PDA

View Full Version : Is the Spitfire too fragile?



sledgehammer2
02-02-2006, 07:07 PM
Just looking for opinions here. I was doing some UQMG stuff tonight - 4 Spit LF Vs (clipwings) against 2 Bf-110s and 2 Me-210s. The last time I flew the setup I finally succeeded in downing one of the 210s and one of the 110s without getting a fatal bullet to the engine that caused a glycol leak.

Each time I tried it before that I would get some good strikes on the Bf but he would get a short burst on me that caused engine damage. I would then have to break off.

I know that the tail-gunners in this game have long been too accurate but does the Spit fire seem too sensitive to nose damage?

hammer2

sledgehammer2
02-02-2006, 07:07 PM
Just looking for opinions here. I was doing some UQMG stuff tonight - 4 Spit LF Vs (clipwings) against 2 Bf-110s and 2 Me-210s. The last time I flew the setup I finally succeeded in downing one of the 210s and one of the 110s without getting a fatal bullet to the engine that caused a glycol leak.

Each time I tried it before that I would get some good strikes on the Bf but he would get a short burst on me that caused engine damage. I would then have to break off.

I know that the tail-gunners in this game have long been too accurate but does the Spit fire seem too sensitive to nose damage?

hammer2

3.JG51_BigBear
02-02-2006, 07:12 PM
In-line, liquid cooled engines were well known for easily damaged cooling systems. Given the accounts I've read, I don't think its hard to believe that a solid burst from a light machine gun would be enough to do serious damage to the hoses and radiators used to cool the engine.

georgeo76
02-02-2006, 07:17 PM
careful those rear gunners. Try to come in @ high angles @ high speed for slashing passes.

VW-IceFire
02-02-2006, 07:19 PM
I'd say the Spitfire is just right. Although the airframe itself was "strong" there were many vulnerable areas including the engine and radiators and I think the game actually does a decent job with its damage model.

If anything, its some of the other inline engined aircraft that are a little on the tough side. Most of those come from earlier editions of the game...so I suspect this is a old DM/new DM sort of thing.

DrHerb
02-02-2006, 07:58 PM
in the Canadian warplane museum, theres a bf109 gustav that wasd brought down by 3 hits in the radiator with .30 cal bullets by a mig 3 so to me radiator damage in this game is miniscule at best

mortoma
02-02-2006, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I know that the tail-gunners in this game have long been too accurate but does the Spit fire seem too sensitive to nose damage?

hammer2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree, I can take out more planes as a gunner than the AI can. In the B-25 tail position, I once got four A6M3s in a single sortie. The AI seldom get that many kills. I don't know about them being too accurate. I think it's easier to be a gunner than you think it is.

Jumoschwanz
02-02-2006, 09:50 PM
Sledgehammer,

If you cannot shoot down a plane with a tailgunner it is because you don't know what you are doing and that is all.

I will get in a spit against 16 bf110s, full real settings, and shoot them all down and send you a track if you want.

Jumoschwanz

Jetbuff
02-02-2006, 10:08 PM
The guy wasn't whining, no need to be so hard on him. He just asked a question is all. And no, I don't think the spitfire is too susceptible to damage, at least not more so than other inline engined planes in the sim.

Enforcer572005
02-02-2006, 10:32 PM
i must respectfully disagree, at least when it comes to the damage modeling of the Merlin engine. I havent flwon spits that much, but the P51s have such a fragile engine that i wont fly campns in them. One lousy 30 cal slug, and you ALWAYS lose the engine. The key word here is always. In reality, It COULD, and sometimes did, take out the engine, but it wasnt nearly as common as in this sim. Inline liquid cooled engines were more prone to damage than radials, but that was mostly apparent in ground attack misns, where they suffered at least 3x the losses as radials (hence the absurd loss rate in P51s in Korea-compared to the Corsair and Skyraider; USAF got rid of the P47 prematurely).

Ive yet to fly a misn in a 51 where the prop doenst freeze, and Im not a noob who doesnt know what hes doing. I can fly the same misn in a Lagg, YaK, P39/63,109s, and even a Hurricane (which had merlins, so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif), and i can survive quite well against the android rear gunners, at least without engine failure-i may go down, but its usually in flames, not a frozen prop due to coolant loss.

If merlin engines were that fragile to air to air combat damage, we'd all be eating sour kraut and drinking sakai for diner, and pigieons would be pooping on statues of Adolf in our towns.

AS for the ai gunners....if you can control the skill level, usually make most of the bombers rookie, at least most of them, since any higher skill level will make them androids that never miss-if they wree really that effective, P51s would never have been needed to escort bombers. While turret gunners should be more effective, hand held guns had far more spread and were far less effective, especially 30cal,7.92mm.7.7mm etc., even 50 cal.

