Spitfire on fire!!!

[9./JG52 Mindle]

Attachment 8994

Trust my luck to have the only Spit that burns!!

[ATAG_Snapper]

Attachment 8994

Trust my luck to have the only Spit that burns!!

THANK YOU!!!!

I've had that happen to me, but no screenshot or video to prove it. I was a closet Spittie-roaster afraid to come out for fear of being accused of being a "Liar! Liar! Pants not​ on fire!" LOL

[vranac]

You aren't the only one

[9./JG52 Mindle]

Boom! :d

[DUI]

I think yours was an engine fire (which does not harm the pilot) and vranac's one a fuel tank explosion. But I might be mistaken.

[9./JG52 Mindle]

Probably correct, i had time to stop panicking and take a pic before bailing.

[RebelSqurl]

I got a fuel tank fire in a Spittie yesterday on the server but have no screenshot to prove it. Nice visual effects, though!

[trademe900]

I got a fuel tank fire in a Spittie yesterday on the server but have no screenshot to prove it. Nice visual effects, though!

How long did it take to burn pilot ?

[Vlerkies]

HEHE, nice and toasty

Way to few and far between though, all things considered.

I have footage somewhere of a Spit getting hit with cannon and getting an engine fire, he promptly flew around a bit then bailed out, no 5 second rule there. Will try dig it up later this evening and post.

[|450|Devil]

Saw a better one last night on 401's server - 109 attached a Wellington formation and got bracketed by four Wellington tail gunners - result EXPLODING 109 FIREBALL

[Vlerkies]

Heres the one I was talking about it, sorry I could not contain my joy on comms.

[Talisman]

Real life event detailed below. This chap was flying a Hurricane, which was worse than the Spitfire if the tank was to catch fire I think. Anyway, he had time to sit back down and kill a Bf 109.

Lest We Forget

Today 16th August, 2013 is the 73rd anniversary of our VC’s action

Twenty three year old Flight Lieutenant James Nicolson won the only V.C. of the Battle of Britain on 16th August 1940. His aircraft was set on fire during an action with the enemy near Southampton, he was about to bale out when he saw an Me 109 and settled back into the burning cockpit to shoot it down.

“Flight Lieutenant James Brindley NICOLSON (39329) No. 249 Squadron.

During an engagement with the enemy near Southampton on 16th August, 1940, Flight Lieutenant Nicolson’s aircraft was hit by four cannon shells, two of which wounded him whilst another set fire to the gravity tank. When about to abandon his aircraft owing to flames in the cockpit he sighted an enemy fighter. This he attacked and shot down, although as a result of staying in his burning aircraft he sustained serious burns to his hands, face, neck and legs.

Flight Lieutenant Nicolson has always displayed great enthusiasm for air fighting and this incident shows that he possesses courage and determination of a high order. By continuing to engage the enemy after he had been wounded and his aircraft set on fire, he displayed exceptional gallantry and disregard for the safety of his own life.”

It was perhaps an unexceptional act of bravery amongst so many fighting to defend Britain that summer – yet it was unique because it was witnessed by a number of people on the ground. The need for witnesses to corroborate individual acts of bravery meant that very few RAF crew were nominated for an award of valour. Nicolson was the only fighter pilot to receive the award during the Second World War. He was also one of only two recipients to win the award whilst in British territory, the other being Leading Seaman Jack Mantle of HMS Foylebank on 4th July 1940.

Nicolson was wounded in the eye and foot in the first attack that set his aircraft on fire, and his hands were so badly burnt that he was unable to release his parachute once he landed. Yet his ordeal was not over – he was peppered in the leg by a shotgun fired by an enthusiastic member of the Home Guard who was the first to approach him.

He made a good recovery and was extremely modest about the award – he had to be reminded that it was a discipline offence to be improperly dressed when he was slow to sew the medal ribbon onto his uniform.

Nicolson was later promoted to Wing Commander. He died in May 1945 whilst an observer on an aircraft that crashed into the sea off Burma.

[Vlerkies]

Well noted Talisman! Seriously committed and brave people of the time. Of that there is little doubt.
In the same breath the same could be said for the German pilots that were, on fire and made it home or ejected and did not perish in 5 seconds as in a 109. On both sides of the fence, this was true, as was the ability to fly on depending on the fire itself.

