Just how effective is the IL2 without the 37mm...

[SmokinLoon]

Penetration and external view are connected to each other in which way?

The direct connection of the F3 view and armor penetration is nil.  Obviously.

The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different.  It is the concept that an IL-2  can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view.  Hence, its effectiveness while solo (or in groups) is quite elevated vs if it were restricted like the other like aircraft in its class (true class, not as percieved by HTC).  It should be almost suicide to operate an IL-2 without fighter cover.

As for the Mossi, 110x, etc, and IL-2 comparison, someone explain to me why, based on how the planes are built and the way they are used that different perameters need be applied with regards to the F3 view.  I've yet to hear anyone plead a case based on hard facts and not "but they view is worse" in the IL-2.  The Il-2 is not more of a "bomber" than the 110 or Mossi is, the delivery method is the same.   

I've stated my case many tiimes in other F3 view threeads.  Apply it universally and there can be no arguement: if the aircraft has a rear turret of any sort (high and/or low), AND level bombing capability then give it the external view ability.  The trade off with the IL-2's lack of view is its extra armor protection for the pilot.  I dont ever recall getting a PW in an IL-2.

  

[SmokinLoon]

And the risk of taking up any other cartoon airplane is exactly what ? Boy that was a silly comment.

Mossie and 110 has far,far,far better internal views. BTW the Mossie doesnt have F3 view Maybe you should fly the airplane before making silly statements. The Mossie/110 are also much faster, turn better, climb better, and have far better plane vs plane armament.

Whats wrong boo-boo? Your wittle tiger get all blowed up?

You need to pull your foot out of your mouth. 'tis your comments that are "silly".

Like I said, the arguements you've just made are all for making the IL-2 more user friendly and steer away from logical transgretion of applying like parameters to like aircraft.  An aircraft's turn rate (btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110), speed, climb rate, internal view, etc, should have zero effect on how the external view is applied.  Shall we apply teh IL-2 list of attributes vs teh Mossi/110x (armor, turn rate, AP cannon, AP rockets, etc) and counter-weigh your arugements? 

With regards to my "tiger" tank getting destroyed, I dont care what I get taken out by.  The issue is how the IL-2 is far more effective due to the F3 view and how it has been somehow blessed by the HTC fairy.  I'm certainly not calling for the MOssi or 110 to gain F3 view, btw.

[Rich46yo]

You need to pull your foot out of your mouth. 'tis your comments that are "silly".

Like I said, the arguements you've just made are all for making the IL-2 more user friendly and steer away from logical transgretion of applying like parameters to like aircraft.  An aircraft's turn rate (btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110), speed, climb rate, internal view, etc, should have zero effect on how the external view is applied.  Shall we apply teh IL-2 list of attributes vs teh Mossi/110x (armor, turn rate, AP cannon, AP rockets, etc) and counter-weigh your arugements? 

With regards to my "tiger" tank getting destroyed, I dont care what I get taken out by.  The issue is how the IL-2 is far more effective due to the F3 view and how it has been somehow blessed by the HTC fairy.  I'm certainly not calling for the MOssi or 110 to gain F3 view, btw.

OK whats the turn rate for the 3 planes mentioned?

[moot]

The direct connection of the F3 view and armor penetration is nil.  Obviously.

The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different.  It is the concept that an IL-2  can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view.  Hence, its effectiveness while solo (or in groups) is quite elevated vs if it were restricted like the other like aircraft in its class (true class, not as percieved by HTC).  It should be almost suicide to operate an IL-2 without fighter cover.

As for the Mossi, 110x, etc, and IL-2 comparison, someone explain to me why, based on how the planes are built and the way they are used that different perameters need be applied with regards to the F3 view.  I've yet to hear anyone plead a case based on hard facts and not "but they view is worse" in the IL-2.  The Il-2 is not more of a "bomber" than the 110 or Mossi is, the delivery method is the same.   

I've stated my case many tiimes in other F3 view threeads.  Apply it universally and there can be no arguement: if the aircraft has a rear turret of any sort (high and/or low), AND level bombing capability then give it the external view ability.  The trade off with the IL-2's lack of view is its extra armor protection for the pilot.  I dont ever recall getting a PW in an IL-2.

 

I reckon Lusche was thrown off by the unnecessary inclusion of "AP" in your curt statement of argument.  I do agree the Il2 is negligibly different from the Mossie and 110, and probably the TBM, as far as allowed external views are concerned. 

