Author Topic: wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!  (Read 1027 times)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2002, 06:46:27 PM »
Of my 205 kills this tour:

 41 was achieved in a Bf109G-10.
 39 was achieved in an IL-2(!)

 Since I've exclusively used IL-2 for anti-GV sorties, out of those 39 kills in the IL-2 effectively 14 were Panzers and 10 were Ostwinds. Of the many IL-2 sorties, I am quite confident I survived through almost all of them.

 Of course, I've attacked GVs in all sorts of other aircrafts through many tours, and I have yet to find such distinct aircraft for knocking GVs out of the game. I think it means all the more because I'm an average pilot.

 IL-2 is the most ideal platform for knocking GVs down for most of the average people out there. There is no doubt about this.

 Since there was rarely enough time for a Rook plane to catch enough alt these past few months, all my anti-Ostie attacks started hastily at low altitudes.. average 3000 feet, 4000 feet at maximum.

 The key is using the 6 bombs to your maximum advantage. There is rarely enough time or altitude for the IL-2 to go through a precision drop in dive-bombing style. So I've practiced low-alt shallow angle bombing with the drop delay set to 0.10. This drops the 6 bombs in a consecutive line with the impact circles each overlapping about half of each other. Quite useful feature in knocking out GVs.

 When done right, most of the times the bombs will either knockout the 37mms or make the engine smoke, or detrack an IL-2 and immobilize it - in any case making it harder for the Ostie driver to shoot at incoming target.

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2002, 07:31:29 PM »
Quote


Still, 1 v 1 against ostwinds, the il2 is screwed.



Exactly, and that's mostly why the Il-2 is pretty unused in the MA.  I know I fly it from time to time, it's actually easy to avoid fighters most of the time, but the damn Osties just chew you to bits.

That's why I say the P-47 is better.... it can pour 8 .50's into the turret and knock it out in one pass.  Plus, it'll be fast enough to create a hard target.  The Il-2 is just too slow and makes for easy Ostie meat unless distracted.

-Soda
The Assassins.

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2002, 10:03:09 PM »
PERK THE OSTY!

Simple no? ;)

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2002, 12:47:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by OIO
PERK THE OSTY!

Simple no? ;)


Not really, simply perking the osty makes GV attacks worthless, though it is a start.

There needs to be a way for GV's to kill a town, as well as a field.  Currently the ostwind is the only GV that can do it in a reasonable amount of time.  Something would need to be done to allow the panzer or m8, and probably the upcoming tiger, to be able to kill a town.  Those big guns do so little damage-over-time, it's ridiculous.

To reiterate the point I made before, the AA vehicles should be supporting the GV attacks, not leading them.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2002, 12:53:21 AM »
Make towns, hangers, factories, the HQ and hardened buildings immune to shells smaller than 40mm in diameter.  At the same time increase the damage that the big guns do to structures.

Leave the Ostwind unperked.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2002, 01:03:40 AM »
"Make towns, hangers, factories, the HQ and hardened buildings immune to shells smaller than 40mm in diameter. At the same time increase the damage that the big guns do to structures. "

Could the M-3 have an exception?

J_A_B

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2002, 02:49:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by udet
In the game 'IL-2 Sturmovik' it is. I rammed an 109, it crashed but the only damage I got was a bent cowling. Go figure.


I was in an out of ammo I-16 and there were 3 stukas left to kill, So I figure I'll take out one by ramming him with my wing, I misjudged, my prop takes his whole tail section off. My engine is still running wth I say. I go up behind the next one and repeat, down he goes. It was quite a solid dead 6 impact. Im thinking wow, aint this porked. Third time was the charm though, my engine died as I chopped the last stukas tail off. Full realism they call it lol.

now the il-2 monkeys are gonna throw poop at me.
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2002, 10:27:12 AM »
If you perk the Ostie and not add any other air-defense, GV attacks would be totally doomed.  There needs to be something in air-defense somewhere between the Ostie and the M16.  Maybe, a formation of M16's, maybe some other unit that can put up a credible air-defense.  Add that to making GV's a little harder to spot from the air and you'd likely have something.

