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

[KgB]

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

Well screw me what have you been reading?

[SmokinLoon]

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?

The EF I cant back anything up.  How many times to do I have to spell it out my reasoning as to *why* the IL-2 doesnt need nor deserve the F3 capability.  My argument against it included multiple listed reasons.  I staked my claim and backed it up with reasoning.  You staked your claim and back it up with "just because".  Turn rates?  Again, I've already said my bit and asked you to prove me otherwise and you have yet to step up.  Try it and post your results. 

Keep swingin', you're missin' by a mile, Francis.

Luche, your statement helps the exact issue I am trying to get across: the IL-23 doesnt **need** the F3 view becuase of all the other features it has.  An aircraft's lack of of view doesnt constitute a **need** for the F3 capability.  Set a standard and apply it universally.

[E25280]

Set a standard and apply it universally.

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. 

[Anaxogoras]

Does this mean that if we get a bomber version of the Mosquito, it will have F3 view?  Now that would really stir up some controversy.

Notice that the current standard depends on the name you give something, and not on its components or what it is used for.  Standards like that tend not to deserve the name "standard."

[Rich46yo]

Well a picture says a thousand words, "even Loony can understand a picture". Heres the swell view looking out the back of the IL2 It gets a little better looking rear/high, "assuming the cons is there", Here are the side rear views

Heres the rear for the Mossie. The High rear The side rear

here are the 110 views.


So thats what were looking at here. Even for Loony, who stakes his claims on Looniness. And since Im not Hitech I can only guess his delivering F3 views is a mix of the airplanes views, airplane type, and/if there is also a gunner in the rear. Since the 110s views to the rear are so good, and since it was also mainly a fighter, he left out F3. But thats a guess. Im not HiTech and neither are any of you.

Its funny but the IL2 is so helpless against skilled fighter sticks I cant really understand the angst it arouses in this game. Even at tank killing there are very few players who rack up big numbers of tanks every month.

[Anaxogoras]

Rich, I think SWTarget is correct that the Il-2's F3 view has everything to do with its classification as a bomber, and therefore, by implication, nothing to do with the quality of its 6 view.

[Rich46yo]

Pretty much what I said when I said Mossie and 110 were used as fighters in the war.

And like any bomber in the game the rear views of the IL2 suck. Take away F3 then just take away the airplane. I'd never fly it.

Its one thing to have poor views in a P-39 which you can fly to Alts and use B&Z to lessen the limitations of the rear view. That and the fact a wingman and the planes agility help to keep SA. And with so much time in the verticle, like with the Hellcat, the rearward obstruction is less of a limiting factor.

On the other hand IL2s are lone hunters hugging the ground waitin or the right moment to pop up and gun a GV. As your friendly Dar increases so does your altitude and agressivness. The Stormbird only shines when there is enough friendlys to make the B&Z of a low IL2 a mistake on the enemies part and it give me the time to set up an attack profile where I cant lose and ll of a sudden 3 to 6 tank go boomb from cannon alone when they give me time to wheel nd come in with all advatage on my side. like yestrerday when TT Island mptied of enemy ons and flak and let the field to an IL2 with full load of cannon as this tiger found out http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aces high/?action=view&current=TT-Tiger.flv As did the 3 tanks after him.

Had it gone out on vox "Rich is here" and suporting fihters responded, as did flak, I would have had a hrd time pursuing my attack and probaly ended up bug spray. Its a simple weakness as old as war itself. You see an eney make a mistake and then you exploit it without hesitaion.

Id love to get 20 to 30 Soviet set sticks intent on Historically correct Tactical air offensives designed to springholes into enemy for mation and encircle/anihilate Seeeminglyentrenched enemy formations

[jdbecks]

I thought the point of f3 view, was to repersent bombers having 360 degree view around the aircraft, not because of poor rear views, otherwise using them points F4Us should have a f3 view.

the mossie has a better view, but the il2 has a rear gunner.

[SmokinLoon]

btw... if you're resorting to name calling, just how serious is anyone supposed to take you?  My forum ID relates to my favorite guitar players' quick drunk drink (EVH was known to have a bottle of "Smoking Loon" merlot up on stage during the '04 VH tour).  So no, it has nothing to do with being "loony".     Good pics, btw.  So you ARE saying the sub-par rearview of teh IL-2 is why it should have the F3?

