Evidence that Bomb armed Aircraft in Tank Crew have a <0.5% chance of Destroying a Tank.

[[KG]Destaex]

I am a little perturbed at how easy it seems to be in il2 to kill Tanks. I remembered everything I had read on ww2 suggesting that bombs rarely killed tanks and were generally just not accurate enough to do so. Recently I posted on the size of the bombs needed to kill a tank because I thought that might be the issue. Now I think it just may be that the accuracy in this "simulator" for bombs is just not simulated enough? I am also actually wondering if il2 physics for weapons attacking tanks from the air is hugely more simplified than weapons on the ground. As in if you get a near miss and some force hits the tank it's an auto kill.

Key take aways as to why Bombers were not used as tank killing weapons:

• Bombs - only 5% landed within 140m of the target
• Rockets - 89% within 100m but still needed a direct hit to kill a Tank (presumably as bombs did)
• Guns - 32 out of 100 bullets on target. The most accurate and therefore efficient weapon at the right calibre.

 

So now that we have established that unless you are using a Gun armed specialised anti tank aircraft with a gun large enough to kill a tank, that rocket armed aircraft would be much more accurate than bombs and therefore the preferred tank killing weapon;

 

On a captured Panther that is static and painted so pilots could see it with no AA fire or other distractions like weather and dust or cover;

 

• Accuracy was .5% for rocket armed aircraft so much less for bomb armed aircraft
• Therefore 140 rockets would be needed for a 50% chance of a hit. 
• Therefore statistically you need 18 Typhoons to fire on one tank to kill that tank.

 

But the crew will be killed with any near misses right?

According to this video if the Crew did not bail and stayed with the Veterans inside they had a VERY good chance of surviving anything but a direct hit. Aside from this video a friend last night claimed that he had read of ww2 tanks being tipped upside down by blasts and still getting out afterwards no problem.

 

il2 Tank Crew has bombs killing me very accurately usually by aircraft that are below 100m high. Why their own blast did not kill them would be interesting to me. What was the safe recommended height for level bombing in a fighter bomber in ww2?

 

Another thing we apparently do not have data on that would be interesting would be about how effective dive bombing was against all of these other methods. It seems to be bundled in with bombing in general above. Given how hard it was for dive bombers in the pacific to hit a carrier, generally whole squadrons went in and only came away with one or two hits, I guess we can assume that the famed Stuka was not as good at killing tanks as one would think. I wonder what their height for dropping was supposed to be so that they did not get destroyed by the blast or were not able to pull out under.

 

One thing is clear about il2 and that is that morale for the aircraft and the tanker is not something covered by the game mechanics. Everybody wants to be a hero and believes they would be brave under fire. So our pixel air crew and tank crew do not suffer suppression and do not feel the pressure that real crews would under fire. In il2 we are all veteran crews, especially the AI. This makes a huge difference to accuracy. If I think about it, the tanks do get rocked when hit so that it takes a while to stabilise the gun again against other tanks, the aircraft. I do not know as I have not played them in years. I expect that if they get hit the effects will pull them off their aim right away. Do near misses by flak knock their aim around?

 

Another key factor would be the physics of the bomb drop. Do most servers have no wind, no physics based on the aircraft airframe affecting release according to airframe drift and bounce as they release? Instrumentation malfunction affects or even the bombs themselves not being of perfect construction at the factory. 

How do we achieve the less than 0.5% direct hit ratio that is apparently realistic for bomb armed aircraft in game?

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by [KG]Destaex

[BraveSirRobin]

Did you consider that we get a lot closer to the target because, unlike in real life, there is no chance that we'll actually die?

[NoelGallagher]

first of all this is game 

thus pilots life don't matter like in real life 

also that's why they can do unusual stuff like dropping bomb at 100m-300m

it almost never happend in ww2 history and yes in that regards your evidence is correct

it was usually above 1000m when they released the bomb 

 

2nd wind physics is there and it affects the bomb accuracy greatly 

also bombs physical mass count inside the game 

for ex:1000kg bomb loose the energy more quickly than lighter 50kg bomb

that's also one of the reason why many of players in mp tend to drop the bomb less then 500m 

becsaue if they drop it like in real life as ww2 pilots did 

8 out of 10 miss the target (especially the small targets like tanks)

again in this regrads your evidence is correct 

but keep in mind this is game

 

3.it's not easy at all i mean it's not easy

you may try it for yourself to find out if it's any easy as you think

it takes tons tons tons amount of practice 

i was abtle to drop bombs on target by praticing this alone more than 100H

and here we go again

usually you don't get this amount of free practice time in real life 

this is also one of the factor that affected bomb accuracy that you have presented as evidence above

this is game

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[[KG]Destaex]

25 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Did you consider that we get a lot closer to the target because, unlike in real life, there is no chance that we'll actually die?

I did allude to that in my original post. If that is the case then perhaps a bomb release mechanic should be implemented not allowing release below safe altitude forcing people to do it properly. Even more fitting would be a mechanic that simply kills the aircraft dropping too low. Realistically though all of the things I listed above would be implemented but I don't think that would happen. 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, [KG]Destaex said:

I did allude to that in my original post. If that is the case then perhaps a bomb release mechanic should be implemented not allowing release below safe altitude forcing people to do it properly. 

 

You're missing the point.  In real life they probably released weapons well above safe distances/altitudes.  We go as low and as close as we can without blowing ourselves up.

[ShampooX]

Brave Sir Robin - always running away and buggering up.  But thats why we love him

[NoelGallagher]

4 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

I did allude to that in my original post. If that is the case then perhaps a bomb release mechanic should be implemented not allowing release below safe altitude forcing people to do it properly. Even more fitting would be a mechanic that simply kills the aircraft dropping too low. Realistically though all of the things I listed above would be implemented but I don't think that would happen. 

in real life you don't go out alone and drop bombs on stuff

do you think it's possible to force the people to only fly as squad as if it was in real life?

you see 

you gotta let go certain things when it comes down to computer game 

 

[[KG]Destaex]

5 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

first of all this is game 

thus pilots life don't matter like in real life 

also that's why they can do unusual stuff like dropping bomb at 100m-300m

it almost never happend in ww2 history and yes in that regards your evidence is correct

it was usually above 1000m when they released the bomb 

 

2nd wind physics is there and it affects the bomb accuracy greatly 

that's also one of the reason why many of players in mp tend to drop the bomb less then 500m 

becsaue if they drop it like in real life as ww2 pilots did 

8 out of 10 miss the target (especially the small targets like tanks)

again in this regrads your evidence is correct 

but keep in mind this is game

 

3.it's not easy at all i mean it's not easy

you may try it for yourself to find out if it's any easy as you think

it takes tons tons tons amount of practice 

i was abtle to drop bombs on target by praticing this alone more than 100H

 

 

The devs have always said this is a simulation. A step above a game. The devs strive to make it realistic not necessarily easy. They have tanks in game now and tank players and have to consider giving them an accurate simulation as well as their aircraft players. That includes not being killed on the first pass almost every time an aircraft passes by. Where in reality it would have been less than a 1 in 200 chance for a bomb armed aircraft.

