Spitfire on fire!!!

[9./JG52 Mindle]

8994

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

[ATAG_Snapper]

8994

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

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 :devilish:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuCFagC4_YA

[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. :)


http://youtu.be/pOzrkZC16P0

[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:salute: 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.

http://s020.radikal.ru/i703/1305/87/5f1eed9a8afe.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/239954d1375883223t-bf-109-f-series-109k_fuel-system.png

[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. :D

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. :D

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. :salute:

[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" ? :stunned: 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" ? :stunned: 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.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7857

[JG4_sKylon]

"Nerfed to historical accurate behaviour" and "Live with it" ? :stunned: 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.

[Vlerkies]

Talisman, this is a RAF burn thread, not a 109.
Firstly, nobody is denying the 109 was vulnerable to fires, the degree to which it was though has been up for a number of debates in numerous threads.

The Spits and the Hurri's do not burn nearly as much as what historical evidence would suggest they did. In CLOD, its a very very very rare sight to see. This was not the case in RL.
The Hurri's were more prone to it than the Spits, the Spit, also to my knowledge, only had a lower self sealing fuel tank, not the top one which was emptied first.

Right now the Spits and Hurris are flame proof machines flying on water powered engines. Thats my honest view!
It needs a look, either the dewilde round effectiveness/availability, or the damage model of the RAF fighters.

It bugs me immensely to see 109's burning on practically every sortie (on occasion myself burning), yet with 700 hours or so in this sim flying exclusively 109s I have seen maybe 3-4 burning RAF fighters?
Sorry, it just does not add up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__NT0DiNBs

[hnbdgr]

A move towards realism is what we strive for - it's always a good thing. I've seen it explained somewhere that because TF do all the modding in a trial and error method (no source code) things are getting fixed as they come along, some get fixed sooner then others and there will always be a slight imbalance because of that unfortunately.

For the record I believe Fuel tanks and damage model will be looked at in TF 5.0

There's plenty of things I'd like to see implemented, to list a few:

-historical ratio limits on ammo
-strapped in/unstrapped mode for fighter pilots
-109 slots opening with more force (how they opened depended on how clean they were, but right now we can't feel at all when they open - aileron snatching should be a possibility
-plexiglass distortion of spitfires canopy
-effective camouflage for the 109 belly, the camo was very effective and made the 109 difficult to spot from above
-full modelling of negative g effects on the carburetor (currently it is modeled as if it already had mrs shillings orifice, the engine cuts out but doesn't shut off)
-control surfaces/radiator freezing in icy clouds or in rapid descent
-bomber slipstream

and for the mission makers:
-historical approach to ratio of fighter types for maps

I'm sure there are other things that are more important that I'm missing though:)

[hnbdgr]

Hi Robo,

i never used track recording for normal sorties on ATAG, only screen capture videos.
As i said i can not provide exact infos so take my comment not as final statement, but as a feeling that there might be something wrong.



Well, that´s exactly my and other squadmates experience....

here's some things you can do:

1.prevention - maintain speed - people fail to realize that 400kmh is not fast! If you intend to fight at 2km, climb to 3km, then glide down to the target area (e.g. ships, airfield etc.) at 500+kmh. You will outrun mostly anything you encounter with this speed, make a pass, hopefully a kill and back up you go at 400kmh, not slower. return in a very wide chandelle to 3km rinse and repeat. Only engage in Yo-Yo's with the enemy in target area when a)somebody is covering your ass b) you're definitely sure there are no other enemy a/c in the area.

If jumped during a yo-yo. Hit the floor, you will outrun them.

2.counter A - hit the deck and run for your life. you will outrun him if he doesn't have a significant advantage in energy. If your plane sustained even very light damage you will however not outrun him when on the deck due to drag. You can still give him a hell of a chase though.

3.counter B - scissors - I don't know how to these properly :-P , so I posted a new thread asking for people with more experience to post vids.

Also in reality a steep climb at low speeds was a prefered escape tactic, given there was enough separation. As it stands the spit will catch you from the ground up to 6000m in a steep slow climb so don't try that :)

[Vlerkies]

If you are low and slow level flight, and he is on your ass just about to fire, a quick vertical spiral through 360 degrees will get him off, its risky, but if you time it right he flops to one side. :-)

[Vlerkies]

Can we get back to the campfires now and sing kumbaya :-P

[hnbdgr]

Can we get back to the campfires now and sing kumbaya :-P

yes let's do that:) I agree that the order of how quickly a plane burns historically is:

1.Hurricane
2.109
3.Spitfire

as for how much of a gap there is between them, well not sure.I'd say the spit should have less of a chance to light up then the 109 and hurri, but it should still happen relatively often. I personally saw perhaps one engine fire in all my time on atag. Most kills come from structural damage, pilot kill, or engine hit. But very few fires.