Again, I'm not debating that the Mossi and 110 have a better rear view, that isnt the issue.  The issue is just as Anaxogoras/Target have pointed out: The **only** thing linking the IL-2 to the F3 view seems to be the bomber classification.  I'm vouching for taking each and every aircraft's specific attributes that relate to the exterior view (upper or lower, or both gunners, etc,), and applying universally a standard regardless.  I believe the IL-2 not to be a true bomber, ESPECIALLY since its main weapons are the cannons hands down, and when it was designed as a direct fire attack aircraft from the beginning.  As I've already stated, one source listed it to be a "close support attack aircraft".  I dont have the figures, but were there swarms of IL-2 performing bombing raids on Berlin, or other such target with the 4/100kg bombs?  Me thinks even the Soviets knew they were too slow and too exposed to do that (and more-so too valuable as tank killers/close support).  The Soviets would send in the faster and more capable *bombers* to do that.  Again, the poor rear view of a IL-2 shouldnt constitute the F3 capability.  Listing the IL-2 in a certain category (bomber) shouldnt automatically allow it attributes another aircraft with the *same* set of eyes to not have it.   

btw... the views you have shown are the worst views the IL-2 has.  Is that the best you can do?  I know I've manipulated the view in the IL-2 to present far better views that what you've shown.  Oh, lemme guess... you've not ever used those views because your in the F3 view most of the time?       

[Rich46yo]

Thats the point. I dont take you serious and could care less if you take me so.

I read the first sentence in your post. In the future I wont even read that.

I'd say thats pretty straight forward.

[SmokinLoon]

Thats the point. I dont take you serious and could care less if you take me so.

I read the first sentence in your post. In the future I wont even read that.

I'd say thats pretty straight forward.

Funny thing is... well... you keep diggin a hole and have explained nothing but the status quo and "just because" the rear view is worse in teh IL-2 is should receive the F3 view.  So, you stand on the premise that a sub-par rear view = F3 capability.  Thing is, you cant vouch for that universally, can you?  Likewise, I can vouch for the opposite end of that specturm and be gainfully supported.  Let us know when you need a ladder to get out.

[Wmaker]

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.

Been thinking exactly the same thing and totally agree. I think all the "rear hemisphere" views could be attached to the "rear gun position" aswell. This might pose a problem with joined gunners but I'm pretty sure HT would find a workaround code-wise. If the plane has more than two pairs of eyes it should IMO have an F3-view.

[Anaxogoras]

Been thinking exactly the same thing and totally agree. I think all the "rear hemisphere" views could be attached to the "rear gun position" aswell. This might pose a problem with joined gunners but I'm pretty sure HT would find a workaround code-wise. If the plane has more than two pairs of eyes it should IMO have an F3-view.

I suggested the same in another thread some months ago.  The easy work around is to let the player move his 6 view past the headrest in aircraft that had a tail gunner.

[E25280]

The issue is just as Anaxogoras/Target have pointed out: The **only** thing linking the IL-2 to the F3 view seems to be the bomber classification.  I'm vouching for taking each and every aircraft's specific attributes that relate to the exterior view (upper or lower, or both gunners, etc,), and applying universally a standard regardless.  I believe the IL-2 not to be a true bomber, ESPECIALLY since its main weapons are the cannons hands down, and when it was designed as a direct fire attack aircraft from the beginning.  As I've already stated, one source listed it to be a "close support attack aircraft".  I dont have the figures, but were there swarms of IL-2 performing bombing raids on Berlin, or other such target with the 4/100kg bombs?  Me thinks even the Soviets knew they were too slow and too exposed to do that (and more-so too valuable as tank killers/close support).  The Soviets would send in the faster and more capable *bombers* to do that.  Again, the poor rear view of a IL-2 shouldnt constitute the F3 capability.  Listing the IL-2 in a certain category (bomber) shouldnt automatically allow it attributes another aircraft with the *same* set of eyes to not have it.   

Just because it wasn't used for strategic bombing a la the B-17 does not negate the fact that the IL-2 is a ground-attack aircraft and therefore a tactical bomber.  To use another example, the Stuka was also a "close support attack aircraft", and was a bomber, and in AH, is listed as such.

Many fighters were given hard points and carried ord and were used in an attack roll -- but even planes that excelled at this (such as the Corsair) were either designed to be fighters first or, at the least, dual-role aircraft from the very beginning.  This was not true of the IL-2 or Stuka or JU-88 -- all were designed specifically to attack ground targets -- in a tactical bomber roll.

The categorization as a bomber is correct.