Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Innominate on October 18, 2002, 08:43:21 PM
-
I've read many anecdotal reports of german pilots running out of ammo trying to shoot down IL2's. Comments of the only really vulnerable part being the oil radiator, etc. Yet for some reason, in AH, the il2 is no more durable than any other plane. I find the fm2 to take far more punishment than the il2, which seems to shed it's take with only a couple of cannon rounds.
So is the il2 really not that durable, is our il2 screwed up, or does nobody care since it's a useless plane in the MA anyways?
-
I have to say i flew in the Finnish host's map and man i had shot some 200 cannon rounds into the tail of this il2 and nothing and spent some 500 mg rounds into its tail when it finaly fell off.
This is in a Bf109 not a g6 maybe a g2 not exatly remember.
-
he must have had reduced lethality.
In the german vs russian snapshot a while ago, I flew a g2 against the il2's. They dropped like flies.
-
well the way he had was perfect
-
I think the whole 'chracter' of the IL2 has been lost in AH.
seems to me although the evedence about their toughness is anecdotal it still has some merit. after all this is an enemy describing them and im sure were in no mind to praise aircraft of their enemy. Unfortunately i dont know the thickness of the armour on the iL2 but if it was substantially thicker than your average aircraft surely that would point to these stories being true?
I hardly ever fly them in AH but I would have NO PROBLEM with them being amongst the toughest in the game.I would rather have a slight 'over durable' model to help build the tough character of the aircraft in AH.
Same could be said for the p47 . I think it used to seem pretty tough in AH but now it doesnt really stand out as especially durable plane now the rest, the f4f and fm2 and La7 and p38, all seem just as tough.
its sort of lost a bit of character too i think.I often shoot untold ammo into la7s and curse the model, as i cant see how they are so much tougher than la5s.If i do the same to a p47 at least i can read in books about how tough they were and accept it easily.
The iL2 is a perfect example of an aircraft in AH that hasnt really got much of a resemblance to the stories about them and because its so slow and next to useless i stopped flying them.Now if it took loads of hits and damaged piece by piece ie loosing elevators, flaps, wheels, guns etc etc but essentially holding together like a flying tank it would be a cool plane and it would seem a lot more like that aircraft we all read about.
Unfortunately it seems fragile in the tail and pretty much the same as other planes really.who knows though? maybe it wasnt much different and those LW pilots just needed an excuse for not shooting enough of them down?
very hard to argue for a change in AH but as i said id have no problem if HTC toughened them right up. I think we'd see it used more which would be cool.Its so lame as a jabo why not give it something to attract players to flying it? :D
-
The p38 really isnt all that durable, it's just got a lot of extra parts to hit. They break just as easily, theres just more of them(i.e. two vert stabs, two engines, etc)
The il2 is a usefull plane except that, 1 flak panzer or manned ack round still kills it, and it's tail falls off if you spit at it.
-
Ohh... the P38 is tough. A lot tougher than your average plane.
I wish the IL-2 was tougher, although you have to remember that as a ground attack plane it was armored against ground fire. I'm not sure the tail and such would have been armored, since not to much ground fire comes from above and behind the plane in question.
Another thing you have to remember is that in real life the IL-2 was attacking Pz IIIs, IVs, Panthers, and Tigers. Occasionally they'd run into a dedicated AAA platform with machineguns. I'd say that in WW2 dedicated AAA platforms with cannon were fairly rare. Or at least mobile AAA platforms that you'd see accompany the tanks. In AH it is the exact opposite. You run into Flakpansie after Flakpansie ad nauseum, to the point where if you see a tan dot you assume it is a flakpansie. If it turns out to be a tank you are shocked. The IL-2 can take more than one hit from the Flakpansie. Well, I've heard it can, it has never happened to me.
I'd say in a Flakpansie vs Il2 battle the Flakpansie has about a 60-70% chance of winning, closer to 100% if the IL-2 is out of bombs and rockets.