 

Have you got a source for 1000m being the optimum drop height for fighter bombers? I am sure you are correct of course, but would like a source preferably from the front line pilots of ww2 in order to be able to sight it for others beyond the anecdotal and into the hard facts. 

Additionally I am sure it is reasonably hard to become good at level bombing in a fighter bomber in il2, I do not doubt that. However because of the sound options in il2 the aircraft engines upset my tinnitus (ringing in the ears) I cannot check. DCS is fine in this regard as it has a "hear like in helmet" sound option. I asked the devs for this option years ago but do not think it has happened, although I have not looked lately.  I assume all the sound options are still a single channel in terms of equalisers.

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

You're missing the point.  In real life they probably released weapons well above safe distances/altitudes.  We go as low and as close as we can without blowing ourselves up.

I understand your point, I just want tankers to have a chance somehow. After driving for 30mins without seeing anything and getting one shotted it can be frustrating as I am sure you will understand. Especially when it is not realistic or anywhere near as a simulation should be. I also want pilots to understand that what they are doing when they drop so low is not something they should ethically be doing if they want a ww2 experience in this simulator.
I respect your braveness and loved Monty Python's Holy Grail btw.

[NoelGallagher]

2 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

The devs have always said this is a simulation. A step above a game. The devs strive to make it realistic not necessarily easy. They have tanks in game now and tank players and have to consider giving them an accurate simulation as well as their aircraft players. That includes not being killed on the first pass almost every time an aircraft passes by. Where in reality it would have been less than a 1 in 200 chance for a bomb armed aircraft.

 

Have you got a source for 1000m being the optimum drop height for fighter bombers? I am sure you are correct of course, but would like a source preferably from the front line pilots of ww2 in order to be able to sight it for others beyond the anecdotal and into the hard facts. 

Additionally I am sure it is reasonably hard to become good at level bombing in a fighter bomber in il2, I do not doubt that. However because of the sound options in il2 the aircraft engines upset my tinnitus (ringing in the ears) I cannot check. DCS is fine in this regard as it has a "hear like in helmet" sound option. I asked the devs for this option years ago but do not think it has happened, although I have not looked lately.  I assume all the sound options are still a single channel in terms of equalisers.

well you misunderstood what simulation means when it comes down to comupter game

it means they make the physics caculation right 

it never meant you simulate the human psychology 

and in terms of being suppressed by bullets 

even in real life some does and some are not affected by it 

not everyone got scared by artillery and bullet i know it sounds weird but from veteran account they just get used to it

and at some point don't care whether they are gonna die or not

so it's almost impossible to draw the standard on how human psychology works 

and present it as FACT inside the game

 

Have you got a source for 1000m being the optimum drop height for fighter bombers?

 

i suggest to find it on your own 

i'm not gonna dig the source out jsut to prove my point 

it's well known knowledge and you can easily find out if you google it 

and i said it was above 1000m 

not absolutely 1000m  

[[KG]Destaex]

10 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

in real life you don't go out alone and drop bombs on stuff

do you think it's possible to force the people to only fly as squad as if it was in real life?

you see 

you gotta let go certain things when it comes down to computer game 

 

It is the same with Tanks. Rarely would you go out alone without support. As with aircraft it would happen though.

 

As for flying in a squadron, their are some things the game devs can control with realistic game mechanics and some things they cannot. If they cannot control people doing crazy things almost every single time they bomb because their is no penalty when in real life their obviously was, then the community probably needs to think about it and solve it. Servers need to give zero score for people bombing under this height. The same as full realism servers disable exterior views and icons. Vulching is banned so why not bombing under X altidude? So you see it's all a point of balance. With 99% fliers and 1% tankers I doubt a consensus could be reached. the BIAS is too great. However with an intelligent community like a simulation community normally is in my experience. There is certainly a higher chance of something being done once the information is put out their about what did happen in real life. 

 

[TUS_KOPTuK]

27 минут назад, [KG]Destaex сказал:

If that is the case then perhaps a bomb release mechanic should be implemented not allowing release below safe altitude.

Everything is already embedded in the game using the choice of types of fuses.
An instant fuse on allows the bomb to explode only when you drop bomb heighter then safe drop height, as IRL. Using this fuse leads to increase the drop height and, as a result, a decrease in accuracy. But in the game it is impossible to force players to fly only with this type of fuse on bombs.

 

27 минут назад, [KG]Destaex сказал:

forcing people to do it properly.

The way - to block some types of fuses, like blocking of some types of bombs or guns for planes.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by TUS_KOPTuK

[ShampooX]

Well not sure if this is what you guys are saying but I've watched IL2's on FVP drop a bomb and then basically "bounce" off the ground only to fly back up into the sky and the bomb blows and nobody is the worse for wear excpet the folks getting bombed.  I've seen planes make a 45 degree turn in mid flight - all I'm sure because "my internet speed is to slow" - the classi War Thunder reply - but if we are expecting normal flight characteristics on a bombing run, well, this is not the game for that.  If we are expecting airshow stunts, then this is a great server.

[NoelGallagher]

3 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

It is the same with Tanks. Rarely would you go out alone without support. As with aircraft it would happen though.

 

As for flying in a squadron, their are some things the game devs can control with realistic game mechanics and some things they cannot. If they cannot control people doing crazy things almost every single time they bomb because their is no penalty when in real life their obviously was, then the community probably needs to think about it and solve it. Servers need to give zero score for people bombing under this height. The same as full realism servers disable exterior views and icons. Vulching is banned so why not bombing under X altidude? So you see it's all a point of balance. With 99% fliers and 1% tankers I doubt a consensus could be reached. the BIAS is too great. However with an intelligent community like a simulation community normally is in my experience. There is certainly a higher chance of something being done once the information is put out their about what did happen in real life. 

 

i myself also primary a tanker 

and in that regards i understand your furustration 

but what you are asking is like saying let's simulate every single thing 

for ex: many of allied players want to simualate the logistic part of the ww2 in to the game 

if you simualte the logistic part then there will be another factor to simualte along with that line 

and it keep goes forever in that way

there's a limit what computer game can simulate

and i'm coming from that perspective 

[[KG]Destaex]

14 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

well you misunderstood what simulation means when it comes down to comupter game

it means they make the physics caculation right 

it never meant you simulate the human psychology 

and in terms of being suppressed by bullets 

even in real life some does and some are not affected by it 

not everyone got scared by artillery and bullet i know it sounds weird but from veteran account they just get used to it

and at some point don't care whether they are gonna die or not

so it's almost impossible to draw the standard on how human psychology works 

and present it as FACT inside the game

 

Have you got a source for 1000m being the optimum drop height for fighter bombers?