If we can sit here and debate that the Spits and Hurri's burned, but well it wasn't really that bad, then why did the Guinea Pig Club ever come to fruition?
And please, I say this with the greatest respect to anyone and everyone.
The bottom line is they all burned, both sides, and just as terribly badly.
Lets not loose sight of the fact though that in the 'game/sim' at the moment the 109 is a flying bomb and this is quite evident with many hours of online play. The Brit planes just do not burn as they should, in comparison.

Again, all humble due respects to anyone and everyone that may read this topic that may or may not have been, or had family involved in this conflict.

[Combat Wombat]

Well noted Talisman! Seriously committed and brave people of the time. Of that there is little doubt.


Again, all humble due respects to anyone and everyone that may read this topic that may or may not have been, or had family involved in this conflict.

Nicely said Sir and thankyou regarding late father ww2 BB/ Nth Africa . 1939-45

[Fehler]

Lets not loose sight of the fact though that in the 'game/sim' at the moment the 109 is a flying bomb and this is quite evident with many hours of online play. The Brit planes just do not burn as they should, in comparison.

Again, all humble due respects to anyone and everyone that may read this topic that may or may not have been, or had family involved in this conflict.

You are aware that the main tank of a Spitfire was between the Engine and the pilot whereas the main tank of a Bf109 was in the tail, right behind the pilot.

Taking that into consideration, shots fired from the 109's six o'clock position would have a greater chance of penetrating the fuel cell than shots fired from the six o'clock of a Spitfire. Likewise, high angle deflection or head-on shots against the Spitfire would be the best way to ignite the fuel tanks; head-on shots might get absorbed by the engine however.

It appears to be modeled that way in the game.

Spitfire pilots understand this and load up with AP and incendiary for that purpose. When I fly German, I load up with HE mainly because the best way to kill a Brit plane is to do structural damage.

It all looks pretty well modeled to me: my opinion is derived from flying both sides and noticing the various minor differences.

-----------

The pictures below demonstrate what I am talking about. Unless I am incorrect, the Spitfires we have in game have the 37 gallon tanks in the front. The rear tanks were added to later models. I hope someone else can clarify that has real game data on the Spitfire variants we have in CLOD. Either way, the primary tanks are up front.

[Vlerkies]

You are aware that,,,,,,

It has been discussed and debated to death in a number of threads recently ad nauseam, to the point that there is a review of this in TF5.0

[trademe900]

You are aware that the main tank of a Spitfire was between the Engine and the pilot whereas the main tank of a Bf109 was in the tail, right behind the pilot.

It appears to be modeled that way in the game.

I

You missed out on this long ago.

There's an 8mm armoured bulkhead sitting right behind the fuel tank, spanning entire fuselage cross-section. You would be mistaken to think that .303 AP will penetrate that. .303 AP has difficulty alone penetrating 4mm plate, as demonstrated in the Blenheim armour test.

[SG1_Lud]

It's not the plane, it's the ammo.

You wanna see Spits and Hurris burning, use de Wilde on them.

Of course you will need another Spit or Hurri to be able to do that, set up mission in the editor and enjoy the fireworks.

For german ammo, search for Ape of the Year tutorials, he explains very well how to combine incendiary ammo. Though not as effective as the de Wilde, it will increase your chances to start a fire.

[hnbdgr]

It's not the plane, it's the ammo.

You wanna see Spits and Hurris burning, use de Wilde on them.

Of course you will need another Spit or Hurri to be able to do that, set up mission in the editor and enjoy the fireworks.

For german ammo, search for Ape of the Year tutorials, he explains very well how to combine incendiary ammo. Though not as effective as the de Wilde, it will increase your chances to start a fire.

Yeah De Wilde does guaranteed damage to anything it touches. burning of control surfaces really quickly. In game it is abused in my opinion, it wasn't used in such quantities and apparently was first introduced in June 1940. I wonder how accurate this source is on the subject, perhaps someone has more info: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

Quote:

"The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary."

So for an unspecified amount of time only one gun was loaded with DeWilde.

It would be great if we could somehow limit the ratio of ammo used and then further do that by period (different ratios for each month). But that might be a long way away.

[Fehler]

You missed out on this long ago.

There's an 8mm armoured bulkhead sitting right behind the fuel tank, spanning entire fuselage cross-section. You would be mistaken to think that .303 AP will penetrate that. .303 AP has difficulty alone penetrating 4mm plate, as demonstrated in the Blenheim armour test.