It is a useless plane in this environment.
-
top 20 LE il2 killers
Hptm. Joachim Brendel 88 il2s
Maj. Johannes Wiese 70+
Hptm. Franz Schall 64
Oblt. Günther Josten 60
Maj. Erich Rudorffer 58
Maj. Franz Eisenach 52
Maj. Diethelm von Eichel-Streiber 43
Oblt. Kurt Dombacher 43
Lt. Peter "Bonifaz" Düttmann 38
Lt. Hermann Schleinhege 38
Hptm. Helmut Lipfert 36
Obst. Walter Dahl 34
Oblt. Hans Waldmann 33
Maj. Erich Leie 31
Hptm. Werner Lucas 31
Hptm. Erich "Bubi" Hartmann 30
Oblt. Fritz Seyffardt 30
Ofw. Josef "Pepi" Jennewein 29
Oblt. Gerhard Thyben 28
Lt. Heinz Kemethmüller 26
Does that look like a tough plane to shoot down a2a?
Its was protected against ground fire and the pilot was in an armored cockpit.
The tail, the gunner, the wings were all easy targets for fighters.
I can post a few pilot stories, one whee one guy shut down 6 of 10 alone.
The reason the il2 sux in ah is because when used against gvs you ultimately face the ostwind.
But even then the il2s rockets kick arse.
When used as an attack aircraft without fighter cover at an airfield its easily run down and killed.
The ground forces called it the black death, fighter pilots made careers killing it.
-
heh, I did some tests with the damage model, and got some surprising results.
Ill post more when i know more.
I don't dispute the il2 being essentially defenseless, but it was extremely tough.
-
extremely tough from ground fire not fighter attacks.
Fighters dropped umm like dirty shirts.
-
Hi Innominate,
>I've read many anecdotal reports of german pilots running out of ammo trying to shoot down IL2's. Comments of the only really vulnerable part being the oil radiator, etc.
The Ilyushin Il-2 had an armour-steel nose, protecting engine, pilot, fuel tank and rear gunner. The tail was of conventional construction, and the wings outboard of the landing gear actually were made from wood. (Late-war Il-2's finally had metal wings, however.)
As a result, the ciritical components and the crew was very well protected from fire. Under typical attack angles, even 20 mm armour piercing rounds couldn't be expected to penetrate.
However, the rest of the Stormovik's structure was just as vulnerable as any other aircraft's - the wooden wings even more than any other's. It's more diffficult to hit a wing with a solid burst of cannon shells than the fuselage, but it would take off the Ilyushin's wing just the same.
In fact there's anecdotal evidence from German fighter pilots pointing out that 30 mm shells typically achieved just that result - sending the Il-2 down by destroying one wing. The fuselage armour probably was good enough to withstand 30 mm shells as well, so the wing was the weak link where the chain had to break.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I think problem is that in AH guns are too strong and there is no damaged state.
Only damage states are intact and destroyed.
-
I think the whole AH modell needs an Update, it's basicly been the same since AH got out while other flight games get out with much superior dammage modelling.
As for P38 not being tough, it is, it's VERY TOUGH, I've flown it, last time i took 9x20mm from town ack and all that happaned was my engine 1 radiator started smoking. The thing is a tank, and it is even more noticable as you can shoot of stabs etc thanks to it having two of them. Other planes, described as very very tough, aren't anywhere near as tough as the P38 (P47 quickly comes to mind, as does the 190 F8).
See if I can find Il2 armor, it seems a bit vulnerable aswell.
-
My guess is that it's something about the damage modelling and gunnery modelling. If AH really uses carefully selected realistic data, the only reason why it would bring unrealistical results would be they are not used in the correct(or, sufficient) manner. This may be due to technological issues or limits in current PC specs.