 

i suggest to find it on your own 

i'm not gonna dig the source out jsut to prove my point 

it's well known knowledge and you can easily find out if you google it 

and i said it was above 1000m 

not absolutely 1000m  

Fine about finding the source myself. Just asking as you may have had it handy by chance.

As for misunderstanding simulation.... that term means different things to different people. 

But you are right that most simulations only simulate physics. Also agree that some people, especially Veterans get used to it. However as I am sure you are also aware, there is a point if I recall, that Veterans get past that puts them in the funny farm as they break if war goes on too long. The phases are usually., green and scared, veteran and used to it, war weary and broken. But this is all beside the point. The point here is I do not expect a simulation of human behaviour, just that we simulate the effect of historical ww2 bombing on tanks. Which includes the physics of bombs not being dropped from so low. Just like Vulching is banned, now that humans are in tanks give them a historical chance of living without war thunder or world of warplanes style flying.

6 minutes ago, TUS_KOPTuK said:

Everything is already embedded in the game using the choice of types of fuses.
An instant fuse on allows the bomb to explode only when you drop bomb heighter then safe drop height, as IRL. Using this fuse leads to increase the drop height and, as a result, a decrease in accuracy. But in the game it is impossible to force players to fly only with this type of fuse on bombs.

 

The way - to block some types of fuses, like blocking of some types of bombs or guns for planes.

 

 

Great post. This is exactly the sort of server restriction that would increase the multiplayer tank population. For them to experience how survivable tanks were in real life. Let the gun aircraft and enemy tanks and AT destroy the tanks. Let the Aircraft take on other aircraft and larger targets. If the aircrafts effect was more suppression perhaps a server should simulate that if it wants.

5 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

i myself also primary a tanker 

and in that regards i understand your furustration 

but what you are asking is like saying let's simulate every single thing 

for ex: many of allied players want to simualate the logistic part of the ww2 in to the game 

if you simualte the logistic part then there will be another factor to simualte along with that line 

and it keep goes forever in that way

there's a limit what computer game can simulate

and i'm coming from that perspective 

I get you Noel. Believe me. I am also a flier. Just not in this simulation for the reason mentioned. Plus this is really the only real ww2 multiplayer tank simulation going.
I don't think limiting bombing height so as to make aircraft leave tanks alone more often is much to ask given other common restrictions the fliers themselves put out like no vulching rules to give aircraft a fighting chance. One of my aircraft squadron friends wants to protect me with his whole squadron while I drive for 30mins to an objective. It takes a whole squadron to protect one tank because of the preponderance of air players vs tank players online. As a tanker you have a huge chance of being killed because 99% of players you encounter are air players viewing you as an easy target with no defence. The reality would be very different if they "simulated" the proper height for bombing. 

Tankers cannot defend themselves without taking along 20 flak truck players as escort. In real life they would travel in a massive column with a lot of support. We don't have that luxury currently. The player base just does not exist to do it. Therefore for a Tank to have a chance the rules of engagement for an aircraft should be similar to a vulching rule. You want to attack a tank, do it from a realistic non cartoony altitude.

Edited November 9, 2021 by [KG]Destaex

[NoelGallagher]

28 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Fine about finding the source myself. Just asking as you may have had it handy by chance.

As for misunderstanding simulation.... that term means different things to different people. 

But you are right that most simulations only simulate physics. Also agree that some people, especially Veterans get used to it. However as I am sure you are also aware, there is a point if I recall, that Veterans get past that puts them in the funny farm as they break if war goes on too long. The phases are usually., green and scared, veteran and used to it, war weary and broken. But this is all beside the point. The point here is I do not expect a simulation of human behaviour, just that we simulate the effect of historical ww2 bombing on tanks. Which includes the physics of bombs not being dropped from so low. Just like Vulching is banned, now that humans are in tanks give them a historical chance of living without war thunder or world of warplanes style flying.

this is primary flight sim 

so dominant number of plane is snot something to surprised about

as a tanker 

i also do want to see more tank players in the server 

and some kind of balanecein between tankers and planes 

but many of the TC buyers are primary aricraft flyers 

it's a shame but for now what can we do

it turns out that the large percentage of TC selling was to it's own existing community (aircraft flyers)

to most of the people here taking out tank is something that you do when you get bored with flying aircraft ...

 

and AS you mentioned that you are also flier and play DCS for that 

in terms of FM 

il-2 is very generous compare to DCS 

so it get your point hahaha right 

i don't think 200m 300m dive that il-2 players pulls out coul be done as easily with DCS FM model

now i see 

 

and as TUS_KOPTuK said above it can be more eaisly implemeted in to the game just by limiting the fuse option to

instant detonation

most of the players in this game use 2sec or 3sec bomb fuse to avoid the blast effect of the bomb they droppped in low alt 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[TUS_KOPTuK]

6 минут назад, [KG]Destaex сказал:

server restriction

First of all, it must be game restrictions, I think... I'm not shure that it's possible to do now.

May be you will visit a Suggestions sections...

[[KG]Destaex]

Yes I agree that most tankers in il2 are fliers as well. That is I believe because marketing awareness is low. For instance if I play il2 through steam all my friends think I am playing an aircraft simulation. I wish it said Tank Crew when they get notified what I am playing. Because Tank Crew is a really good game and has the potential to be unique amongst what amounts to only War Thunder being in it's league. War Thunder having physics but almost nothing else. War Thunder being at it's core a poker machine with physics instead of a simulation of war machines. Apart from the cockpits in il2 tanks and the huge maps and potential mission\campaign making il2, war thunder has everything il2 tanks has. IL2 just needs to flesh out things like infantry numbers and behaviour to really pull ahead. I mean war thunder does tank v tank with great physics and so does il2 tank crew, that's as far as it goes for most people.

4 minutes ago, TUS_KOPTuK said:

First of all, it must be game restrictions, I think... I'm not shure that it's possible to do now.

May be you will visit a Suggestions sections...

Great call. I will probably do that. Thanks.

[[KG]Destaex]

In the words of Sir Henry Tizard:

 

"it soon became apparent that guns and their contemporary ammunition were only capable of dealing with soft-skinned and lightly armoured vehicles and that the weight of effort required to damage a tank with conventional bombs was far too great."

 

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf

[BlitzPig_EL]

Also one must remember that many pilots in this series have decades of seat time in air combat sims.  They are more experienced than any pilot that ever flew in WW2, coupled with the fact that they, sitting in their comfy homes have never "flown" while tired, hungry, stressed out about the safety of themselves or their families back at home, etc...  There is no way any "simulation" can cancel out the experience of the player base to make them more like "real" pilots back in the day.

 

If you think that's possible, or appropriate, you need to rethink your expectations.

[JG27_Steini]

20 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Also one must remember that many pilots in this series have decades of seat time in air combat sims.  They are more experienced than any pilot that ever flew in WW2, coupled with the fact that they, sitting in their comfy homes have never "flown" while tired, hungry, stressed out about the safety of themselves or their families back at home, etc...  There is no way any "simulation" can cancel out the experience of the player base to make them more like "real" pilots back in the day.