[Rich46yo]

OK whats the turn rate for the 3 planes mentioned?

Loony Im talking to you. What are the turn rates?

(btw, the IL-2 will out turn both the Mossi and 110),

You said it not I . The only possible place the IL2 could beat them is in stall fighting, and even there they are no doubt close. Most of all with the 110. But who in their right mind would stall fight an IL2? I dont even stall fight them in a fighter. The speed and climb rates of the IL2 are so terrible you would have to be out of your head to try and turn fight it.

Thats why in the first pass I know if I have a noob or am in trouble. I try not to stall fight cause if I bleed off my energy my IL2 is like a beached whale. Im surprised you have so many problems with IL2s Loon. Maybe you should try flying one to figure out how to beat one.

[SmokinLoon]

Loony Im talking to you. What are the turn rates?

You said it not I . The only possible place the IL2 could beat them is in stall fighting, and even there they are no doubt close. Most of all with the 110. But who in their right mind would stall fight an IL2? I dont even stall fight them in a fighter. The speed and climb rates of the IL2 are so terrible you would have to be out of your head to try and turn fight it.

Thats why in the first pass I know if I have a noob or am in trouble. I try not to stall fight cause if I bleed off my energy my IL2 is like a beached whale. Im surprised you have so many problems with IL2s Loon. Maybe you should try flying one to figure out how to beat one.

 I dont have any trouble shooting down IL-2's.  This isnt about "stall fighting" in an IL-2.  This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum).  So far, your arguent still centers around not taking away the F3 view in the IL-2 because of your opinions, not facts.  "The IL-2 pilot cant see as well as the Mossi, 110, D3A, SBD, etc,therefore it should have F3 capability".  Is it not? 

Oh, and turn rates?  Have your buddy take up an  IL-2 and u take us a Mossi.  See who turns tighter.  Do the same vs the 110.  Heck even make the "fighters" %25 fuel and as light as possible vs a %100 fueled and 37mm armed IL-2. 

[Rich46yo]

I dont have any trouble shooting down IL-2's.  This isnt about "stall fighting" in an IL-2.  This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum).  So far, your arguent still centers around not taking away the F3 view in the IL-2 because of your opinions, not facts.  "The IL-2 pilot cant see as well as the Mossi, 110, D3A, SBD, etc,therefore it should have F3 capability".  Is it not? 

Oh, and turn rates?  Have your buddy take up an  IL-2 and u take us a Mossi.  See who turns tighter.  Do the same vs the 110.  Heck even make the "fighters" %25 fuel and as light as possible vs a %100 fueled and 37mm armed IL-2. 

That could have been one sentence long. As in , "I dont know the turn rates."

[E25280]

This is about applying the F3 view with a universal set of parameters (I suggested a rear gunner and level bombing capabilities as a minimum). 

There is a universal set of parameters used -- you just don't like them.

Bomber class = F3 view.  IL-2 was a bomber. 

Fighter class = no F3 view. 110 and our version of the Mossie were fighters. 

I will grant a small amount of ambiguity with the Mossie, as there were versions that were most certainly designed and used exclusively as bombers.  Ours isn't one of them, though.

[SmokinLoon]

That could have been one sentence long. As in , "I dont know the turn rates."

You didnt post your test results.  and... you have yet to stand on your opinions regarding the application of the F3 ability.  Back up your opinion: The rear view (or over-all pilot view) should determine if an aircraft receives the F3 capability???

Regarding the IL-2 being a "bomber"... Im not going to argue that it was or was not designed as a "bomber", although one of my sources is painting it to be a "close support attack aircraft" **.  I will argue that the role it performed in WWII and even more so in AH is that of an attack platform and not of a bomber.  It went up into the sky loaded with ords and AP rounds (although in AH I'd be willing to be %90 or more of the IL-2's lift off with no ords) for busting up ground targets via direct engagement, namely static defenses and gv's.  The Pe-2, Tu-2, and IL-4 were used in traditional bombing roles in far greater numbers than the IL-2.  Typicallly, I wouldnt even have brought that up 'cept the point was made (and rightfully so) regarding the Mossi being designed as a "bomber".

** "The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII", General Editor: Paul Eden, 2004 Aerospace Publishing   

[Lusche]

The actual attack run on a gv with the IL-2 wouldnt be any different.  It is the concept that an IL-2  can use the F3 view to find the gv's MUCH more easily than with the internal view, and dodge incoming fighters MUCH more easily with external view vs without F3 external view.  