I think there are many issues at play.

A. We don't hear all the bullets that hit the plane, i believe it's a known bug. There could be a barrage hitting your six but you only hear 2 thuds then the fuel tank explodes.
B. Ping might be an issue. Some players report they can set spits alight in SP, but not MP
C. The Damage model including tanks will be looked at in TF 5.0 I read it somewhere here but can't find link.


@Robo: thanks!

[Vlerkies]

In CLoD

http://i.imgur.com/no00b78s.jpg (http://imgur.com/no00b78)

;)

[hnbdgr]

In CLoD

http://i.imgur.com/no00b78s.jpg (http://imgur.com/no00b78)

;)

I did see more hurri fires then spit fires to be fair. their fuel tanks are in the roots of the wings, easily hit.

[JG4_sKylon]

B. Ping might be an issue. Some players report they can set spits alight in SP, but not MP
!

I´ve set Spit on fire in SP a few (not much) times. Some lost their entire tail (shooting Minengeschoss at convergence).
All this never happened on the server, even when the red pilot was unaware and flew completely straight.

My ping on ATAG is approx.. 150-170. When i played FPS i haven´t even thought about joining a server with this ping, all pings higher than 50ms made playing it less enjoyable.
One had to give significantely more lead to hit a moving target etc.

This doesn´t seem to be the same in a Flight Sim. At least i don´t have the feeling that i have to give much more lead on ATAG due to high ping compared to playing offline.
Only hitting target seems to have less effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlClxWQJCxQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=579

I expected more visible damage hitting the Spit with the 110s guns and cannons and was a little bit surprised.

[hnbdgr]

I´ve set Spit on fire in SP a few (not much) times. Some lost their entire tail (shooting Minengeschoss at convergence).
All this never happened on the server, even when the red pilot was unaware and flew completely straight.

My ping on ATAG is approx.. 150-170. When i played FPS i haven´t even thought about joining a server with this ping, all pings higher than 50ms made playing it less enjoyable.
One had to give significantely more lead to hit a moving target etc.

This doesn´t seem to be the same in a Flight Sim. At least i don´t have the feeling that i have to give much more lead on ATAG due to high ping compared to playing offline.
Only hitting target seems to have less effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlClxWQJCxQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=579

I expected more visible damage hitting the Spit with the 110s guns and cannons and was a little bit surprised.

True. Hit detection in Clod is client based - so it shouldn't be a problem but it does feel easier to damage destroy enemy A/C in SP.... some sort of reverse placebo effect? :) I just don't know...

[Talisman]

Talisman, this is a RAF burn thread, not a 109.
Firstly, nobody is denying the 109 was vulnerable to fires, the degree to which it was though has been up for a number of debates in numerous threads.

The Spits and the Hurri's do not burn nearly as much as what historical evidence would suggest they did. In CLOD, its a very very very rare sight to see. This was not the case in RL.
The Hurri's were more prone to it than the Spits, the Spit, also to my knowledge, only had a lower self sealing fuel tank, not the top one which was emptied first.

Right now the Spits and Hurris are flame proof machines flying on water powered engines. Thats my honest view!
It needs a look, either the dewilde round effectiveness/availability, or the damage model of the RAF fighters.

It bugs me immensely to see 109's burning on practically every sortie (on occasion myself burning), yet with 700 hours or so in this sim flying exclusively 109s I have seen maybe 3-4 burning RAF fighters?
Sorry, it just does not add up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__NT0DiNBs

Vlerkies, The original post is about 'Spitfire on fire', with the inference that it does not happen that often in CloD. My first post on this thread was in line with subsequent talk about the Spitfire fires, the ammunition, RAF BoB burn injuries, etc, and finishing with a CloD anecdote regarding a recent Spit vs Spit shoot down and loss of virtual life due to fuel tank fire. I also compared the 109 as a means of contrasting with real life BoB and offering ideas why Spitfire fires and loss of virtual life happening less often as Bf 109 fires in CloD may be reasoned. My second post was to answer a query from another forum member about my first post. So I would be grateful if you could note that I have stayed on topic in this thread; I fear others have not.