 

If you think that's possible, or appropriate, you need to rethink your expectations.

 

Pilots back in WW2 had training and flight education. Sometimes several years before war. During war their only thoughts were around their job 24h a day. I dont think that we have more experience. Most importance is education, followed by the right training. 

[[KG]Destaex]

Yes, but in il2 with no pressure and really no ground formations large enough to have a realistic amount of flak suppression the pilots have it pretty easy. So after years of practise in sims and no pressure plus less realistic physic I am told the aircraft can bomb super low and pull out without ripping the wings off at the same time as taking their time doing it.

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:10 PM, [KG]Destaex said:

I did allude to that in my original post. If that is the case then perhaps a bomb release mechanic should be implemented not allowing release below safe altitude forcing people to do it properly. Even more fitting would be a mechanic that simply kills the aircraft dropping too low. Realistically though all of the things I listed above would be implemented but I don't think that would happen. 

This already exists. Have you ever tried to do low-altitude bombing? Have you ever used contact fusing below 1 km altitude? It seems pretty clear you haven't done either, so I will explain how it works from the pilot perspective.

 

BoX games have a variety of fusing options for bombs:

1) Default

2) Contact

3) Short Timers (1, 2, 3 seconds)

4) Long Timers (5, 10, 15 seconds)

 

The first three options do not detonate* if dropped below a certain altitude/fall for less time than it takes to arm the fuse. Straight up no explosion. The longer timers do work when dropped from any altitude. If you're slow, at a low altitude, and drop a big bomb, then your plane can still get messed up or taken out by the explosion.

 

*Select bombs, like the Stuka's 50kg frag bombs, seem to ignore this?

 

Re: other in-thread conversation;

I'll agree that most servers are very light on AAA. The preference for smaller units of elite gunners at key locations instead of large groups of less skilled gunners for performance reasons is perfectly valid, given Il-2's limited modeling of strategic operations and defenses. (Compare heavy flak as it behaves in-game on most servers versus the situation described in various field manuals and training materials such as this video on avoiding flak.)

 

As for your specific complaint at the start of the thread: Il-2 is a video game that has a bunch of what I'm going to call externalities that make "realistic" simulation functionally impossible. The ones most relevant to "Why am I being blown up in tanks so much when the hit ratio in real life was so low?" are as follows:

 

1) Players can't die permanently in the sim. (This is good) Even if a pilot is on a sever that bans after one life, their skills and knowledge don't suddenly revert back to 0 if they join another game. This produces players who have more virtual flight hours in planes than the sum total of every pilot who ever flew the plane in reality. (This also exists for tanks, but as tanks have a much lower skill floor to use effectively, the impact is comparably minimal.)

 

This also means pilots will be far more willing/practiced/capable of very risky maneuvers and attacks. (Although given the way most pilot memoirs talk about the shenanigans they got up to I'm not actually sure the preceding statement is true...)

 

2) Just like every other flight simulator on the market, Il-2 has perfect controls, more or less. Tanks also benefit from this, but tanks get less from the reduction in complexity. (T-34 can actually use it's high gear settings in-game despite requiring an absurd amount of force on the gear drive to engage!)

 

 

Edit: I guess an effective summary of my post would be as follows:

 

Most of the things brought up in the OP and more broadly in the thread are either impossible to model with any game system, or already adequately addressed by existing systems to the degree that they are able to be addressed within the current game environment (including install base and server operations). IL-2, like all "simulators", can be informed by historical data, but the overwhelming difference between the game environment and the historical conditions IL-2 tries to portray is too enormous to be bridged by any but the most precariously placed expectations.

Edited November 12, 2021 by [F.Circus]Wales_Grey
Added summary, edit for clarity

[[KG]Destaex]

So the longer fuses work at lower altitudes which are the ones we suspected were being used at lower altitudes to avoid bomb blasts.

The shorter ones which would blow an aircraft up at lower altitudes do not because they do not arm fast enough before they hit the ground at low altitudes.

 

I thank you for the explanation. It confirms that people are using delayed fuses and possibly that splash damage rather than the bomb actually contacting with the tank top armour and killing the tank when it should not. Disable or break a track "maybe", shake the crew around a bit, but not kill.

 

 

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

On 11/13/2021 at 3:59 AM, [KG]Destaex said:

It confirms that people are using delayed fuses and possibly that splash damage rather than the bomb actually contacting with the tank top armour and killing the tank when it should not. Disable or break a track "maybe", shake the crew around a bit, but not kill.

 

Most players hunt tanks with bombs in the range of 250kg and up, because you only have to get the bomb within a 5-10 ft. radius to destroy a tank with a 250 kg bomb. A 1000 kg bomb has almost two to three times the lethal radius. This is both normal and sufficiently realistic.

[NoelGallagher]

On 11/13/2021 at 5:59 PM, [KG]Destaex said:

Disable or break a track "maybe", shake the crew around a bit, but not kill.

50kg maybe 

but whenever i got killed by bomb while i play as a tanker

it's usually larger than 100kg bomb

and even 50kg bomb has same detonation power as 300mm HE shell 100kg bomb has approx same detoantion power of 600-700mm HE shell

600mm shell of karl-gerät railway gun

one of the pics that captured it's explosion

 

and i don't think even modern tank can survive from that

even if it explode 10-15m away

it will severely dmadge the engine and make the armour crack

and there's also possiblity of the crew inside the tank get kocked out by concussion effect

Edited November 15, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[MajorMagee]

Rereading Tigers In The Mud, and I'm finding that more often than not it's simple radiator damage that leads them needing a tow back for repairs after mortar, artillery, or air attack.

[Frinik22]

I am with Destaex on this one. I also take the word simulation as meaning  duplicating as faithfully and realistically as possible, suspension of belief required since it's a digital world where a game and its characters live,  the conditions it is trying to recreate. That means  human-like behaviour in addition to realistic physics and ballistics, even the weather, the damage models, the special effects, the sounds and the environment must be recreated as closely as possible to give the impression that you are simulating real-life historical situation. This is what a  war simulation ought to be in my book , making you believe that it's a faithful image of what once was.

 

I remember reading a report prepared by the RAF following the Normandy campaign in 1944 which dispelled the incredible German tank kills Allied pilots had boasted. A study a German armour wrecks on the battlefield and careful review of the cause of their destruction resulted in a mere 2% of claim tank kills were verifiable. Many pilots would claim a kill w after seeing smoke resulting from the explosion of bombs or rockets , and examples of multiple pilots claiming the same kill were abundant.  Most German tanks damaged by airplanes were abandoned simply because their tracks had been blown up or their engine damaged and the Germans lacked the means or time to tow them  away for repair. Only soft skinned armour and trucks were found to have been destroyed/ damaged  in significant quantities by fighter bombers or bombers. It might be possible to nerf the damage cause by airstrikes but I suspect those playing  the airplanes would scream bloody murder...