And yes there are all sorts of stories about a single bullet bringing dn a plane, but these golden bb incidents are the exception and not the rule. Most losses of merlin powered planes werent exclusive to punctured coolant tanks and engine failures as result.

In short, I totally agree with your position. The tactics mentioned will certainly increase your survivability,but you shouldnt be limited to them all the time. those hand held rifle calibre guns were just not that effective, not even close, even on inline engines. I believe a survey of luftwaffe losses will probably show a similiar loss rate to gunners among the 109s as the FW. I beleive the same will hold across the board when comparing radials and inlines.

And i really dont think the Spit has enough ammo to blast 16 of anything outta the air-those 20mm mags were kinda small http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

horseback
02-02-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I know that the tail-gunners in this game have long been too accurate but does the Spit fire seem too sensitive to nose damage?

hammer2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree, I can take out more planes as a gunner than the AI can. In the B-25 tail position, I once got four A6M3s in a single sortie. The AI seldom get that many kills. I don't know about them being too accurate. I think it's easier to be a gunner than you think it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You know, I've crawled around in more than one WWII bomber or attack bird, and sat in at least 5 or 6 turrets/gunners' seats that have all but the ammo belts in place, and I have yet to find so much as one gun position controlled by a mouse or trackball...

Online, I don't give a rat's patoot about how accurate the ai gunners are, but offline, where I'm trying to emulate real life tactics in my campaigns, a backseat or tunnel gunner at a ring or flexible mount who can hit me in the engine or cockpit from 600m EVERY TIME is horse hockey.

The issue is not whether it's too easy to damage an engine in this game (but yes, it is for some engines made in some countries), the real question is whether or not it's too easy to HIT said engines in the first place.

cheers

horseback

StG2_Schlachter
02-03-2006, 03:26 AM
You are probably right,horseback.
But then again, i don't get hit in distances greater than 600m by the AI. If someone decides to close in on a bomber from dead six it's a stupid idea.

But!:
Gunnery in general is way too easy in the sim. We also have this ridiculous Zoom-View in-game. A human gunner will achieve the same results with zooming as the sniper AI. Engine hits are really easy to score.

But otoh if you perform "half-pipe" slashing attacks you won't get hit. Be Sure! This is of course a problem for allied planes with .50 cals.

Waldo.Pepper
02-03-2006, 05:54 AM
This story is exceptional and uncommon. But after you read it you will think that the Spitrire is tough.

"


My rule had been that after each bombing attack, all aircraft should be checked for bomb hangups before further action was considered. I broke my own rule, this time unaware that the 500-pound belly bomb had not released. Our bomb racks were originally designed for bombs to be dropped from level flight, and since nothing else was available, we had to use them for dive-bombing.

In a dive speed of 450 mph, the force exerted by speed and pressure on the rack was often too strong for the electrical system and the release hook would fail to open. Hangups or the bomb's failing to drop would result. This happened to me. I failed to notice the weight since my speed and a good pullout, combined with a turn without skidding or slipping, fooled me into thinking the aircraft was bomb-free.

Olmsted attacked the first truck, opening fire a few hundred metres from his target while diving. "The vibration of my guns shook the bomb free, so that it struck the truck when I was less than fifty feet above the vehicle. It blew the truck to smithereens, knocked me unconscious, and blasted my aircraft several hundred feet upward. My Spit slowly rolled onto its back, and when I regained consciousness two or three seconds later, I was heading for the ground upside down."

Too dazed to think, Olmsted instinctively yanked the control column hard, which righted his aircraft in the nick of time and pulled him out of the dive at treetop level. He wondered if he should bail out or attempt to return to Volkel, then realised he had little choice: the canopy was jammed shut. He set course for Volkel while surveying the damage to his Spitfire. It was dramatic, to say the least.


Olmsted:
Both wings were badly buckled from the force of the explosion and had been blown or bent upward an extra foot and a half.

Every panel in the aircraft had been blown off, with the ground clearly visible through great empty holes in the wings. Pieces of brown canvas from the covering protecting the truck cargo were streaming from the jagged metal pieces of my aircraft, and the fuselage was buckled and twisted while the tail unit fluttered and vibrated, threatening to break off. Both ailerons were sticking almost straight up in the air. While I was consciously recovering from the dive, Providence had made me move the control column the only way it would work. The cockpit had been badly stove in and none of the cockpit instruments read correctly... Some of the control cables had been completely severed; there was no elevator control, and the rudder remained the only control which worked normally. It took both my hands, one foot, and all my strength on the control column just to prolong what little flying capability remained.