Steel cored .303 AP round could effectively penetrate up to 12 mm of plate armor when the strikes were perpendicular to the surface. (That was also noted in the 4mm Blenheim armor test you commented on) Deflection from other objects in the fuselage would naturally reduce the efficiency, but eliminate it? Nope.

Personally, I have never set a bf109 on fire from a direct six attack at convergence. I have, however set them on fire from deflection shots. I am not saying that it cannot be done, I am merely saying that "I" have not done it. Most of my kills in a Spitfire or Hurricane come from radiator or oil damage. In a bf109, most come from airframe damage due to the explosiveness of the 20mm rounds (as expected).

It is important to note that each encounter holds its own considerations and set of circumstances as there are too many variables to make a blanket statement based on one sortie.

Now, don't get me wrong. The .303 was pitifully underpowered (overall) as an air to air machine gun. As a matter of fact, heavy machine guns were eventually believed to be inadequate by all combatants (except the Americans of course) and gave way to cannons relatively early in the war.

Could the game use a little tweaking in the area? Maybe. But I do not believe it has been rendered one sided by any means, and I CERTAINLY do not believe I am cruising around in a "flying bomb" when I fly a bf109. On the contrary. Unless "I" make a mistake or become too brazen in my approach I have found the bf109 VERY effective. And I have only been set ablaze once or twice since the latest patch... So there is my opinion on the matter.

[JG4_sKylon]

It would be great if we could somehow limit the ratio of ammo used and then further do that by period (different ratios for each month). But that might be a long way away.

+1

I hope that there is the possibility to implement some limitation on the DeWilde.
On blue side the SMKH was taken away. Sources state that it was never used as a/c ammunition, so easy to implement that.
The Uebungsmunition was nerfed to historical accurate behaviour which means great loss in damage capabilities, but win in realism so i live with it.

[Vlerkies]

Let me put it this way, if we were handing out VC's for pilots fighting in burning cockpits in CloD (as perFlight Lieutenant James Nicolson for instance) , there would not be any on the RAF side.

[Talisman]

Not just the ammunition, but also the phenomenal rate of fire from a combination of 8 machine guns, which was 160 rounds per second!

Add that to the fact that the BoB Bf 109 pilot seat sat on a fuel tank that was a rubber bag in a plywood casing, with no armour protection (no fire-wall either I believe) from the most commonly attacked position, which was slightly low to the rear hemisphere, and it is no wonder that Bf 109 aircraft were reported as shot down in flames in many combat reports of the time.

The position of the Bf 109 fuel tank exposed it to the most common direction from which to receive ammunition strikes in fighter v fighter attack action. The Bf 109 pilot shared his cockpit area with the fuel tank, meaning that if a fuel tank fire occurred, he was likely to be quickly engulfed in flames,together with his seat parachute!

The Spitfire tank was in a position less exposed to the most common fighter v fighter attack direction, the Spitfire pilot did not share his cockpit area with the fuel tank and there was a sealed fire-wall between the cockpit area and the fuel tank area. Also, the attacking Bf 109 had armament with a much slower rate of fire, making strikes on the fuel tank less likely.

The Spitfire pilot parachute was also less exposed to a fuel tank fire than in the Bf 109. Therefore, if the pilot was able to survive a fire to bail out, there was more chance that his parachute would not have been damaged by fire than the poor Bf 109 pilot.

Many real life Spitfire, and even Hurricane pilots, survived being shot down with a fuel tank fire; some with severe burns. Luckily, Britain had pioneering medical procedures to help pilots with their burn injuries. Perhaps not so many Bf 109 pilots survived cockpit fuel tank fires and that is why they were not so visible in the aftermath of the battle.

Lets face it, in terms of CloD flight sim Bf 109 fuel tank damage and fires, we have been 'getting away with it' for years. The latest TF patches have now addressed that issue.

P.S. Got shot down and killed, very quickly, with a bad fuel tank fire whilst flying the CloD Spit last night. It was another Spit that shot me down. I was flying the AX Dogfight server.

[Osprey]

The Uebungsmunition was nerfed to historical accurate behaviour which means great loss in damage capabilities, but win in realism so i live with it.

"Nerfed to historical accurate behaviour" and "Live with it" ? That should be celebration not a reason to be disappointed because it's made it harder to "win".