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

20 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

I am with Destaex on this one. I also take the word simulation as meaning  duplicating as faithfully and realistically as possible, suspension of belief required since it's a digital world where a game and its characters live,  the conditions it is trying to recreate. That means  human-like behaviour in addition to realistic physics and ballistics, even the weather, the damage models, the special effects, the sounds and the environment must be recreated as closely as possible to give the impression that you are simulating real-life historical situation. This is what a  war simulation ought to be in my book , making you believe that it's a faithful image of what once was.

 

I remember reading a report prepared by the RAF following the Normandy campaign in 1944 which dispelled the incredible German tank kills Allied pilots had boasted. A study a German armour wrecks on the battlefield and careful review of the cause of their destruction resulted in a mere 2% of claim tank kills were verifiable. Many pilots would claim a kill w after seeing smoke resulting from the explosion of bombs or rockets , and examples of multiple pilots claiming the same kill were abundant.  Most German tanks damaged by airplanes were abandoned simply because their tracks had been blown up or their engine damaged and the Germans lacked the means or time to tow them  away for repair. Only soft skinned armour and trucks were found to have been destroyed/ damaged  in significant quantities by fighter bombers or bombers. It might be possible to nerf the damage cause by airstrikes but I suspect those playing  the airplanes would scream bloody murder...

(emphasis added)

So to my understanding, you believe that a 1000 lb bomb should only have a 2% chance of destroying a tank under all conditions? Even if the bomb detonates with the tank inside its realistic armored vehicle kill zone* or a direct hit? How is outright bending the laws of physics and known data about equipment to fit statistics, that are being improperly understood and used I must point out, supposed to improve the "realism" of a simulation?

 

The issue with tank players dying to accurate air-dropped ordinance is not an issue with simulation data, it is the result of multiple factors I have outlined above that I will restate here:

1. The low hit rate of pilots with air-dropped ordinance in WW2 can be attributed to a variety of factors, but chief among them would be lack of experience. Il-2, like basically all simulators, doesn't permanently remove players from all games after the player dies in any game. This allows players to rack up unrealistic flight hours, in some cases exceeding the sum total hours of all the historical pilots of a given airframe. There is no way for a simulator to reasonably prevent this.
2. As a player in a simulation does not fear death, they can freely engage in risky or outright suicidal actions. There is no way for a simulator to reasonably prevent this.
3. All simulations are imperfect, and incapable of capturing the total qualia of complicated systems, let alone the total experience of any given moment. Il-2 does not make any particular effort to model the imprecision of pre-digital flight controls for any aircraft. This is fine, as the developers of IL-2 BoX are operating on a timeframe that prioritizes specific elements that are more important to a more verisimilitudinous** experience than others.

All of the "problems" that people have posted about in this thread are the natural results of IL-2's game data and systems. If these outputs are upsetting to your enjoyment of the game, then I recommend you avoid combined arms gameplay in IL-2 until such time as the developers see fit to modify their game to your specifications, or develop a mod/server plugin that reduces blast damage for your personal use in single-player/on your own server.

 

*ADA329188 is a declassified research document that describes the mathematical relationship between explosive yield, armor thickness, distance from blast, and probability of kill. Based on the contemporary mk82, I would put the "realistic" kill radius of a 500 lb bomb in IL-2 BoX at close to 10 ft. against the armor of a WW2 tank.

** i.e. the quality of appearing to be true or real.

Edited November 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]Wales_Grey

[[KG]Destaex]

6 hours ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

(emphasis added)

So to my understanding, you believe that a 1000 lb bomb should only have a 2% chance of destroying a tank under all conditions? Even if the bomb detonates with the tank inside its realistic armored vehicle kill zone* or a direct hit? How is outright bending the laws of physics and known data about equipment to fit statistics, that are being improperly understood and used I must point out, supposed to improve the "realism" of a simulation?

 

The issue with tank players dying to accurate air-dropped ordinance is not an issue with simulation data, it is the result of multiple factors I have outlined above that I will restate here:

1. The low hit rate of pilots with air-dropped ordinance in WW2 can be attributed to a variety of factors, but chief among them would be lack of experience. Il-2, like basically all simulators, doesn't permanently remove players from all games after the player dies in any game. This allows players to rack up unrealistic flight hours, in some cases exceeding the sum total hours of all the historical pilots of a given airframe. There is no way for a simulator to reasonably prevent this.
2. As a player in a simulation does not fear death, they can freely engage in risky or outright suicidal actions. There is no way for a simulator to reasonably prevent this.
3. All simulations are imperfect, and incapable of capturing the total qualia of complicated systems, let alone the total experience of any given moment. Il-2 does not make any particular effort to model the imprecision of pre-digital flight controls for any aircraft. This is fine, as the developers of IL-2 BoX are operating on a timeframe that prioritizes specific elements that are more important to a more verisimilitudinous** experience than others.

All of the "problems" that people have posted about in this thread are the natural results of IL-2's game data and systems. If these outputs are upsetting to your enjoyment of the game, then I recommend you avoid combined arms gameplay in IL-2 until such time as the developers see fit to modify their game to your specifications, or develop a mod/server plugin that reduces blast damage for your personal use in single-player/on your own server.

 

*ADA329188 is a declassified research document that describes the mathematical relationship between explosive yield, armor thickness, distance from blast, and probability of kill. Based on the contemporary mk82, I would put the "realistic" kill radius of a 500 lb bomb in IL-2 BoX at close to 10 ft. against the armor of a WW2 tank.

** i.e. the quality of appearing to be true or real.

I don't see why we cannot just lobby server admins to have a universally understood rule of honour that is like the Vulching rule of honour. No Vulching is virtually universal on servers I have played while flying, don't attack players that are just taking off. It's too easy and does not give them a chance to actually play the game. In real life this is obviously not a behaviour that happened. Yet it is a rule in the game community to protect players "feelings" and one that gives people a chance.

Tankers would need a "No faceplant bombing" rule which would encourage players to bomb at a realistic altitude to give Tankers a chance.

 

Apart from this I still think that given the statistical evidence the devs may want to look at how much blast a tank actually mitigates at what distance. I think they may be surprised at how survivable tanks actually were against air attack from the correct altitude. This is even disregarding pilot stress and pressure entirely.

[Frinik22]

18 hours ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

(emphasis added)
 

18 hours ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

(emphasis added)

So to my understanding, you believe that a 1000 lb bomb should only have a 2% chance of destroying a tank under all conditions? Even if the bomb detonates with

 

That's absolutely not what I said. I just quoted an assessment report made or commissioned by the RAF right after the conclusion of the  Normandy campaign to the effect that only 2% of total German tank losses during that campaign could be attributed to airpower. it was not an assessment of what an individual bomb could  do to a tank. However you have to bear in mind that probably 85 % of air attacks on German arm our involved rockets , canons or Mg fire rather than individual bombing. Because the Allies were aware of how imprecise bombing a tank with a fighter bomber was they preferred to use carpet bombing which they could logistically afford with very littlie German opposition in the air and acceptable losses vs the results. However carpet bombing also involved possible massive friendly civilian collateral losses which made it impractical to use except in case of major combined-arms offensive operations.