Olmsted said that from Minster to safety was roughly a hundred and sixty kilometres. He staggered along at 140 mph until miraculously he made it back to Volkel. There, however, he was presented with the potential hazards of landing his stricken aircraft. He tried once again to free the canopy, and was able to get it unstuck so that it blew away. He was considering how best to exit the aircraft when the engine "apparently ran out of oil" and began making noises "indicating that it might blow up at any moment."

His situation became truly desperate when the Spitfire entered into a steep dive. Olmsted pushed himself out the small doorway and to his horror found himself stuck to the side of the aircraft. Eventually, though, the increasing wind pressure ripped him loose, and after dropping several thousand feet he pulled the cord on his parachute. "I was completely drained," he wrote afterwards. "I watched with no emotion as my aircraft crashed in a tiny Dutch field, but later I would thank that remarkable aircraft for lasting long enough to bring me safely home."

Philipscdrw
02-03-2006, 06:06 AM
Wow - that's a remarkable story.

The conclusive evidence would be the maintenance logs from Merlin-powered squadrons. If they're rarely maintaining damage to the engine from enemy fire, then the chances are thad engine damage is as fatal in real life as it is in game.

What's that legend of the engineer who is to fit armour plate to a combat aircraft - "He looked at the planes which returned full of bullet-holes, and decided to place the armour in the place that was undamaged, reasoning that aircraft which took damage to this area were the ones that didn't come back".

Waldo.Pepper
02-03-2006, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He looked at the planes which returned full of bullet-holes, and decided to place the armour in the place that was undamaged, reasoning that aircraft which took damage to this area were the ones that didn't come back". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inspired and brilliant!

SeaFireLIV
02-03-2006, 06:23 AM
Did someone say he was whining? British planes are the least whined about planes on the planet. We`ve have got to be the most patient people on Earth when it comes to getting things done for Brit planes in FB!

Personally I think it`s a very good trait that other Countries could use. The Italians are pretty patient as well I notice.

(I make myself an exception).

Personally, i think the Spit`s ok, but then I don`t go over it with a fine tooth-comb then make a zillion page thread moaning that its speed is 0.05 kmh slower than it should be!

Kuna15
02-03-2006, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Sledgehammer,

If you cannot shoot down a plane with a tailgunner it is because you don't know what you are doing and that is all.

I will get in a spit against 16 bf110s, full real settings, and shoot them all down and send you a track if you want.

Jumoschwanz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Jumo I would like to see that track too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Enforcer572005
02-03-2006, 07:30 AM
there's somethng to what horseback said i believe, since it appears that some engines appear to be more PRONE to being HIT directly than in others, and that likelihood should be the same across the board, with exceptions maybe like the P39/63 from certain angles maybe.

The underwing radiators were the big weakness of the spit, but the above story indicates that they may not be so horribly vulnerable. I bet though that our likelihood of getting hit in such a vulnerable position may be the same regardless of what angle we're being shot at on the planes in question.

I also fly P40s alot (all offline for now) and they dont hvae a problem wiht an easily stopped engine either. And dont forget 110s.
me thinks a little adjustment to the likelihood of such freeze-ups would be in order. I couldnt finish flying 2 little ducs because of this....great cmpn, but somethng got changed since it came out i think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

marc_hawkins
02-03-2006, 07:40 AM
I may be wrong, but i thought there was a reason why the engine in the mustang was more easy to disable than in the spit? Something to do with the 'plumbing' i believe? Anybody know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

horseback
02-03-2006, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
You are probably right,horseback.
But then again, i don't get hit in distances greater than 600m by the AI. If someone decides to close in on a bomber from dead six it's a stupid idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My point is that the RL gunners were rarely able to hit anything more than 200m away, even if their targets were at a dead six. I've been hit during violent maneuvers, in rolls, dives, 90 degree deflection, you name it, by gunners who shouldn't even have been able to bring their guns to bear. This in 109s, 190s, LaGGs, MiGs, P-39s, P-40s, and on and on, over my 3+ years playing this sim and the original Il-2.

RL losses to airgunners were most often due to the volume of fire coming from formations of aircraft, not from some Davy Crockett in the back seat of a wildly maneuvering single aircraft, and almost never at the ranges I quoted. A single or pair of multiseaters was considered easy meat for a reason; even with guys pointing MGs out the back of the aircraft, at those speeds and the slightest off-angle, it was too physically hard to hit anything.

Run a QMB with three bombers at Average, approach from their 4-8 o'clocks above, below, and level, and they start getting strikes at 600m and more. Unreal, from the start, and you can shred their positions and they'll keep firing. The Terminator would be easier to take out, and less accurate, to boot.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But!:
Gunnery in general is way too easy in the sim. We also have this ridiculous Zoom-View in-game. A human gunner will achieve the same results with zooming as the sniper AI. Engine hits are really easy to score.

