be trusted!"

 

I love this game, its by far the best ww2 sim on the market, but damn I do hate the double standards they apply to aircraft sometimes. 

 

Skip to 3:20. You can kill IL-2s quite easily by just hitting their radiator. You can knock their engine out with a 1 second burst.

[Mtnbiker1998]

9 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Am no expert on Il-2 or P-47 but it seems a bit silly to compare armour

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Theres a lot more to a plane's durability than purely armor (aside from the fact that like Flanker said, most of that will only stop rifle rounds) tolerances and thickness of structural parts, and reliability of engines has a huge impact on a plane's ability to absorb damage. its not just comparing "armor". That armor also doesn't mean anything if you're a slow flying target that can get swatted by every gun in the sky. This is 101 level stuff. If that armor was so great they wouldn't have needed to produce nearly 40,000 of them to recover their losses. 

52 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

 

Skip to 3:20. You can kill IL-2s quite easily by just hitting their radiator. You can knock their engine out with a 1 second burst.

Literally called it. Did you even read the thread? I'm not a 109 pilot complaining about killing them, I'm an IL-2 pilot laughing at how much damage I can tank compared to literally any other aircraft in the game, short of pressing a magic radiator button. That shouldn't be the case. Where are the videos on how to shoot down literally any other aircraft that was known to be rugged? You don't need them because they fall out of the sky like bricks after a single hit, because "anecdotes on ruggedness can't be trusted" except for when those anecdotes apply to Communist flying tractors.

13 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

 

if this were a German pilot complaining about shooting down IL-2s that'd be exactly what this thread would be full of, people saying "Oh JuSt ShOoT bEtTeR i KiLl ThEm AlL tHe TiMe"

 

[Enigma89]

50 minutes ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Theres a lot more to a plane's durability than purely armor (aside from the fact that like Flanker said, most of that will only stop rifle rounds) tolerances and thickness of structural parts, and reliability of engines has a huge impact on a plane's ability to absorb damage. its not just comparing "armor". That armor also doesn't mean anything if you're a slow flying target that can get swatted by every gun in the sky. This is 101 level stuff. If that armor was so great they wouldn't have needed to produce nearly 40,000 of them to recover their losses. 

Literally called it. Did you even read the thread? I'm not a 109 pilot complaining about killing them, I'm an IL-2 pilot laughing at how much damage I can tank compared to literally any other aircraft in the game, short of pressing a magic radiator button. That shouldn't be the case. Where are the videos on how to shoot down literally any other aircraft that was known to be rugged? You don't need them because they fall out of the sky like bricks after a single hit, because "anecdotes on ruggedness can't be trusted" except for when those anecdotes apply to Communist flying tractors.

 

Yes I read the thread.

You specifically mentioned the radiators damage don't do much in the game and I literally showed you how a simple shot at the radiator disables it. 

 

 

[=621=Samikatz]

The Il-2 is not the only durable attack plane. The Stuka is surprisingly rugged unless you hit something critical, too, I've seen them take several 37mm HE shells and keep flying level. Don't think it's a bias thing.

[Mtnbiker1998]

52 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

Yes I read the thread.

You specifically mentioned the radiators damage don't do much in the game and I literally showed you how a simple shot at the radiator disables it. 

 

 

While completely disregarding everything else I said. Great reading comprehension there bud. But no gotta latch onto the one point you can actually defeat in an argument huh? Great tactics. 10/10

 

It also completely misses the point, while reinforcing my own. What other plane in the game is nigh invincible aside from one magic button? What other plane in the game needs literal Youtube tutorials in order to be shot down? Its not consistent modeling.

 

Above all else a damage model should be consistent. Given the difficulty of creating an accurate damage model, you can justify damn near anything from paper planes to unkillable beasts and still come up with enough data sources to back up either side. At the end of the day it becomes a gameplay choice and an interpretation, a model.  A rugged IL-2 is fine if other rugged planes get similar treatment. Or give no special treatment at all, and all planes, including IL-2s can be shot down like any other. Either is fine, either can be supported by data, but you can't have Tank IL-2s and paper P-47s in the same game and claim to be historical and unbiased.

[Alexmarine]

 

3 hours ago, Enigma89 said:

 

@Mtnbiker1998 Skip to 3:20. You can kill IL-2s quite easily by just hitting their radiator. You can knock their engine out with a 1 second burst.

[Mtnbiker1998]

Just now, Alexmarine said:

 

@Mtnbiker1998 Skip to 3:20. You can kill IL-2s quite easily by just hitting their radiator. You can knock their engine out with a 1 second burst.