 

Even the famous German Panzerknackers on the East front like Hans Ulrich Rudel and his crews used Stukas JU87 G1/G2s and Henschel 129 equipped with Flak 18 37 mm or Pak40 75mm canons rather than bombs to kill Soviet tanks .  Given that guided bombs were not used until 1943 by the Germans and against shipping only , bombing tanks was very imprecise and required pilots to expose themselves to murderous Flak in order to try hitting ground targets more precisely.

[JV44HeinzBar]

S!,

This is some very basic information. It took me a minute to remember the website, but here it is: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/articles/tactics/tank-busting-ww2.php

 

Although it doesn't go into enough detail to suit me, it supports the idea of the ineffectiveness of fighter-bombers vs tanks.

 

"The PTAB (Russian ПТАБ, which stands for Противотанковая Авиабомба, “Antitank Aviation Bomb”) was a hollow charge bomb filled with 1.5 kg of explosives, capable of penetrating up to 70 mm of armour.
The effectiveness of these bombs proved to be limited. West of Belgorod, the Soviet Air Force claimed to have destroyed over 270 tanks of the 3rd Panzer Division on one single day. The 6th Regiment of the 3rd Panzer Division possessed 90 tanks in total (on the 1st of July). Ten days later, on the 11th of July, 41 operational tanks were reported, a difference of 49 tanks. Similar statements appear about the bombing run on the 17th Panzer Division, which had only one tank battalion with 67 tanks committed to the fighting in the Belgorod-Kharkov area (the only unit not assigned to a defensive role). Here, the VVS stated to have destroyed 240 tanks in just a few hours. German combat reports show a larger concern about concentrated AT positions (and minefields), which caused the majority of AFV losses during Operation Citadel. Air strikes were usually described as “a mere nuisance”.
Between the 5th and 14th July, the 2nd Air Army dropped 69,000 PTABs alongside 7448 RS-82 rockets during the defensive phase of the Battle of Kursk. The Soviet Air forces claimed to have disabled 3147 tanks and assault guns in the same period (actual losses amounted to 849 tanks for the whole month of July). If we accept the Soviet numbers this would still indicate that PTABs had to be dropped in large clusters to cause any significant damage, e.g. A carpet of PTAB bombs launched from a Sturmovik."

 

"The Hawker Typhoon was initially developed as a high altitude interceptor and as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane, but several flaws caused the RAF to employ it as a fighter bomber. Armed with four 20mm Hispano cannons (which could only do serious damage to the engine compartment of a tank) it could carry two 500 lbs (227 kg) or 1000 lbs (454 kg) bombs or alternatively, eight unguided type RP-3 rockets.
These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four Typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank."

 

Food for thought.

 

HB

[Monostripezebra]

Here is also (in german) a talk about it:

 

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

9 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

That's absolutely not what I said. I just quoted an assessment report made or commissioned by the RAF right after the conclusion of the  Normandy campaign to the effect that only 2% of total German tank losses during that campaign could be attributed to airpower. it was not an assessment of what an individual bomb could  do to a tank. However you have to bear in mind that probably 85 % of air attacks on German arm our involved rockets , canons or Mg fire rather than individual bombing. Because the Allies were aware of how imprecise bombing a tank with a fighter bomber was they preferred to use carpet bombing which they could logistically afford with very littlie German opposition in the air and acceptable losses vs the results. However carpet bombing also involved possible massive friendly civilian collateral losses which made it impractical to use except in case of major combined-arms offensive operations.

 

Even the famous German Panzerknackers on the East front like Hans Ulrich Rudel and his crews used Stukas JU87 G1/G2s and Henschel 129 equipped with Flak 18 37 mm or Pak40 75mm canons rather than bombs to kill Soviet tanks .  Given that guided bombs were not used until 1943 by the Germans and against shipping only , bombing tanks was very imprecise and required pilots to expose themselves to murderous Flak in order to try hitting ground targets more precisely.

(emphasis added)

May I direct your attention to your previous post, where you typed verbatim "It might be possible to nerf the damage cause by airstrikes". Along with other information in your previous post, namely the following lines: "Most German tanks damaged by airplanes were abandoned simply because their tracks had been blown up or their engine damaged" and "Only soft skinned armour and trucks were found to have been destroyed/ damaged  in significant quantities by fighter bombers or bombers.", it certainly seems that you were directly arguing to reduce the effect of bombs on tanks based on spurious citation of statistical studies. If I have misread the words and argument in your post, then I apologize and invite you to suggest a method or system the developers could use to achieve the 2% direct strike effectiveness from aircraft attacking armored vehicles.

 

 

5 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

This is some very basic information. It took me a minute to remember the website, but here it is: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/articles/tactics/tank-busting-ww2.php

 

Although it doesn't go into enough detail to suit me, it supports the idea of the ineffectiveness of fighter-bombers vs tanks.

 

"The PTAB (Russian ПТАБ, which stands for Противотанковая Авиабомба, “Antitank Aviation Bomb”) was a hollow charge bomb filled with 1.5 kg of explosives, capable of penetrating up to 70 mm of armour.
The effectiveness of these bombs proved to be limited. West of Belgorod, the Soviet Air Force claimed to have destroyed over 270 tanks of the 3rd Panzer Division on one single day. The 6th Regiment of the 3rd Panzer Division possessed 90 tanks in total (on the 1st of July). Ten days later, on the 11th of July, 41 operational tanks were reported, a difference of 49 tanks. Similar statements appear about the bombing run on the 17th Panzer Division, which had only one tank battalion with 67 tanks committed to the fighting in the Belgorod-Kharkov area (the only unit not assigned to a defensive role). Here, the VVS stated to have destroyed 240 tanks in just a few hours. German combat reports show a larger concern about concentrated AT positions (and minefields), which caused the majority of AFV losses during Operation Citadel. Air strikes were usually described as “a mere nuisance”.
Between the 5th and 14th July, the 2nd Air Army dropped 69,000 PTABs alongside 7448 RS-82 rockets during the defensive phase of the Battle of Kursk. The Soviet Air forces claimed to have disabled 3147 tanks and assault guns in the same period (actual losses amounted to 849 tanks for the whole month of July). If we accept the Soviet numbers this would still indicate that PTABs had to be dropped in large clusters to cause any significant damage, e.g. A carpet of PTAB bombs launched from a Sturmovik."

