View Full Version : Paper Mache B-17's

04-12-2004, 09:02 PM
Does anyone else here find the B-17 just too damned easy to blow up. Usually i can get a wing/engine to burst into flame in just one pass with .50cals or 13.2 mm MG's.

Compare this to the He 111, FW Condor or even -dare i say it- the Pe-8 and they just go down WAY too fast.

I have stopped attacking them in QMB as i'm finding it far to easy.

There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!

04-12-2004, 09:02 PM
Does anyone else here find the B-17 just too damned easy to blow up. Usually i can get a wing/engine to burst into flame in just one pass with .50cals or 13.2 mm MG's.

Compare this to the He 111, FW Condor or even -dare i say it- the Pe-8 and they just go down WAY too fast.

I have stopped attacking them in QMB as i'm finding it far to easy.

There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!

04-12-2004, 09:34 PM
I find they dont go down fast enough.

04-12-2004, 09:39 PM
I agree with Thunderbolt. I don't believe anything was ever that tough, with exception to my old banana-seat bike. If I don't have Mk108 or Mk103 I don't bother. He he he, but if you got a new bug you can pass it to me; I'll save ammo this way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

04-12-2004, 10:08 PM
Thought i might need some evidence to back up my statements. So i just did a couple of QMB's against empty B-17's and Pe-8's flying a p-51.

Results were not suprising (for me anyway).

Against B-17's i could down between 3 to 7 before running out of ammo. Usually i put down 4.

Against Pe-8's i could down between 2 and 5 before running out of ammo. Usually i downed 2.

Against B-17 i could get an engine or fuel tank heavily smoking in half my frontal passes. At the minimum i would usually cause 2 fuel leaks or a lightly smoking engine.

Against pe-8's i would rarely get any engine damage and/or a fuel leak.

B-17s would start to smoke heavily with a 1-1.5 second burst into the inge (usually outer section)

Pe-8's would only smoke with a high angle attack into the inner wing section, usually after 2-3 passes (as it was difficult to maintain high angels of attack and make a long firing run)

All of this leads me to the conclusion that a pe-8 is at least twice as difficult to shoot down as a B-17 and that to effectively engage the Soviety bomber a large calliber (30mm +) cannon is needed.

Have also seen a Pe-8 take 6 37 mm hits at the wing root /foward cockpit and still fly blithely on.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

04-12-2004, 10:20 PM
the PE-8 has a super weak outer wing

i have downed 12 on one Me262-1a ammo load

yes the B-17 gets on fire ........ & then the crew bails

thats not really shooting one down tho is it

the thing is a cannon sponge

be sure !

04-12-2004, 10:34 PM
I don't know but it sure seems like the guns, any gun, is much more effective in QMB than online (the only modes I play). Makes me wonder if the same modelling in QMB is applied when online. May just be my imagination though.

04-12-2004, 10:39 PM
I heard lag can make a big difference. Not sure though as I know little about it, I'm just a pilot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, I never tried guns on the B17. I always used cannons, so much for logic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Fritz Franzen

04-13-2004, 12:12 AM
When you play online, you have FBs network layer & prediction & latency & loss & the FB anticheat code to pass through. The hits you see on your end are not always the hits that pass through those layers to the person you're shooting at as a result of those factors.

JTD posted some very comprehensive tests here:


..showing some major differences in local online game [] testing vs 1.21 results.

Oleg says the gunnery & damage model has not changed between AEP and FB 1.21.

The only difference I have noticed between 1.21 testing and 2.00 testing is that rifle cal rounds now appear to have much better penetration through fuel tanks and are much more likely to start fuel system and engine fires. That's it. Unfortunately the only data I had on rifle cals from 1.21 was on how many rounds it took to change various engine damage states and whether they could penetrate pilot armour so that's just a subjective impression of mine. No one component has taken any greater number of direct hits than it did in 1.21 as compared to the targetted hits on single component / system tests. Possibly some penetration/fragment damage factors have changed which would show up in only a very minor way in aimed/single point testing rather than "fire at the target and see whether it lives vs how many hits total" testing as in JTDs.

Personally I would be very suspicious that it is the online anticheat code causing a lot of these issues. There were some issues with this on the release of AEP where some people were being dropped from online games entirely due to having "old" soundcards/soundcard drivers so it doesn't seem to have been the most thoroughly tested piece of code ever made.

Apparently we will find out in the 2.01 readme what the root cause was. It has already been fixed according to some beta testers who were posting about 2.01beta03 a short while back.


04-13-2004, 12:27 AM
Well, you can light them up like a zippo with a few rifle rounds now.

It doesn't follow that it would be so much more flammable than any other plane. For example, a He-111.

04-13-2004, 02:21 AM
ever tried to compare the effect of a 30mm on a B17 and a Pe2? I always have the feeling hat the B17 is easier to down than the Pe2. But maybe that's because the Pe2s defensive gunner seems to be more dangerous as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


So long.We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.

04-13-2004, 02:27 AM
If you hit the AI P-47, it demonstrates the same phenomenon as well. A few rifle rounds, and it is a torch.

Whereas a plane like an I-16 or J8A, neither with any armor or sealant, requires far more hits to ignite.

Generally the fuel tanks in all aircraft seem to be more vulnerable, but certain ones have become overly flammable. Ironically, its most apparent in two planes well known for their durability.

All that is needed now is a flammable IL-2 and the set is complete.


04-13-2004, 03:21 AM
I agree with slammen
guns and fms seem different on line?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif


04-13-2004, 03:31 AM
The woulnerabilty issue has been tweaked several times since old IL-2 days. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Remember those exploding I-16:s and flammable I-153:s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Now a days u can hit those two aircrafts with allmost anything and they continue flyin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

In fact most of the planes has been tweaked so much that the historical accuracy of this game risks to be lost http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Wich way is the correct one?

If the current woulnerability set is the correct one - so let it be so...

Dont take me for a whiner... this issue has to be discussed upon.... if historical aspects still have any significance for this sim.

I fully enjoy all the differenses in ac performance in FB and very much want to see them to be as accurate as possibel.

With all these chances it is hard to beleave on the historical claims of ac performance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif

04-13-2004, 05:28 AM
It's the delta wood. Be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Ride the big one" - Notch Johnson