Damage update

[dcannon1]

There has been a lot of issue with the way damage is taken.  i'll site a couple examples... fighters attacking bombers:  bombers can take hundreds of rounds of cannon fire from perfect firing position at 6 o'clock and the fighter takes a few hits of 30 or 50 cal rounds while attacking from 3 or 9 o'clock and the plane falls apart?  Yes the bomber is big and heavy and fighters are small and lighter but it seems to me fighters would never just fall apart... yes oil leaks, wounds and damage but they limped home a lot!  As for the bombers crew a lot of gunners were knocked out and killed by the attacker. I'm not seeing this in AH.

Tanks... history says the tiger was hard to kill so why does it seem like they can't stand more than 1 or 2 rounds from anywhere inside 1.5k.  Its perked so it should stand more damage.

The fun is in the toe to toe fight... not the takeoffs and climb/drive for 10 min.

[splitatom]

um the tiger had a lot of crew men killed because if a round hit the vision slit it would fracture or go back and kill the person looking  the gunners were injured a lot that way

[Karnak]

There has been a lot of issue with the way damage is taken.  i'll site a couple examples... fighters attacking bombers:  bombers can take hundreds of rounds of cannon fire from perfect firing position at 6 o'clock and the fighter takes a few hits of 30 or 50 cal rounds while attacking from 3 or 9 o'clock and the plane falls apart?  Yes the bomber is big and heavy and fighters are small and lighter but it seems to me fighters would never just fall apart... yes oil leaks, wounds and damage but they limped home a lot!  As for the bombers crew a lot of gunners were knocked out and killed by the attacker. I'm not seeing this in AH.

There are plenty of examples of fighters falling apart.  Bombers do lose gunners in AH.  I once fought off a Bf109E in a Ki-67 that was down to one waste gun, all others having been taken out.  I've landed a B-17 that was missing most of its gunners and control surfaces.

Tanks... history says the tiger was hard to kill so why does it seem like they can't stand more than 1 or 2 rounds from anywhere inside 1.5k.  Its perked so it should stand more damage.

It does.  Try killing it with a T-34/76.

The Sherman we have is not the common 75mm or 76mm armed US Shermans that had such a hard time with it, it is an upgunned British Sherman using their naval 17lber cannon that could, and did, easily punch holes in Tigers.  It is how Michael Whitman died.

[B4Buster]

Depends on what Plane. I know some 47s and 38s returned to base with a hundred bullet holes in them and they still managed to get home

[splitatom]

There are plenty of examples of fighters falling apart.  Bombers do lose gunners in AH.  I once fought off a Bf109E in a Ki-67 that was down to one waste gun, all others having been taken out.  I've landed a B-17 that was missing most of its gunners and control surfaces.
It does.  Try killing it with a T-34/76.

The Sherman we have is not the common 75mm or 76mm armed US Shermans that had such a hard time with it, it is an upgunned British Sherman using their naval 17lber cannon that could, and did, easily punch holes in Tigers.  It is how Michael Whitman died.

Michael witman died because like 5 Sherman's surrounded him and pummeled his tank into dust normal late and early Sherman's aka m4a3 m4a1
the 17ib was designed to be a purpose build AT gun early models were mounted on 25IB gun mounts they also weighed a lot and were not fun to move

[Saxman]

FYI cannon: Attacking a bomber from dead 6 is the worst possible angle. Not just because you're making yourself a big, fat target for his guns, but because when you're shooting at him dead 6 you're just shooting into a big, hollow tube of aluminum. Except for the gunners there's nothing in the rear half of the fuselage to even HIT.

Attack from head-on or drop on him from above and aim at the wingroots and watch just how fast that Buff falls apart or lights on fire.

That being said, I DO agree that the damage model could use some tweaking. Bullet holes should impact flight performance/lift, decrease the effectiveness of control surfaces, etc. rather than the all-or-nothing modeling we have now.

[Motherland]

bombers can take hundreds of rounds of cannon fire from perfect firing position at 6 o'clock and the fighter takes a few hits of 30 or 50 cal rounds while attacking from 3 or 9 o'clock and the plane falls apart?

The Luftwaffe found out in WWII that this is the worst possible position to attack bombers from. You'd think after a couple of times of getting ransacked most people in the game would figure this out as well... but alas...

[BnZs]

The Luftwaffe also successfully destroyed more bombers than they lost fighters even attacking from the rear, before the B-17s began being escorted all the way to target. I always understood one the major reasons they started attacking from head-on was to avoid trying to form up under the escorts and have a chance to get at least one good pass in before having to deal with the escorts/dive away.