Changing the DM is probably gonna make heaps of people suffer and whine, and a still a lot of time and effort has to be put in it. However, as it is, it is probably the most lacking aspect of AH aside from graphics, and something HTC must go through in order to achieve a level closer to perfection :)
I have no idea how the damage is calculated, but so far, reading through the boards carefully sometime now, the only thing that would influence the hitting power of the fired round seems to be the initial kinetic state of the plane - ie. the power when you hit a plane with .50s at 200mph and 400mph will be different. I don't belive I've ever seen any other source of influence mentioned when people discussed the power of rounds - ie. Hispano discussions then and now.
This would lead to the problem of how sophisticated a gunnery model should be. IMO gunnery modelling and damage modelling is very closely related. In some other discussion where people compared the DM and GM between IL-2 and AH, there was a very solid statement by a beta-tester of IL-2 that IL-2 models the individual quality of shots fired - a explosive 20mm shell going off on the surface of an airframe is significantly weaker than a well-placed 20mm shell which digs into it and blows up inside.
This type of GM, which seems it is not perfected yet, sometimes brings out strange results(like a 30mm round hitting a plane and doing almost no damage to it), but is significant in that it brought up the difficulty in gunnery upto respectable levels which for so long people have sought in flight-sim games.
Unless you are close enough to verify that all your cannon rounds have hit with spectacular results, shooting a target at further distance than the "realistic shooting distances" noted in real-life anecdotes will result in blasphemous waste of ammo in that a) you can't assure the quality of the hits you've landed, and b) unless its a cannon round, it is very difficult to confirm your hits in the first place. In short, when there's a target further than 300 meters, you can't be sure if what you see is really what is happening. You seem to land hits, specks and shards fall off, see an shell explosion or two, but the enemy flies on.
However, this is exactly the opposite of what happens in AH. You can confirm hits easily, which promotes people shooting and spraying at long ranges, and also, the quality of hits are very lacking. If you land stray 20mm hits against an extending plane, the only thing that would affect the power of the hit attained is the relative speed and distance between you and the target. It would be weaker than firing up close and personal, but whether it grazes the surface, snips off a protruding antenna, blows up on the outer skin it will all be registered as if the round dug up into the structure and blew up inside. In short, the amount of damage assigned to a gun round is generic in every case, only specific according to speed or type of round.
Thus, when you fire three shells and only one of them is really "hit", the other two much lighter in damage, it will still calculate damage as "3x20mm rounds =XX points", and then subtract it from the hitpoint assigned to a plane structure. In real life the wing that sustained 1 heavy hit but two light hit might hold together, but in AH it would tear off. Couple this fact with the "all or nothing" DM and voila, you get the so-called "tough" birds dropping like flies - P-47s, IL-2 , and also people spraying and praying at 500~800 yard ranges and getting kills.
If the quality of the rounds hit are modelled, with better hit sprites according to type of ammunition, plus a more sophisticated damage modelling.. I have a feeling the IL-2 and the P-47 would really live up to its name as a "tough tough mutha". :)
-
Great post Kweassa.:)
-
Damage modelling in a sim must be an extremely complicated thing to do. so any sim is going to use shortcuts. There's just no way to model all of the variables.
That said, anyone who thinks the Il-2 is a flying tank must not know the history of the plane. It was damn near a suicide ride, a huge percentage of them were shot down in combat, either by enemy aircraft or by ground fire. The armored engine and cockpit were meant to reduce the odds of a lucky shot from small arms ground fire, and for that the armor worked fine. But in the end it was just an airplane. It didn't like bullets any more than any other plane. The stories from LW pilots reporting how hard they were to shoot down must be taken into context. Until the Il-2 came along, the LW on the eastern front had hardly ever encountered any enemy aircraft with armor or self-sealing fuel tanks, so in comparison the Il-2 must have seemed much tougher than what they were used to.
ra
-
I would like to see plane armor modeled at least to the complexity of the current gv armor model .
-
I think Ra makes a good point. There were around 40,000 IL-2's built....very few of them survived the war.