[trademe900]

Add that to the fact that the BoB Bf 109 pilot seat sat on a fuel tank that was a rubber bag in a plywood casing, with no armour protection (no fire-wall either I believe) from the most commonly attacked position, which was slightly low to the rear hemisphere, and it is no wonder that Bf 109 aircraft were reported as shot down in flames in many combat reports of the time.

The position of the Bf 109 fuel tank exposed it to the most common direction from which to receive ammunition strikes in fighter v fighter attack action
.

A few gaping inaccuracies here that I would like to address please, Talisman.

109 E versions never had the flexible rubber fuel cell. This was a later design and it was indeed armoured with a lamina dural bulkhead.

Secondly, 109 E3's and E1's were being equipped with 8mm steel armour from even before the BoB, in France. This armour was in the form of a plate spanning the entire inner fuselage diameter , situated immediately aft of the tank. By the Battle of Britain, all 109s were retrofitted with this armour. In fact, the very first 109 shot down over Britain was armoured with this 8mm steel bulkhead- a jg52 airplane.

Please search the previous threads on this particular discussion if you would like to learn of the airframe examinations and evidence for this.

Cheers.

[Vlerkies]

"Nerfed to historical accurate behaviour" and "Live with it" ? That should be celebration not a reason to be disappointed because it's made it harder to "win".

Makes me feel better that I just loaded up Stalkern Hart and phosphur. TBH, i read some german docs sometime back that practically put the Übungsmunition in the same category as the Beobachtung rounds with little to no hardcore damage effects, i.e. training rounds for id purposes only, hence my decision.
May be wrong, but it worked for me and I got my fair share in the end in my E1.

A few gaping inaccuracies here that I would like to address please, Talisman.

Indeed, but been there done that tbh.

[Talisman]

A few gaping inaccuracies here that I would like to address please, Talisman.

109 E versions never had the flexible rubber fuel cell. This was a later design and it was indeed armoured with a lamina dural bulkhead.

Secondly, 109 E3's and E1's were being equipped with 8mm steel armour from even before the BoB, in France. This armour was in the form of a plate spanning the entire inner fuselage diameter , situated immediately aft of the tank. By the Battle of Britain, all 109s were retrofitted with this armour. In fact, the very first 109 shot down over Britain was armoured with this 8mm steel bulkhead- a jg52 airplane.

Please search the previous threads on this particular discussion if you would like to learn of the airframe examinations and evidence for this.

Cheers.

My description of the fuel tank is taken from a diagram that was provided in the previous threads on this topic and I do not remember it being contradicted then. If it was contradicted and I missed it then perhaps I am wrong. Did you see the diagram in the previous threads? Are you saying that the fuel tank had an armoured coating and the diagram is wrong?
As for the 8mm steel bulkhead that you mention, I believe there was a sizeable gap between the back of the pilot seat, the fuel tank and the 8mm steel. In any case, as I understand it, the 8mm steel did not protect the underside of the tank, only direct to the rear. Are you trying to say that the 8mm bulkhead protected the tank from the underneath and the side? If so, I am not sure that that is correct. The position of the 8mm steel you mention would appear to be less than adequate to defeat 160 rounds per second from the slightly low rear and/or to the side common attack position. Are you trying to say that this 8mm steel gives the fuel tank total protection? Also, only the smallest deflection shot from the 'dead six' is needed to hit the tank and avoid the 8mm steel, so much so that most people would claim they were at the 'dead six', when in fact there is a slight deflection. Surely this is all logical unless you have some new information. Are you trying to say that the fuel tank was not vulnerable to the most common gunnery attack profiles in fighter vs fighter action?

[Talisman]

This thread shows an image of the 109e fuel tank as a rubber bag with plywood casing:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...ead.php?t=7857

[JG4_sKylon]

"Nerfed to historical accurate behaviour" and "Live with it" ? That should be celebration not a reason to be disappointed because it's made it harder to "win".

And what was the intention of this post besides publishing your interpretation of my last sentence and ignoring the more interesting part about the usage of DeWilde?

[Osprey]

I quoted you so there is no misinterpretation on my part. I saw the De Wilde part too, I don't disagree with it at all though it actually just cements your first statement further, contextually.

Perhaps you had best just say what you meant more clearly so that you don't send out the wrong message.