As for your comments that "right now the Spits and Hurris are flame proof machines flying on water powered engines" and that being your honest view, well I don't really think that even deserves a sensible response from me and I am not going to get back to you with an unreasonable response as I don't want to go down that route. However, my fear is that unreasonable responses on this thread will get it locked; perhaps that is what some people want, but I hope not.

You complain that Spitfire fires do not happen as much as historical evidence, but fail to say what that historical evidence is or put forward any reasoned analysis. I have been flying the AX Dogfight server a lot lately, which involves much intense fighter vs fighter action in a short space of time and I can say that I have seen very few Bf 109 fuel tank fires and have not seen more than appears reasonable on ATAG. This is probably because the AX Dogfight server uses icons and so it is not so easy to bounce a 109 unawares and get enough bullets on target. I see Spitfire fuel tank fires more on AX Dogfight than on ATAG though, which is probably because of Spitfire attacking Spitfire and the 160 rounds per second rate of fire from the machine guns. Finally, when flying the Bf 109 I have never had a fuel tank fire from enemy action. I recently flew the Bf 109 consistently for a week on the ATAG Dogfight server and did not have one fuel tank fire in all the many combats I had. The only time I have lost my virtual life to a fuel tank fire is in a Spit or a Hurri.

[Vlerkies]

Talisman, lets not argue, my comments were out of observation based on how much/or little time I have spent flying CLoD.
I have seen less than 5 burning RAF fighter planes, hence my excitement in my video when I saw a Spitty with a little engine fire. I see a burning 109 practically every sortie/session on ATAG somewhere. Maybe I am a bad shot, but the whole Luftwaffe can't be. It seems patently obvious from that that the RAF planes are much much less susceptible to fire.

Hence my 'pinch of salt' remarks about fireproof and water. If you get your knickers in a knot over the way I expressed that, tough, because you should not.
As for evidence, read, and I mean this, ANY book on the conflict. It was serious problem for both sides of the war. You yourself quoted a burning Hurricane ;)

Anyway, I think I am done with this post, Buzz already said in the other post about 109s burning and fuel and armour, etc, etc, etc, that this will all be looked at in TF5.0, so no point in flogging this donkey anymore till then.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Good points have been made by both sides re g effects on both aircraft and aircrew. Certainly deserving its own thread, since the OP is about Spitfires not catching on fire.

Hold that thought; I'll start another thread and post the link here.

[ATAG_Snapper]

OK, here we go: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10968&p=120119#post120119

Let's please keep on topic ie Spits, 109's, Hurries propensity to catch fire...or not catch fire.

I will move the excellent posts :D here on G-related performance issues to the new thread.

[ATAG_Flare]

Well well well, I've seen the same thing happen to me!

10720

flare

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well well well, I've seen the same thing happen to me!

10720

flare

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Vlerkies]

About as elusive as the Yeti.

What a lovely sight :)

[Kling]

it only seems to happen offline for some reason. Offline in a QM I can make the Spitfire engine burn quite frequently. I have never managed to do it online however...

[Continu0]

It happens online too... watch the beginning of this video and at 1:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyYLhAVo58&list=UUdwP5FiUt1arBh9uuyaJCSg

[Vlerkies]

A fellow pilot (mainly RAF) once remarked to me when asked about these blasted fires was that around 3-4 out of 10 109s go down in flames that he hits, not all of them. :doh:
My retort was simply I get 50 to a 100 kills in a month, and in about 8 months I have maybe seen 5 burning RAF fighters (maybe a fraction more), in all that time.
On any night on ATAG you will see flaming 109's everywhere, and its a death sentence and a historically incorrect imbalance.

Buzz said they are going to try and work on the armor on the 109 for TF5, hope it helps a bit.
There was some good discussion here about it all.
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9838

[Kling]

Yes guus please stay on topic!
As someone mentioned. We will try to look for DM for TF5.0
The more we discover in the game code the more we will be able to do.
Problems is that changing one thing usually changes something else that wasnt planned!

But trust us, TF is made up of members who are as annoyed by the same issues as the rest of the player base...

