Gun camera footage IV./JG54 and IV./JG3 vs Jaks and B-17s

[sevenless]

Seems to be newly discovered footage:

 

 

[Raven109]

I don't think I've seen such long footage of an Il2 and the perspective of a Komet before. The description below the video sheds some light on the clips.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Raven109

[kozmo514]

Awesome content. Thanks for posting this.  It's amazing to see those attacks on the bombers from astern. No sniper gunner fire from the ball or tail turrets?

 

 

[Zeev]

9 minutes ago, kozmo514 said:

Awesome content. Thanks for posting this.  It's amazing to see those attacks on the bombers from astern. No sniper gunner fire from the ball or tail turrets?

 

 

You do realize that behind these "amazing" shots are human beings that were probably killed, right?
There is even at some point (minute 7) shown a man with a parachute on fire. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Zeev

[kozmo514]

Naturally. My comments weren't meant to disrespect the fact that lives were at risk and lost.  I'm still "amazed" by footage of attacks on the tail of b17s owing to the amount of firepower that faced an attacker, precisely because human beings were on both sides of the guns. 

[CUJO_1970]

7:40.

 

Just pitiful. Nothing but burning pieces falling to the ground. ?

 

There was a JG/7 pilot whose group blew up several bombers and he said it looked like you turned an ashtray upside down and dumped it out. Now I know what that looked like in real life.

[Rjel]

47 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

7:40.

 

Just pitiful. Nothing but burning pieces falling to the ground. ?

 

There was a JG/7 pilot whose group blew up several bombers and he said it looked like you turned an ashtray upside down and dumped it out. Now I know what that looked like in real life.

Hundreds of gallons of high octane avgas, thousands of pounds of bombs and ammunition, it's amazing any of those crews survived the war.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Rjel

[PatrickAWlson]

I'm amazed at the amount of damage some of those B17s took without falling.  You never know what happened immediately after, but many of them were still wings level and in formation when the footage stopped.

[the_emperor]

Well, that is some good footage (if that can even be said in the context of lives being lost), espacilly those against the Yak-9s. Those I have never seen before. Did not think an A8 could turn fight that well with a Yak-9

Seems like the 190A8 only had the MG131 loaded with tracer rounds and Mg151s without (Mineshells only?). 4:47-4:55 does show quite well the vulnerability of those fuel tanks in the wings.

Thanks for sharing!

Edited October 30, 2021 by the_emperor

[oc2209]

I wonder if the Komet was gliding during its attack? Because the rate of closure seemed far too low for the engine to be running.

 

I know the rocket was mainly used to rapidly gain altitude, but I'd guess that most pilots didn't have the nerve to glide unpowered through a bomber formation.

 

1 hour ago, the_emperor said:

 Did not think an A8 could turn fight that well with a Yak-9

 

Yeah, I can already feel my A8 doing the Focke-Wulf flop if I tried to follow a Yak-9 into a tight turn. I've read about the 190 giving plenty of stall warning, but it doesn't feel like it to me:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I'm amazed at the amount of damage some of those B17s took without falling.  You never know what happened immediately after, but many of them were still wings level and in formation when the footage stopped.

 

Yep, that is also my impression from a lot of guncamera footage which can be found on YT. A pretty tough lady the B17 was.

[the_emperor]

8 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Yeah, I can already feel my A8 doing the Focke-Wulf flop if I tried to follow a Yak-9 into a tight turn. I've read about the 190 giving plenty of stall warning

 

Yes, buffeting or stall waring of the airframe is still missing in the game.

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

Yes, buffeting or stall waring of the airframe is still missing in the game.

 

There's a small amount of shaking if you're turning relatively slowly in a sustained turn; but what always surprises me (sometimes fatally if I'm on the deck) is the snap stall that occurs when attempting a quick, sharp turn at reasonably high speeds (well over 200 MPH). I already know from experience that the 190 can't be carelessly yanked like the 109, but even being cautious, it still happens to me fairly regularly.

 

I tried a few quicks against a Yak-9T just now (not the Yak-9 series 1; that was built in small numbers and was the lightest of all production Yak-9s--every subsequent Yak-9 variant would've had worse turning performance), giving it 350L of fuel to my 300L; and predictably enough, I felt as agile as a dead slug in an A8. A6 felt almost as bad. Only the A3 feels okay in turns.