 

"The Hawker Typhoon was initially developed as a high altitude interceptor and as a replacement for the Hawker Hurricane, but several flaws caused the RAF to employ it as a fighter bomber. Armed with four 20mm Hispano cannons (which could only do serious damage to the engine compartment of a tank) it could carry two 500 lbs (227 kg) or 1000 lbs (454 kg) bombs or alternatively, eight unguided type RP-3 rockets.
These recoilless projectiles consisted of a propellant filled steel tube with an armour piercing (or high explosive) shell screwed into the warhead. Four fins stabilized the rocket’s trajectory. The range and armor piercing capabilities were sufficient for anti-armor duties, but a trial conducted by the RAF under best possible conditions revealed the low precision of unguided rockets: In two attack runs, four Typhoons fired all of their 64 rockets on a stationary, pre-painted Panther and only three managed to hit the marked tank."

 

Food for thought.

 

HB

 

Hello, yes, I have already pointed out that the statistics regarding the famous Hawker Typhoon test are being improperly used. IL-2 BoX is a video game and outcomes in the game are not directly tied to historical results because, as I am sure you are aware, IL-2 is a video game and is very different to historical record. As far as the data on PTAB are concerned, you will find that IL-2 BoX does actually model the tremendous inaccuracy and marginal effect of the PTAB (much like every dumbfire anti-armor cluster munition) on targets. The PTAB even exactly proves my point. The reason why tanks in IL-2 multiplayer are "so vulnerable" and the likelihood of a tank being destroyed by a single aircraft is vastly greater than the .5% chance OP cites is directly and fundamentally tied to the accuracy of aircraft and weapons systems in the game, for a variety of internal and external factors. The video also provided by another poster further proves my point: the lethality of aircraft on ground targets is primarily a question of accuracy with effective weapons systems. 

 

As a further example, the effectiveness of modern guided munitions even further proves my point! A 500 lb laser-guided bomb is not really all that different from a given bomb in WW2, except for the part where it can correct its point of impact to land very nearly on the targeted point! And a 500 lb bomb will easily destroy any modern tank on a nearly direct hit, to say nothing of the effect of such a nearly-direct hit on a WW2 AFV!

 

22 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

I don't see why we cannot just lobby server admins to have a universally understood rule of honour that is like the Vulching rule of honour. No Vulching is virtually universal on servers I have played while flying, don't attack players that are just taking off. It's too easy and does not give them a chance to actually play the game. In real life this is obviously not a behaviour that happened. Yet it is a rule in the game community to protect players "feelings" and one that gives people a chance.

Tankers would need a "No faceplant bombing" rule which would encourage players to bomb at a realistic altitude to give Tankers a chance.

 

Apart from this I still think that given the statistical evidence the devs may want to look at how much blast a tank actually mitigates at what distance. I think they may be surprised at how survivable tanks actually were against air attack from the correct altitude. This is even disregarding pilot stress and pressure entirely.

 

You are fundamentally misunderstanding why "vulching" is frowned upon and why it is different from more generalized forms of "ground attack", even against player tanks.  "Vulching" is frowned upon not because it's "historically inaccurate", but because it produces very boring, low-risk optimal gameplay choices. It's spawn camping, but for airfields. The closest someone can come to "vulching" when attacking a player tank is to drop bombs on a player tank that has just spawned, which is very different from doing low-level ground attack for a variety of reasons that are immediately apparent with even a modicum of thought on the subject.

Low-level bombing attacks were performed historically. Attempting to declare "aircraft hurting me while I'm in my tank" as "dishonorable/unfair" because "only 2% of tanks were actually destroyed by airpower historically" is a farcical argument that misuses statistical data. I would also like to take this time to assure you that the current bomb zones are perfectly adequate and fine for the simulation, and seem to be within the realm of predicted results from post-war analysis of explosive effect. If you can find reputable research that indicates bombs should not kill tanks, even when they land within 5-10 feet (regardless of attack profile), I strongly encourage you to post your findings in the appropriate sub-forum. 

[Frinik22]

I said might as in possibly . I am not a computer programmer nor a game coder but I know for a fact that damage models in computer games can be tweaked to increase or reduce visible damage to vehicles, players - be they human or AI - building etc in shooter games and simulators as well. I am just speculating that the damage caused by aircrafts in TC could be nerfed but I also said that those playing aircrafts would probably scream bloody murder and oppose such a move. So I am unsure what your point exactly was?

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

34 minutes ago, Frinik22 said:

I said might as in possibly . I am not a computer programmer nor a game coder but I know for a fact that damage models in computer games can be tweaked to increase or reduce visible damage to vehicles, players - be they human or AI - building etc in shooter games and simulators as well. I am just speculating that the damage caused by aircrafts in TC could be nerfed but I also said that those playing aircrafts would probably scream bloody murder and oppose such a move. So I am unsure what your point exactly was?

 

You objected to this post:

 

On 11/16/2021 at 5:44 PM, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

So to my understanding, you believe that a 1000 lb bomb should only have a 2% chance of destroying a tank under all conditions? Even if the bomb detonates with the tank inside its realistic armored vehicle kill zone* or a direct hit? How is outright bending the laws of physics and known data about equipment to fit statistics, that are being improperly understood and used I must point out, supposed to improve the "realism" of a simulation?

 

Which appears to have been right on the mark, based on your other posts in this thread. I think that the current damage modeling/radius is sufficiently close to declassified post-war testing data and predictive modeling. You appear to be arguing that bombs are too effective because of what reason, exactly?

Edited November 18, 2021 by [F.Circus]Wales_Grey

[[KG]Destaex]

2 hours ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

(emphasis added)

May I direct your attention to your previous post, where you typed verbatim "It might be possible to nerf the damage cause by airstrikes". Along with other information in your previous post, namely the following lines: "Most German tanks damaged by airplanes were abandoned simply because their tracks had been blown up or their engine damaged" and "Only soft skinned armour and trucks were found to have been destroyed/ damaged  in significant quantities by fighter bombers or bombers.", it certainly seems that you were directly arguing to reduce the effect of bombs on tanks based on spurious citation of statistical studies. If I have misread the words and argument in your post, then I apologize and invite you to suggest a method or system the developers could use to achieve the 2% direct strike effectiveness from aircraft attacking armored vehicles.

 

 

 

Hello, yes, I have already pointed out that the statistics regarding the famous Hawker Typhoon test are being improperly used. IL-2 BoX is a video game and outcomes in the game are not directly tied to historical results because, as I am sure you are aware, IL-2 is a video game and is very different to historical record. As far as the data on PTAB are concerned, you will find that IL-2 BoX does actually model the tremendous inaccuracy and marginal effect of the PTAB (much like every dumbfire anti-armor cluster munition) on targets. The PTAB even exactly proves my point. The reason why tanks in IL-2 multiplayer are "so vulnerable" and the likelihood of a tank being destroyed by a single aircraft is vastly greater than the .5% chance OP cites is directly and fundamentally tied to the accuracy of aircraft and weapons systems in the game, for a variety of internal and external factors. The video also provided by another poster further proves my point: the lethality of aircraft on ground targets is primarily a question of accuracy with effective weapons systems. 