J_A_B
-
It should also be pointed out here that AH is pitting a mid-1942 plane against a very late-1944 (December) GV. From the Soviet Union Factbook page on the Il-2 (http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-airforce-il2.htm):
The original Il-2 was a single-seater. The forward fuselage around the engine and cockpit was built with 700 kilograms (1,543 pounds) of steel ranging from 5 to 12 millimeters (a fifth to half inch) thick. The engine radiators were placed behind the engine in the armored body, while the air intakes were placed on top of the nose. K-4 armor glass was used in the cockpit, with thicknesses from 55 to 65 millimeters (2.2 to 2.6 inches).
The Il-2 was armed with two ShKAS 7.62 millimeter machine guns and two ShVAK 20 millimeter cannons; rails for eight 82 millimeter RS-82 rockets, making it one of the first attack aircraft to carry rockets; and a bombload of 400 kilograms. There were two small bomb bays in each wing inboard of the landing gear, and there were external racks under the wings as well. Level speed was 470 KPH (300 MPH), and operating altitude was 2,000 meters (6,600 feet).
* * *
However, field experience demonstrated serious deficiencies in the aircraft. While the aircraft was easy to fly and had few vices, the 20 millimeter main cannon didn't have enough killing power, and the aircraft was very vulnerable to fighter attacks from above while it was engaged in low-altitude combat. The Ilyushin design team had a meeting with representative operational pilots in the spring of 1942, and decided on a number of improvements.
The improvements were implemented in two steps, the first being the Il-2M, in which the two 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon were replaced with twin high-velocity 23 millimeter VYa cannon, and which incorporated an upgraded AM-38F engine rated at 1,750 HP.
This was quickly followed by the two-seat Il-2M3, in which the cockpit was lengthened to accommodate a gunner, who manually handled a single 12.7 millimeter UBT machine gun, mounted at the back of the cockpit and directed upward and backward. Armor was increased from 700 kilograms to 950 kilograms (2,100 pounds), partly to protect the back-seater.
Despite the heavier armor, performance hardly suffered. The longer cockpit improved the machine's aerodynamics, a slightly improved AM-38F engine provided incremental horsepower, and structural changes trimmed the weight of other parts of the aircraft, resulting in a net gain of only 100 kilograms (220 pounds). With the aircraft's major defects now corrected, the Shturmovik came into its own.
* * *
The Shturmovik had been an important element in the victory, and as fighting continued into the spring of 1943, so did improvements to this vital Soviet weapon.
Most significantly, in some production, the two 23 millimeter VJa cannon were replaced by a pair of long-barreled 37 millimeter NS-37 cannon, with this variant known as Il-3-37. Each gun had 50 rounds of ammunition. This variant saw service, but it did not prove highly successful as the big guns had a hefty recoil, and also badly affected the aircraft's handling.
The Il-2M3 was also equipped with other ordnance. One was the PTAB anti-tank bomblet, which was a 2.5 kilogram (5.5 pound) hollow-charge munition. Up to a total 192 PTAB bomblets could be loaded into the Shturmovik's four little bomb bays, and could be scattered over enemy armored columns. Another weapon was the DAG-10 grenade launcher, an odd "aerial-mine" device that would eject grenades on little parachutes in the path of a pursuer and which Soviet records say was surprisingly effective. Many Il-2s also began to incorporate all-metal wings and tail surfaces.
* * *
In 1943, Ilyushin and his engineers had considered what they could do to improve on the Il-2 by redesigning it essentially from scratch. The result was the Il-10, which looked very much like a cleaned-up Il-2, but was of all-metal construction, gave the rear gunner a powered turret with a single 20 millimeter gun instead of the flexible 12.7 millimeter gun, and had such aerodynamic features as main wheels that rotated 90 degrees to fit inside the wheel fairings.