I mainly use two different aircraft to hunt & kill GV's: The Il-2 and the Hurricane IID. One has external view, one not. I have not more difficulties finding enemy GV in the Hurri as I have in the Il-2. I do often use external view for that, but I would be hampered only marginally without it. Once I have roughly determined enemy positions, I rarely use it at all.
Furthermore, I find any form of air combat exceedingly difficult with F3, I never use it in my Il-2 when fighting against or dodging any enemy fughter.

[Rich46yo]

You didnt post your test results.  and... you have yet to stand on your opinions regarding the application of the F3 ability.  Back up your opinion: The rear view (or over-all pilot view) should determine if an aircraft receives the F3 capability???

Slick your the one who brought up its great turning ability. Now your babbling on about F3.

And you cant back anything up. You are simply babbling misdirection. Nice try. So I guess you dont know the turn rates eh?

[E25280]

Regarding the IL-2 being a "bomber"... Im not going to argue that it was or was not designed as a "bomber", although one of my sources is painting it to be a "close support attack aircraft" **.  I will argue that the role it performed in WWII and even more so in AH is that of an attack platform and not of a bomber.  It went up into the sky loaded with ords and AP rounds (although in AH I'd be willing to be %90 or more of the IL-2's lift off with no ords) for busting up ground targets via direct engagement, namely static defenses and gv's.  The Pe-2, Tu-2, and IL-4 were used in traditional bombing roles in far greater numbers than the IL-2.  Typicallly, I wouldnt even have brought that up 'cept the point was made (and rightfully so) regarding the Mossi being designed as a "bomber".   

Um . . . attacking ground targets is a bomber's role.  The IL-2 was designed specifically to attack ground targets, i.e. a bomber. 

It was not designed or intended to fight enemy aircraft in an air-superiority role.  That is the role of a fighter.

Planes that were designed to do either were called (oddly enough) fighter/bombers.  But the IL-2 was certainly not one of these.

Not sure why this is such a hard thing for you to grasp.

[moot]

Isn't external supposed to simulate extra SA from extra eyes?

[hammer]

Isn't external supposed to simulate extra SA from extra eyes?

That is how I understand it. Even that simple premise generates discussion, though.

One argument is planes like the 110, which has the same crew configuration as the Il-2, arguably better visibility from the crew positions than the Il-2, have no external view.

Another is planes like the Il-2, SBD, A-20 (in its AH configuration) etc which only have a rear gunner, have perfect 360 visibility just like a B-17 or B-24 with its multitude of positions.

My personal opinion is that planes with a rear gunner should have an option to have certain views attached to the rear gunner position vice having an external view or having to switch positions. For example, the rear view in the A-20 would be from the dorsal turret looking directly to the rear. I actually think this would be more useful in combat than the 360 external.

Anyway, it's nothing I care one way or the other about. I just feel the concession to SA is applied inconsistently with its purpose.

Regards,

Hammer

[Rich46yo]

Regarding the killing ability of the NS-37mm cannon on the IL2 here are the facts.

Its fired a 760 gram AP shell at 2887 fps. Now the hunters here can understand I load a 217 grain bullet in my .338 win mag to about that speed. The weight of the 37mm shell in grains is 11,728 grains. It had a ROF of 250 to 260 rpm for each gun, so that equals 500 to 520 for the airplane. So thats 8 to 9 RPS, a 1 second burst shoots 8 to 9. Each round could punch thru 50mm of Tank armor at 200 m. http://www.russianammo.org/37mm.html

Heres one pass i took at a Tiger Tank last night. You cant see the distance icon but when rounds first start firing I'm 200 away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FpD3xfnq-8 I counted 5 shots thru the thin top armor of the tank. Can you imagine the effect of 5 AP shells, of that size, with all that kinetic energy, fired point blank, zinging around crew areas, ammo storage, engine machinery?

Well the A-10 tank busters 30mm, we currently use, fires a 527 gram DU rounds that penetrates 69mm at 500 m while at 3300 fps. As far as I know it can defeat any top armor of any tank in the world. The simple fact is MBTs have far thinner top plates of armor and always will in order to operate at a reasonable vehicle weight.

Clearly the effectiveness of the NS-37mm cannon, in this game, is modeled correctly. It was, and is, a very effective weapon when used correctly.

You can argue all day about recoil and the effect is has on cartoon planes/vehicles vis-a-vis real ones historically. But how would you change one without changing them all? And what criteria would you use, other then "one particular one is ruining my day"?