 

As a further example, the effectiveness of modern guided munitions even further proves my point! A 500 lb laser-guided bomb is not really all that different from a given bomb in WW2, except for the part where it can correct its point of impact to land very nearly on the targeted point! And a 500 lb bomb will easily destroy any modern tank on a nearly direct hit, to say nothing of the effect of such a nearly-direct hit on a WW2 AFV!

 

 

You are fundamentally misunderstanding why "vulching" is frowned upon and why it is different from more generalized forms of "ground attack", even against player tanks.  "Vulching" is frowned upon not because it's "historically inaccurate", but because it produces very boring, low-risk optimal gameplay choices. It's spawn camping, but for airfields. The closest someone can come to "vulching" when attacking a player tank is to drop bombs on a player tank that has just spawned, which is very different from doing low-level ground attack for a variety of reasons that are immediately apparent with even a modicum of thought on the subject.

Low-level bombing attacks were performed historically. Attempting to declare "aircraft hurting me while I'm in my tank" as "dishonorable/unfair" because "only 2% of tanks were actually destroyed by airpower historically" is a farcical argument that misuses statistical data. I would also like to take this time to assure you that the current bomb zones are perfectly adequate and fine for the simulation, and seem to be within the realm of predicted results from post-war analysis of explosive effect. If you can find reputable research that indicates bombs should not kill tanks, even when they land within 5-10 feet (regardless of attack profile), I strongly encourage you to post your findings in the appropriate sub-forum. 

 

5-10ft is the problem. That is the rare occurrence that we are trying to avoid, through reduced blast effect or otherwise. Direct hits should be even rarer. As you refer to, the game mechanics seem to be too unrealistic for a simulator (not necessarily the bomb blast mechanics). We cannot pick and choose when it comes to simulation, we must aspire to be as accurate as possible, we cannot simply throw things away as we like because it is a game and harp on others to be realistic. Most sim pilots I know, including me, won't say no to more realism in their simulators and will usually argue for it. Especially when it comes to physics related things. I furthermore understand that pilots who are used to being accurate will not stand for being made inaccurate beyond their control no matter how hard they practise, especially if it were so through "fair and realistic" height limits to bombing.
 

OK, so you think I don't know what vulching is because I point out it's not historical. My point here is that vulching is an artificial rule to make the game fun, so that means tanks can also have artificial rules to make it fun for tanks, no matter the historical accuracy of said rule. The flyers have done it so why not the tankers? This way all arguments here are made moot. We would simply get down to what is fun to attract more tankers to the multiplayer side of the game.

 

How about like Vulching we consider that attacking tanks on their way to the battleground is very boring gameplay for the tanker, let's consider the travel to the battlefield to be the Tank's runway and instead declare a battlefield zone where they can be attacked at. That would at least prevent multiplayer for tanks being a driving simulator that ends with you dead before you see a target. Even more valid because you are outnumbered very badly by aircraft players. I know the road to the battlefield is a long one, but so is the Tankers time investment in comparison to the Aircrafts when it comes to getting to the target most of the time.

 

Also consider that the tank is defenceless in comparison to the aircraft and no server is going to add better flak because of FPS and "it will not be fun" for the aircraft players. At low level aircraft attacks at the front line should be tantamount to suicide, anybody with a weapon including the cooks firing at aircraft that low. But it's not going to happen in game. So we might have to make a "fair use" rule for multiplayer right? I am also cool with a script to have 20 flak trucks travel with me. 

 

Tankers want ground combat and are primarily getting air combat which they have no chance against. So I guess we just have to make our own servers with no aircraft or very strong flak. I am cool with that. I don't think aircraft players would miss us anyways. Our servers may become the ultimate challenge for the actually. So real they cannot resist.

Edited November 18, 2021 by [KG]Destaex

[Juri_JS]

I wonder if there are any reports on the effectiveness of German SD4HL bombs dropped from AB 250 or AB 500 containers. From spring 1944 onwards they were the main anti-tank weapon of the Schlachtgeschwader. Apparently the Luftwaffe considered them more effective than normal bombs and rockets, but I've never seen any studies of their effectiveness in combat.

 

What I've found are reports on the effectiveness of fragmentation cluster bombs (SD 1, 2 and 10) dropped from AB containers. They were reported to be very effective against soft targets and enemy positions. Accordings to POW interrogations they were much more feared by the Russians than normal bombs.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Juri_JS

[[KG]Destaex]

1 hour ago, Juri_JS said:

I wonder if there are any reports on the effectiveness of German SD4HL bombs dropped from AB 250 or AB 500 containers. From spring 1944 onwards they were the main anti-tank weapon of the Schlachtgeschwader. Apparently the Luftwaffe considered them more effective than normal bombs and rockets, but I've never seen any studies of their effectiveness in combat.

 

What I've found are reports on the effectiveness of fragmentation cluster bombs (SD 1, 2 and 10) dropped from AB containers. They were reported to be very effective against soft targets and enemy positions. Accordings to POW interrogations they were much more feared by the Russians than normal bombs.

I have always been interested in reports on ww2 aircraft dropped cluster AP munitions against tanks. Especially what height they were dropped from. Because that would affect dispersion.

 

[NoelGallagher]

1 hour ago, Juri_JS said:

I wonder if there are any reports on the effectiveness of German SD4HL bombs dropped from AB 250 or AB 500 containers. From spring 1944 onwards they were the main anti-tank weapon of the Schlachtgeschwader. Apparently the Luftwaffe considered them more effective than normal bombs and rockets, but I've never seen any studies of their effectiveness in combat.

 

What I've found are reports on the effectiveness of fragmentation cluster bombs (SD 1, 2 and 10) dropped from AB containers. They were reported to be very effective against soft targets and enemy positions. Accordings to POW interrogations they were much more feared by the Russians than normal bombs.

question!

is there any significant difference between fragmentaion bomb and normal high explosive bomb?

 

[Juri_JS]

30 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

I have always been interested in reports on ww2 aircraft dropped cluster AP munitions against tanks. Especially what height they were dropped from. Because that would affect dispersion.

 

According to the so-called "Piper Report" written by a Schlachtgeschwader officer on the eastern front in the second half of 1944, fragmentation and anti-tank cluster bombs in AB containers were dropped in dive bombing attacks. Release altitude was at 1000 m or above, otherwise there wouldn't be enough dispersion of the bomblets.

 

I've also seen footage of Fw-190s dropping AB containers in level flight from higher altitude, but I've no idea under which circumstances this footage was captured.

 

30 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

question!

is there any significant difference between fragmentaion bomb and normal high explosive bomb?

 

I am not an expert, but I think for German bombs the difference was, that SD fragmentation bombs had a lower amount of explosives and a thicker casing, which produced more fragments when detonating, while SC high explosive bombs contained more explosives but had a thinner casing.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Juri_JS