There were only two bomb bays instead of four. ... Il-10s began reaching combat units in October 1944, joining the tens of thousands of Il-2s already in service, in preparation for the last drive on Hitler's Reich.
So, in December of 1944, when the Ostwind went into production, the Il-2 had already had two months of its successor being deployed to the front.
It should also be noted that the sheer number of Ostwinds encountered in AH is grossly ahistorical; only 43 Ostwinds and 145 Wirbelwinds were ever produced. The most common FlaK defenses were towed 20mm, quad 20mm, and 37mm guns, with self-propelled versions of these guns being almost exclusively unarmored mounts on soft-skin vehicles like the SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2 conversions.
However, heavy losses is historical:
The Shturmovik's armor made it generally impervious to anything less than 20 millimeter fire. Even that had to be accurate and precise to do the aircraft damage, and an Il-2 moving fast and jinking wildly at low altitude was a difficult target.
Despite their survivability, Shturmovik losses were high, for they fought in the teeth of the worst combat with no place to hide. Soviet factories continued churn out the simple, reliable aircraft, and those that fell were quickly replaced with new aircraft with weaknesses eliminated. Red pilots refined their tactics and training to help reduce the losses.
However, the losses to ground fire is severely distorted by the ahistorical nature of combat in AH. An Il-2 pilot won't find the large formations of ground vehicles that the Germans employed in WWII, nor will they be operating in groups of 12-15 aircraft as the VVS employed them.
One of the things that I have observed from the receiving end is that both the M-16 and Ostwind are extremely vulnerable to groups of two or more aircraft working in concert to take down a GV. The vehicle can only fire in one direction at a time; by focussing the gunner's attention on a plane in one direction, a wingman can dive in and shoot up the GV without being exposed to the return fire.
One-on-one, it's a much more even duel; with only a single opponent to worry about, the contest usually comes down to a question of which person is the better shooter -- and a GV makes for a much more stable firing platform, particularly with the Ostwind, where the gunner can get hits outside the range of the aircraft's guns, and a single 37mm hit can render the plane uncontrollable. The M-16 is more vulnerable, because it has to allow the attacking aircraft into guns range, but its higher ROF enables it to track fire onto the aircraft more quickly than the Ostwind.
I do agree with Kweassa that some of the simplifications in the AH damage model create unrealistically brittle targets. Additionally, the complete absence of the four bomb bays on the Il-2 eliminate many of the weapons options in the actual aircraft -- The KMB cassette that would fit in a single bomb bay which carried 48 PTAB 2.5 anti-tank cluster bombs, the AJ-2 cassette carrying incendiary cluster bombs, either 30 or 50 AO-10 10kg bomblets, and four 50kg or 100kg bombs (in addition to the ones on the external racks).
-
The AH Il2 certainly does have it's 4 bomb bays....
-
The Il-2 type 3 (the type in AH) had wooden outer wing panels to save weight - there was also a variant of the Il-2 Type 3, the 3m that carried a 37mm cannon in s pod under each wing
this might be one
(http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/VVS/Il2-010.jpg)
-
Anyone reading this thread should look at http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67502
The il2 is pretty durable. Some of the results really are surprising.
-
Are you on crack? IL2 is one of the only attack planes that can take 1 or 2 37mm rounds and keep flying. Now if your classing it as a Bomber then you may be right, it may need more tuffness, but as a attack plane it is more than tuff enough.
Booky
-
Here's the Il-2 with 2x37mm:
(http://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/assets/images/4_18.jpg)
From this Russian Il-2 site:
http://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/il2_page_1.html
You'll need to use a Russian/English web translator.
ra
-
The AH Il2 certainly does have it's 4 bomb bays....
You are correct; my apologies. I had not flown the AH Il-2 with any bomb load but the 250kg bombs, and the bomb load diagram I had seen implied that the 100kg and 50kg bombs for four- and six-bomb loadouts were on multiple-bomb mounts on the underwing hardpoints, not in the bomb bays.