But otoh if you perform "half-pipe" slashing attacks you won't get hit. Be Sure! This is of course a problem for allied planes with .50 cals </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gunnery is too easy in this sim because most of the flyable aircraft are too stable; the zoom-view is actually what somebody with 20/20 vision should see through the gunsight. Limitations of the monitors make it necessary to move back and forth to wider fields of view in order to maintain a semblence of SA.

I should point out that I stay exclusively in the pilot's seat. I simply get no enjoyment from playing gunner with a mouse. If I did, I'd play more First Person Shooters.

The .50 issue (actually, it's a wing mounted gun issue) is a whole other thread. Suffice it to say that the only time you can expect to do anything like realistic damage is within 20m of convergence; the rest of the time, it's a matter of luck (most of it bad).

cheers

horseback

ploughman
02-03-2006, 10:52 AM
The Spit is vulnerable in the engine, but it isn't instantaneously deadly in my experience. The P-51 has a glass jaw and if I fight it in a QMB generally it goes down on fire or with a stopped engine but it's probably the easiest plane to nail in the engine area because the AI insists on turning and climbing at the same time, and it's got a lovely long nose to aim at. My biggest DM beef is that 'control loss' is a bit clunky.

As for nailing things at convergence. I like the Spitfire Mk IX and generally have cannons et al set to 250m, which is fine. However, setting them to infinity (or is it 2,000m) allows you pretty good 'sniper' shots at ranges beyond 1,000m, and keeps you out of trouble (mostly) from AI gunners.

I hadn't really thought about the importance of convergence untill the Mustang Mk III which is a pretty unrewarding aircraft unless you nail your opponent in at the convergence zone, when all sorts of horrible things happen to him, in which case you realise why Mk III pilots thought 6 or 8 .50s were an unnecessary extravagance.

Jetbuff
02-03-2006, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The .50 issue (actually, it's a wing mounted gun issue) is a whole other thread. Suffice it to say that the only time you can expect to do anything like realistic damage is within 20m of convergence; the rest of the time, it's a matter of luck (most of it bad). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. It is less effective and less likely to result in spectacular visuals but I often fire at 100m while my convergence is set to 200m and have no problems downing planes with the 0.50's. If you meant 200m discrepancy from your convergence point, then yes, chances are you'll only scratch paint if you hit at all.

zugfuhrer
02-03-2006, 12:32 PM
If you say "Spitfire is to fragile" you should fly the Me-109 as a comparison.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
If you say "Spitfire is to fragile" you should fly the Me-109 as a comparison. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, which one? The G-6 seems pretty formidable to me.

JtD
02-03-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Sledgehammer,

If you cannot shoot down a plane with a tailgunner it is because you don't know what you are doing and that is all.

I will get in a spit against 16 bf110s, full real settings, and shoot them all down and send you a track if you want.

Jumoschwanz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Jumo I would like to see that track too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably Vc 4 cannon vs. noob's in C-4 110's.

Anyway, if you manage to get 16 veteran G-2's in a Vb-LF, or maybe a IXc, I'd like to see it, too.

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 02:59 PM
really easy to have the cps unit damaged. thats something the 109 doesnt have.

Jetbuff
02-03-2006, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
really easy to have the cps unit damaged. thats something the 109 doesnt have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suspect you mean the CSP governor? In that case, the 109 also suffers damage to its automated system and will over-rev just like the spitfire. It is much rarer in my experince though.

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 03:42 PM
ah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
02-03-2006, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Online, I don't give a rat's patoot about how accurate the ai gunners are, but offline, where I'm trying to emulate real life tactics in my campaigns, a backseat or tunnel gunner at a ring or flexible mount who can hit me in the engine or cockpit from 600m EVERY TIME is horse hockey. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF calculated just the dispersion of a B17 tail turret as around 20 mils. At 600m that would be 20/1000*600 or +- 6m on the aim position. That's for about the 3 standard deviation, but even so, given a WW2 fighter is less than 2m tall and around 1m wide in frontal area then something like 90% or more of the rounds fired at a fighter should be missing at 600m even given a perfect aim. [Note: I haven't checked a standard deviation table for the normal distribution so it's an estimate!]. With a 1 second burst absolutely on target that's maybe 5 hits, but given the realities of combat with everything moving you'd be lucky to land a single round at all on a fighter on your 6 with a 1 second burst at 600m. It's entirely possible it could happen though, what with firing big cones of bullets a fighter might fly through (which was sort of the idea of a bomber box, although the bullet density is still very low if you do the maths).

sledgehammer2
02-03-2006, 06:14 PM
Some interesting replies guys... thanks. From all of this I guess I can conclude that for the most part the Spit is basically ok, and also that Jumoschwanze is a jerk.