 

After almost 4 minutes of maneuvering (only 2 of which I recorded), I did manage to get a high-deflection shot at the Yak, pretty similar to one of the guncam segments:

 

Spoiler

 

 

But that was only possible against AI, of course. A competent human wouldn't give me that opening, most likely.

[BluesmanSF]

19 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

Yes, buffeting or stall waring of the airframe is still missing in the game.

I just stalled a P40 iirc the other day. Was just a test flight by myself. Kept the plane straight and level and just cut the throttle and tried to maintain altitude. There was a slight buffet and shudder, audible too, before the stall.

 

Very similar to every airplane I have stalled irl.

 

edit: might have also been a P47, can’t remember for sure.

Edited October 31, 2021 by BluesmanSF

[palker4]

at 2:54 a familiar name appears Wolfgang Späte Messerschmitt Me 163 test unit commander. One of the few to fly both 163 and 262.

[JG_deserteagle540]

One fighter had the landing carriage down after being hit in the wing. I don't see it happening in IL-2 GB.

[Noisemaker]

57 minutes ago, JG_deserteagle540 said:

One fighter had the landing carriage down after being hit in the wing. I don't see it happening in IL-2 GB.

You should be thankful...

I'm sure they're working on it.  First fuel, then hydraulics.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Nowhere to be seen In those clips the unholy roll rate of La-5 that is present In BoX. Rather sluggish resoponse, closer to a 109 which fully corresponds with Rechlin test In 1944.

 

And how well the Fw190A-8 could turn with the Yak-9. The flaming fuel on the wing also shows how ineffective the "inert gas system" was against cannon fire. A few rifle caliber hits maybe, but 20mm Minengeschoß simply overwhelms it. 

 

The Komet killed that B17 with a few hits In the right wing, caught fire and went down. 30mm is devastating. Attacks against bombers showed that pilots fired from far away, over 400m In many cases. Was it thin air and turbulentic air caused by the bomber that threw off the aim too, not too many solid bursts hitting.

 

That poor B24 got mauled badly, a miracle if any of crew in the tail section survived. Very brutal images. 

 

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Keep on laughing Alex, but I have measured several times the roll rate of La-5 in game(max value ~170deg/s). Surpasses FW190A with ease. There are no historical data provided that shows it rolled so well. Rechlin test is clearly stating Fw190A outrolled it by a wide margin, La-5FN being on par with Bf109G or slightly better. This is well in line with data I read during heated debates of FM in IL-2 1946. 

 

Data indicated the roll rate of La-5 was somewhere in range 110deg/s vs Bf109 at 90-100deg/s and FW190A at 160deg/s. Dora rolled slightly less. LagG-3 was worse than La-5 due it's different ailerons etc. 

 

TL;DR Video was interesting. 

[CUJO_1970]

You would think pilots would have commented on the La5 being the fastest rolling fighter aircraft of WW2. Unfortunately I’ve not seen any data showing the 170-180 degree roll rates either.
On the contrary, the Rechlin test is the only one I’ve seen and it does show a similar roll rate to the 109. 

 

Things do contrast quite a bit in other areas from what we see in the footage if we’re being honest, primarily with the canon damage as well as the relative maneuverability between fighters. 
 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Doesn't the fastest roll go to the I-16?

[JV69badatflyski]

On 11/3/2021 at 10:42 AM, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

Keep on laughing Alex, but I have measured several times the roll rate of La-5 in game(max value ~170deg/s). Surpasses FW190A with ease. There are no historical data provided that shows it rolled so well. Rechlin test is clearly stating Fw190A outrolled it by a wide margin, La-5FN being on par with Bf109G or slightly better. This is well in line with data I read during heated debates of FM in IL-2 1946. 

 

Data indicated the roll rate of La-5 was somewhere in range 110deg/s vs Bf109 at 90-100deg/s and FW190A at 160deg/s. Dora rolled slightly less. LagG-3 was worse than La-5 due it's different ailerons etc. 

 

TL;DR Video was interesting. 

Yeah, interesting video indeed, especially the Yak parts, as for the real , yeah, for real, i swear , the real true story behind the , whatever we can call it actually in this game, rollrate of the La5, check my sig. (  )