muzik really love you man, but you misunderstood your own post, then his.
in your original post you mentioned "we have no incentive whatsoever to fear for our lives or that of the aircraft which is extremely gamey" which contradicts what is highlighted above. sorry bro but you're contradicting yourself.
semp
Not so. If you'll check further back I referred to Grizzs post that we have little incentive to avoid belly landings. I didnt stress the point because it was already made. I reinforced that point by adding the "realism" argument and then again I said "not for strict realism." The truth is, it would be wise to make belly landings more frequent than real life.
Here is another argument that relates, but was never addressed. All of those "fireless wrecks that have been mentioned failed to take into account that many men died during "fireless" wrecks. Potential injury is something else we need not fear. So taken together the odds of dieing, catching fire, or career ending injuries was likely far greater than the chance you would walk away unharmed. Since it is ridiculous to suggest that injuries on landing be modeled, the risk factor for belly landing fires should include all of those risks in one simple probability, fires on landing.
There should be a good 25% chance of catching fire. If you suspect that you might catch fire, then you should bail out over your base , just as any aircrew or pilot would have had to do.
Greatest danger of belly landing - Plane exploding or digging in a wing. Not fire.
wrongway
No fire in explosions?

Your logic makes my head hurt. I wont even comment on the rest, it hurts bad enough as it is.
And yet..... no fire.....

You noticed there was no fire in that picture? Damn you got us. I guess that jugs only real problem was a acute sunburn on the fuselage and right wing.