Thats already been posted and countered. get new material

[Lolrawr]

On 10/22/2021 at 8:12 PM, Mtnbiker1998 said:

And yet other legendarily rugged aircraft like the P-47 get no special treatment

 

Does the P-47 have cyrillic letters scribbled all over it?

No?

Coincindence?

I think not!

 

Don't take to the hearth everything you read around here, there are alot of commie simpathizers here whose double standards are out of this world.

When it hurts the reds its anectode, when it favors the reds its known fact, researched and in no way shape or form commie propaganda.

Hey at least we have accurate pilot uniforms.

 

[Raven109]

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

When I hit an IL2 (or any ground attacker) with the tanks main gun, then that was always the end of them.

Zacharias, you're over modelled, 1C please nerf...

 

I sometimes wonder why the Germans called the Sturmovik:  “Flying Tank,” “Concrete Plane,” or “Iron Gustav”. Probably just anecdotes.

[Mtnbiker1998]

5 hours ago, Raven109 said:

Zacharias, you're over modelled, 1C please nerf...

 

I sometimes wonder why the Germans called the Sturmovik:  “Flying Tank,” “Concrete Plane,” or “Iron Gustav”. Probably just anecdotes.

Luftwaffe fighters and anti-aircraft units claimed 6,900 victories over Il-2s in 1943, and 7,300 in 1944. These numbers might be exaggerated, but on the other hand, the Soviet numbers of losses might not be correct either: According to Soviet records, the total wartime Il-2 losses amounted to nearly 11,570 aircraft, or about 30 percent of the Soviet Union’s total combat aircraft losses. (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/stalins-ilyushin-il-2-shturmovik)

 

Sounds more like a flying coffin than a flying tank to me.. And numbers sure as hell aren't "anecdotal"

[DaddyCat]

15 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The Il-2 is not the only durable attack plane. The Stuka is surprisingly rugged unless you hit something critical, too, I've seen them take several 37mm HE shells and keep flying level. Don't think it's a bias thing.

 

Someone on the Discord mentioned yesterday that T34 shells have also been eaten by Stukas.

 

I usually play as Blue on Finnish and I hadn't realised this could also be an issue for Reds too. In that case it probably isn't the aircraft models but the way the tank shells are modelled. I have killed Tempests with the main gun in the past and I've witnessed others doing the same against P38s so it is possible - but I wonder if armour values are simply handled differently for tanks and their weapons.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Luftwaffe fighters and anti-aircraft units claimed 6,900 victories over Il-2s in 1943, and 7,300 in 1944. These numbers might be exaggerated, but on the other hand, the Soviet numbers of losses might not be correct either: According to Soviet records, the total wartime Il-2 losses amounted to nearly 11,570 aircraft, or about 30 percent of the Soviet Union’s total combat aircraft losses. (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/stalins-ilyushin-il-2-shturmovik)

 

Sounds more like a flying coffin than a flying tank to me.. And numbers sure as hell aren't "anecdotal"

You do realize that numbers mean little if you don't take the whole situation into account, right? Including how often they flew missions, the danger of those missions, the forces of the enemy and the tactics used on both sides.

 

The USAAF lost a quarter of their bombers in a single raid. The B-17 must've been made out of paper...

[Raven109]

9 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Luftwaffe fighters and anti-aircraft units claimed 6,900 victories over Il-2s in 1943, and 7,300 in 1944. These numbers might be exaggerated, but on the other hand, the Soviet numbers of losses might not be correct either: According to Soviet records, the total wartime Il-2 losses amounted to nearly 11,570 aircraft, or about 30 percent of the Soviet Union’s total combat aircraft losses. (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/stalins-ilyushin-il-2-shturmovik)

 

Sounds more like a flying coffin than a flying tank to me.. And numbers sure as hell aren't "anecdotal"

 

The numbers show that it wasn't impossible to bring down (no one here is saying that it was impossible to bring down). However the numbers don't say anything about how hard it was to bring down: i.e. how much ammo did an attacking plane need to expand on average before the Il2 went down, or whether the attacking pilot needed to focus more than he did with other targets to shoot at a certain weakness of the Il2 to bring it down in a timely manner (for example you might spray and pray a Yak to send it down in flames, but for the Il2 you might have to work more to hit its oil cooler/underside - from the point of view of a beginner pilot in the heat of battle, of course the Yak would seem easier to take down since it takes less effort).

 

I'd say that the keyword here is "relative". The Il2 was harder to bring down when compared to other targets that the Germans faced on the Eastern Front.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Raven109