OH yeah, and make Panzers and anything with a big barrel better against structures.  Firing half your ammo to knock out a single hanger in a Panzer is pointless.  A fuel tank should honestly go up with 1 hit of HE, for example.

-Soda
The Assassins.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2002, 10:36:28 AM »
I think the answer is to make tanks even harder to see. that is thier historical defence against air attack that and numbers.
When a ground vehicle is stopped it should have no dot. But when its moving full speed it should have a dust plume.
All gvs should have a 50cal anit aircraft mg that has fast 360 degree traverse and can fire strait up. Something to show that these things were never alone and defeating the pop gun on one tank in no way shows the risk associatied with attacking ground vehicles.

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2002, 11:12:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Soda
If you perk the Ostie and not add any other air-defense, GV attacks would be totally doomed.  There needs to be something in air-defense somewhere between the Ostie and the M16.  Maybe, a formation of M16's, maybe some other unit that can put up a credible air-defense.  Add that to making GV's a little harder to spot from the air and you'd likely have something.


The M16 is a FAR better AA platform than the ostwind, especially in a defensive roll(Rather than waiting for someone to try ans strafe you)

The Ostwind is better in the MA for a couple of reasons.  First is survivability, it's much harder to disable or kill than the m16.  The second is the obvious one-ping-kill shots, which are easy to get on someone trying to strafe you.  Plus it's exceptionally good at killing structures and other GV's, making it the best choice in GV's.

The M-16 is a FAR better vehicle for hitting planes which aren't coming straight at you.  It's weakness is that any plane can kill it by strafing alone.

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2002, 02:13:36 PM »
Innominate,
 
Quote
The M-16 is a FAR better vehicle for hitting planes which aren't coming straight at you. It's weakness is that any plane can kill it by strafing alone.


The M16 is too vulnerable as a single unit.  It is swiss cheese for the first person to push a strafing pass and the .50's simply don't have the hitting power to keep anyone from getting within lethal strafing range.  Once it is hit, it has to respawn, likely far away from the units it was trying to protect.  It's pretty rare to actually get a damaged M16.... usually it's just poof, gone.

The mentality seems to be, with the Ostwind you are in fear because you know that anytime within D2.5 there is a risk of a single ping death.  With the M16 you know you can likely get within D1.7, maybe even take a couple of pings, and still knock out whatever you'd like.  At D1.7 the .50's hits are pretty ineffective so it takes quite a few hits to usually do any significant damage.  If there were something that mounted a 20mm cannon on it, that would be different.  Planes would be concerned but might still survive a couple of lucky ping.

-Soda
The Assassins.

Offline Innominate

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2002, 04:59:36 PM »
Thats exactly right soda.

AA vehicles are used for killing aircraft, not defending from them.  As long as the primary use of GV's is for killing planes, than the ostwind is it.

Though if Im driving an m3, I'd much rather be sitting next to an m16 than an ostwind.  While the ostwind is better at defending itself, the m16 is better at defending others.

AA vehicles are pointless unless they're supporting something.

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2002, 07:11:29 AM »
Let's take a look at IL-2 insides:

Wing of IL-2, inside and outside. Just normal thin aluminium.




Fuel tank - covered by nothing but plywood:



Those pics with the larger versions:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/blenheim2001/

And more of IL-2 and other planes:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/blenheim2001/muut.html

As said - its no tank. But well armored. Lots of places that are easily damaged by airplane. But the armor is well placed against GROUND fire and that's where IL-2 excels.

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2002, 07:33:06 AM »
I think Il-2 Sturmovik is something like a B17, can shoot half the wing, rudder an a elevator of and keeps on flying.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
wasn't the Sturmovik supposed to be a flying tank ?!
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2002, 03:49:42 PM »
I thought the majority of the armor consisted of a titanium bathtub around the pilot and gunner and was almost entirely there to stop rifle caliber attacks from the ground....