AH still doesn't model the full range of armaments that were carried in the bomb bays, nor do we have the BRS-82 and BRS-132 rockets -- the armor-piercing versions of the RS-82 and RS-132 rockets, which would be a lot more useful against GVs than the ones that we do have. Although, given the way that small-caliber HE rounds seem to be able to blow through tank armor with the current damage model, it may not make a difference.
-
The p38 is the biggest fighter in the MA compare that to a litle fw or yak.
can it be a bit though ??
A few 30mm rounds kill it while u have to shoot the crap out of a fw to kill it (.50)
consider that
-
Bug, Look at my damage statistics thread.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The p38 is the biggest fighter in the MA compare that to a litle fw or yak.
can it be a bit though ??
A few 30mm rounds kill it while u have to shoot the crap out of a fw to kill it (.50)
consider that
BUG you gotta be diddlying retarded if you whine about the P38 DM by whining that "a few" 30mm kill a P38 but it takes "stoot the crap out of" with .50cals to kill an FW. Its a diddlying 30mm cannon that killed B17s with only 2-3 hits and you compare that to a 50cal MG.... You P38 whiner fanatics are unbelivable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
BUG you gotta be diddlying retarded if you whine about the P38 DM by whining that "a few" 30mm kill a P38 but it takes "stoot the crap out of" with .50cals to kill an FW. Its a diddlying 30mm cannon that killed B17s with only 2-3 hits and you compare that to a 50cal MG.... You P38 whiner fanatics are unbelivable.
Hook, Line, Sinker.
__________________
-Nacho
(http://www.itsmysite.com/nachosigs/images/aero_innovatf3.jpg)
-
Ohh no Nacho, how embarrasing for me - well I ceratainly hoped it was a troll or a joke, but its becoming harder to tell with you allied uber alles flying tank indestructable plane fanatics.
-
wabble lock on
-
And i never whine about my P38
whining is a copyright for wabbles
-
Dutch UN coward peacekeeper warcriminals greet the Serbian death squads as they enter the UN "safe area" of Srebrenica before they help the Serbs murder over 8000 innocent refugees.
-
Sigh that's the 2nd time u come with that crap upon wich i wasn't involved with.
Yes grun u must be a monkey that can't come up with something original.
now say that i'm a fediddleer again
-
And here is Dutch UN Srebrenica commander warcriminal Tom Karremans having a toast with his Serbian commanding General Ratko Mladic during the Srebrenica massacre. A toast to their colaboration?
-
Bug332 said: I vine and vine about my pshatieeight ishn't zat vierd that I'm from hoooooooooooooooooooollland
-
Back to the topic :rolleyes:
Please check out what WW2 Finnish air force pilot & trainer write 1943 about shooting IL2 down:
Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics: Solo fighting. (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html#solofighting)
You can find IL2 mention lower part.
-
Hi Xjazz,
>Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics
Quite interesting. However, Wind is talking about 0.50" machine guns while the Luftwaffe fighters invariably had more effective cannon. Shooting at the central fuselage might have been the best way to bring down an Il-2 with bullets, but with cannon shells, the wing was vulnerable area as well.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi HoHun
Mr. Wind fly Brewster (4*0.5) till 1943 and then change to the Bf109G2/6.
Mr Wind use very short convergage... 35m which is about 37yard I think.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I think problem is that in AH guns are too strong and there is no damaged state.
Only damage states are intact and destroyed.
Fishu is right.
so
Litlebit weaker guns and/or hit sprites extreme difficult to see over 400yards at least for no HE-ammos.
-
Guns are not too strong in AH. Problem is that unlike GV's penetration and richochette doesn't seem to be modeled on airplanes, at least it's not represented graphically .
-
IL-2's armor scheme...
-
Zhivago, that is in milimeter I guess, right?
