PDA

View Full Version : Kill causes



WholeHawg
03-31-2009, 09:44 AM
Hey all

I got to thinking the other day if there ever was a study done during WWII to define what the actual killing blow was in a series of cases that lead to an aircraft being shot down. I am sure it varies radically from one type of aircraft to another being dependent on armor and engine type. I just guessing but I would think things like fuel system hits and pilot injury are probably big ones. I would thing in a water cooled engine that would be a very sensitive system.

In the game I seem to suffer mostly from control surface damage and total wing loss. There isnt really any coolant system modeling built in to the damage model that I can tell.

If anyone has come across anything along these lines please post away!! thanks

DKoor
03-31-2009, 03:02 PM
Hm... you are probably right.
Even in spectacular gun cams we can see aircraft on fire and in some cases (more rare) big parts (wings etc.) are flying away.
I reckon most aircraft went down not by a total structural collapse (as “depicted” in game, cannons FTW) but from various damage to engine, controls, pilot and then the actual structure.

Waldo.Pepper
03-31-2009, 04:12 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/usn.jpg

Page 59 of WW2 Fighter Conflict by A. Price.

danjama
03-31-2009, 05:11 PM
I'm surprised there's not too many related to powerplant.

Sillius_Sodus
03-31-2009, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I'm surprised there's not too many related to powerplant.

Perhaps it's because the US Navy aircraft at the time had air cooled radial engines, no vulnerable glycol cooling system to damage.

horseback
03-31-2009, 06:23 PM
In real life, it was a lot harder to hit the powerplant. Most attacks were made from the rear quarter, which provided a simpler and lower risk firing solution.

Bear in mind also that the majority of the fighters faced by the USN in the late-war period were considerably inferior in terms of performance.

cheers

horseback

danjama
03-31-2009, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I'm surprised there's not too many related to powerplant.

Perhaps it's because the US Navy aircraft at the time had air cooled radial engines, no vulnerable glycol cooling system to damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but there is a seperate heading for cooling systems

R_Target
03-31-2009, 07:15 PM
Pretty impressive figure on structural damage. High % of loss under oil and fuel doesn't surprise me.

Jim57
04-01-2009, 08:49 AM
I am not sure how "true" this is, but in Gregory "Pappy" Boyington's book, BAA BAA BLACK SHEEP This is found in Chapter 19; and I quote his book...


"The majority of pilots in the war were not shot down by the enemy; they were killed in operational accidents taking off from the field, in getting lost in the fog, and so forth, not by enemy fire."


END QUOTE,

Of course, as you know, he flew in the Pacific, so I am not sure how this would work out in the European theater.

PLUS, this is how he wrote it. Not sure if it can be backed up by facts. Probably pretty true though if not 100% correct.

danjama
04-01-2009, 08:50 AM
Yea i'd believe that. Many pilots flew the war without eve nengaging with enemy planes, so many must have died in the same way.

crucislancer
04-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Jim57:
I am not sure how "true" this is, but in Gregory "Pappy" Boyington's book, BAA BAA BLACK SHEEP This is found in Chapter 19; and I quote his book...


"The majority of pilots in the war were not shot down by the enemy; they were killed in operational accidents taking off from the field, in getting lost in the fog, and so forth, not by enemy fire."


END QUOTE,

Of course, as you know, he flew in the Pacific, so I am not sure how this would work out in the European theater.

PLUS, this is how he wrote it. Not sure if it can be backed up by facts. Probably pretty true though if not 100% correct.

While Boyington was known for stretching the truth a bit, there has been a lot said about the subject. In some cases, half of the total losses of a Group could be atributed to accidents. The Black Sheep lost a lot of pilots that way, more then a few just dissapeared during a mission. A landing accident could easily prove fatal.

In Bud Anderson's memoirs, he mentions a training flight in P-39s, just him and a rookie on his wing, flying over the California coast. One minute the rookie was there, the next he wasn't. Most likely he lost control and fell into the sea, but he really wasn't sure.

DKoor
04-01-2009, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Page 59 of WW2 Fighter Conflict by A. Price. Oil fuel and pilot&controls seems to be most critical...
Nice chart!

M_Gunz
04-01-2009, 06:50 PM
There's still the big gray area of those unknowns that never returned, never traced.

killersquad1960
04-02-2009, 07:03 AM
In my experience with maddox games since the first one, ai usually tries to get your engine,
second kill pilot,three body or tail.
So I love to play chicken with an enemy
if a fighter I go after engine,pilot,wings or tail.If a bomber try to kill one of their engines
body,wings and lastly the tail.No Tail they cant fly very well or make turns or even land

Hookecho
04-02-2009, 03:58 PM
I always wondered if any were killed due to all the falling drop tanks on each side...