If buffs could have flown at as high a speed as they do in AHII and if their defensive guns had been as effective, then the USAAF's belief that unescorted bombers could fight their way in and out would have been proven correct, and we would never have heard of the P-51 Mustang.

Keep in mind that perhaps the majority of Luftwaffe pilots shooting at these buffs were *not* as good a shots as you or I, lacking the hundreds of hours of shooting experience AHers have.

Saxman, you say that when you're shooting down the fuselage, you are shooting in a hollow metal tube. Well, no sir, it is not hollow. It is full of crewmen, electrical and fluid lines, and oh yeah, high explosives. Shooting fuselages full of holes to no effect is one of the damage model flaws.

The Luftwaffe found out in WWII that this is the worst possible position to attack bombers from. You'd think after a couple of times of getting ransacked most people in the game would figure this out as well... but alas...

[E25280]

Michael witman died because like 5 Sherman's surrounded him and pummeled his tank into dust normal late and early Sherman's aka m4a3 m4a1

Wrong.  It is generally agreed that a Sherman VC (i.e. a Firefly) is what killed Wittmann.  Whether it was Joe Ekins of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry or the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade is the only real question.

[splitatom]

i knew it was british or canadians who did it but i thought that it was generaly agreed that he was surounded by 4-5 shermans and then shot apart and no one came out alive

[FYB]

There has been a lot of issue with the way damage is taken.  i'll site a couple examples... fighters attacking bombers:  bombers can take hundreds of rounds of cannon fire from perfect firing position at 6 o'clock and the fighter takes a few hits of 30 or 50 cal rounds while attacking from 3 or 9 o'clock and the plane falls apart?  Yes the bomber is big and heavy and fighters are small and lighter but it seems to me fighters would never just fall apart... yes oil leaks, wounds and damage but they limped home a lot!  As for the bombers crew a lot of gunners were knocked out and killed by the attacker. I'm not seeing this in AH.

Tanks... history says the tiger was hard to kill so why does it seem like they can't stand more than 1 or 2 rounds from anywhere inside 1.5k.  Its perked so it should stand more damage.

The fun is in the toe to toe fight... not the takeoffs and climb/drive for 10 min.

Hell, i don't fly the 17 as much as i used to for the simple purpose of joining a Navy squadren of Corsiar pilots.
But i got the 17 shot to hell by a 109G-6, and part of my right wing fell of, and the dame thing flew home without a tail gunner, bottom gunner, oil leak on engine 1 and 2, destroyed engine number 3 and the right; i forget what its called, its the small wing on the tail.
Anyways, i got home, with one kill, and 1 hangar kill.

I think the fact that having holes in your plane should have some effect on your plane such as, lift, drop, pressure, etc. Yes to that.

-FYB

[E25280]

i knew it was british or canadians who did it but i thought that it was generaly agreed that he was surounded by 4-5 shermans and then shot apart and no one came out alive

More like he drove his column into a kill zone.  You make it sound like some kind of Alamo type stand.  IIRC the Brit unit that claimed the Tigers was firing from 800 meters or so.

[Karnak]

More like he drove his column into a kill zone.  You make it sound like some kind of Alamo type stand.  IIRC the Brit unit that claimed the Tigers was firing from 800 meters or so.

That is the understanding I have as well.  Hit from the flank at moderate range having been lured into a kill zone.  First hit disabled his Tiger I (and may have killed some or all crew) and second hit killed whatever the first did not.  The two hits were in rapid succession.

[E2hawkey]

Hell, i don't fly the 17 as much as i used to for the simple purpose of joining a Navy squadren of Corsiar pilots.
But i got the 17 shot to hell by a 109G-6, and part of my right wing fell of, and the dame thing flew home without a tail gunner, bottom gunner, oil leak on engine 1 and 2, destroyed engine number 3 and the right; i forget what its called, its the small wing on the tail.
Anyways, i got home, with one kill, and 1 hangar kill.

I think the fact that having holes in your plane should have some effect on your plane such as, lift, drop, pressure, etc. Yes to that.

-FYB

i never had the same outcome twice  weather in bombers defending or fighters attacking bombers except that someone dies its

[SirLoin]

Wrong.  It is generally agreed that a Sherman VC (i.e. a Firefly) is what killed Wittmann.  Whether it was Joe Ekins of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry or the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade is the only real question.

It was the Canadian tank that blew off Wittman's turret..The other 4 Shermans(one in particular claimed 3 Tiger kills from the other side)..There was a show on TV that went back to the battlefeild ,using pictures and survey equipment found the Canadians had the only clear shot & their position(close range) matched the point of entry for the fatal shot.

A rocket shell was also found nearby but couldn't have blown the turret off as it was not consistant with the trajectory of the kill shot.