-
Grunherz let me place some pics of destroyed villages in Vietnam
The Atomic bomb on hiroshima
like u Americans are clean guys
But stupid to say
-
I think its in mm Wil. That can't be inches or centimeters.
-
CC Kweassa, logic thing is mm, just a bti confused that the picture didn't say.
Now, obviously that armor protected pretty good, all around the airplane. It had lots of it. I just don't get why even a 30 cal can penetrate such armor shields and kill and engine with a single ping. The Il2 had 4mm forward engine Ring, which must quite obviously have protected from fire the size (ATLEAST) 30 cal. But it doesn't.
-
The il2 DOES have the best protected engine in the game.
It took 7 rounds from an m3's .50 MG at 40 yards from directly in front to kill it.
Most planes took 4 rounds. A few took 5.
This is back to the issue of damage model, where everything simply has a HP counter that is decreased as it gets hit. So even .30's will kill anything, with enough shots.
-
If a single round don't penetrate the armor neither would 2000. Dammage modell needs some serious updating.
-
For the topic of this thread:
I have flown the Il-2 quite a bit recently, and come to like it very much. I have to complement HTC on their work there, and I doubt that either IL-2 durability or firepower could be tweaked anywhere without spreading the whole planeset on a wider scale.
(Which is, BTW, what I think that should be done;)
Anyway, I have found the IL-2 to be the most durable plane I ever flew, no matter whether I was being shot by GV's or planes, and also it packs quite a punch. I find no better plane to pop osties in than the Il-2. And scrambling from a capped airfield there is simply nothing better to survive in than the Il-2, it can take quite some bursts before going down, and even then, it may stick together.
Also, people often make the mistake of HOing an Il-2, and also underestimate its turning circle, - that brought quite a lot of meat on my butcher's table you know.
-
Hmm then a8 has better armor then that.....
6.5mm oil cooler armor in the nose
(http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Bulk/LW%20FW-190%20Fighter/Fw%20190A8-armor-1.png)
(http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Bulk/LW%20FW-190%20Fighter/Fw%20190A8-armor-2.png)
-
What's even more interesting Wotan, is the Ta152H that had a total of 150 karmor around the Cockpit and Engine ALONE (not countring fuel tanks and such). The armored ring that protected the engine/radiator was upped to 15mm for instance, that 15mm ring is penetrated by a single 30 cal in AH.
-
Hi Xjazz,
>Mr. Wind fly Brewster (4*0.5) till 1943 and then change to the Bf109G2/6.
Nevertheless, the text you referred to makes no mention of the Messerschmitt or its cannon armament. It does talk about the Brewster and its machine gun armament though. The division of the Soviet planes in aircraft "slower" and "faster" than the own aircraft certainly is not based on the Me 109G-2/G-6 either.
Accordingly, Wind's comments describe the difficulties of shooting down the Il-2 with 0.50" guns, not with 20 mm cannon.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Xjazz,
Nevertheless, the text you referred to makes no mention of the Messerschmitt or its cannon armament. It does talk about the Brewster and its machine gun armament though. The division of the Soviet planes in aircraft "slower" and "faster" than the own aircraft certainly is not based on the Me 109G-2/G-6 either.
Accordingly, Wind's comments describe the difficulties of shooting down the Il-2 with 0.50" guns, not with 20 mm cannon.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi HoHun
You could be right but text mention 12.7mm which is .50Cal (imho) and other caliber not mentioned in Solo Fighting part.
Staga, Fishu, Camo or WMaker maybe could tell more if about this one.
-
Hiya Jazz and Hohun!
Hohun is correct on this one. Wind's LeLv 24 had not yet recieved 109s when he wrote this lecture in 1943 and he basically wrote it with Brewster in mind (based on his combat experiences in LeLv 24). Also that part about where/how to shoot an IL-2 IMO exactly decribes how machine guns should be used against it.
It's true though that many finnish 109 aces preferred to shoot into wing roots and said that in many instances the wing came off that way. The radiator was also a preffered target.