[ATAG_Snapper]

New thread started to discuss Palmeron's assertion that RAF fighter engines don't cut out under negative g's:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12091&p=131871#post131871

[Placid]

Back on topic, I do think that the sight of a buring Spitfire is rare in Cliffs of Dover, and I must admit I have yet to seen one with a fuel tank fire. It seems odd because even if it was a rare occurence it happened in reality, ("The Last Ennemy" by Richard Hillary) and yet we cannot reproduce it ingame (while there is much more dogfight, and much more probality to inflict a given type of damage). Flying as a Red pilot I have to say I have almost never took hits on the fuel tank (might have happened two or three times since 4.00), it appears that strangely, the greman bullets always end up in my engine, or in my cockpit, but never beetween (might have a hit box issue or something). On the other hand I have suffers engine fire on the Spitfire everytime I took a direct cannon shell into my engine. This does not happen regularly, and always offline. It might be a coincidence, but I think Kling is right. I think we must all agree on the fact that the 109 was way much more prone to caugh fire than the Spitfire, due to the respective position of their respective fuel tanks. The Hurricane seems to behave historically, it catches fire, but not too often.

Something I would really love to see implement ingame is fire spreading, because when I set a 109 fuel tank on fire, I can see the flammes engulfing the controls surfaces made of fabric, but they stay intact. Sometimes the plane keep on flying for quite a time, still on fire, and there is no catastrophic structural failure. Same thing goes when a Spitfire suffers an engine fire, the flames licks the fuel tank, but nothing happens, while I think that in reality after approximately 10 seconds the fuel in the tank would also caught fire.

[Vlerkies]

Thx Snapper

[Vlerkies]

I think we must all agree on the fact that the 109 was way much more prone to caugh fire than the Spitfire, due to the respective position of their respective fuel tanks.

Ok the threads are mixed again.
I have no problem agreeing that the 109 was more susceptible to fires. Especially the unarmored ones.
The armour was rolled out before BoB, it wasnt a complete exercise by the time of BoB but it was well in place and there is plenty of historical data to back that up. It was not a field mod!

I agree the Hurricane catches fire, I have actually succeeded in doing this a couple of times myself online although its a brief little burn, not a PK :)
The problem has always been the completely out of kilter damage modelling that renders the 109 a flying powder keg in Cliffs of Dover, with the RAF fighters for all intents and purposes practically fire proof.

[Placid]

Ok the threads are mixed again.
I have no problem agreeing that the 109 was more susceptible to fires. Especially the unarmored ones.
The armour was rolled out before BoB, it wasnt a complete exercise by the time of BoB but it was well in place and there is plenty of historical data to back that up. It was not a field mod!

I agree the Hurricane catches fire, I have actually succeeded in doing this a couple of times myself online although its a brief little burn, not a PK
The problem has always been the completely out of kilter damage modelling that renders the 109 a flying powder keg in Cliffs of Dover, with the RAF fighters for all intents and purposes practically fire proof.


If I remember correctly , Buzzsaw said in one of the previous thread about the 109 armour that it wasn't currently moddeled ingame. However, he also said that it had increased the thickness of the 109 fuel tank casing, to simulate the armour, until a better fix is implemented in TF 5.00 .

To me, it seems that the 109 catches fire as it should, but to be fair I also think that the 5 seconds delay until the pilot dies is a way too short. In my opinion it should doubled, so the pilot has enough time to bailed out.

Once again I think the best solution should to implement correct fire spreading to all the aircraft ingame, with damage increasing more and more as time is elapsing after the plane was set on fire

[Vlerkies]

If I remember correctly , Buzzsaw said in one of the previous thread about the 109 armour that it wasn't currently moddeled ingame. However, he also said that it had increased the thickness of the 109 fuel tank casing, to simulate the armour, until a better fix is implemented in TF 5.00 .

To me, it seems that the 109 catches fire as it should, but to be fair I also think that the 5 seconds delay until the pilot dies is a way too short. In my opinion it should doubled, so the pilot has enough time to bailed out.

Once again I think the best solution should to implement correct fire spreading to all the aircraft ingame, with damage increasing more and more as time is elapsing after the plane was set on fire

Yeah, something along those lines.
There are a multitude of frustrations for both players and TF trying to dig through it all and fix stuff without breaking other stuff.

Also, don't get me wrong, if the 109 burns correctly, so be it, the point is more, the RAF fighters do not.
S 109 armor and its positioning aside, the problem lies in the RAF fighters damage model then, not the 109's, it all depends on how the problem is approached really.

[Placid]

Yeah, something along those lines.
There are a multitude of frustrations for both players and TF trying to dig through it all and fix stuff without breaking other stuff.

Also, don't get me wrong, if the 109 burns correctly, so be it, the point is more, the RAF fighters do not.
S 109 armor and its positioning aside, the problem lies in the RAF fighters damage model then, not the 109's, it all depends on how the problem is approached really.

100% agreed :salute: !

As I said it above, I have never seen a Spitfire fuel tank fire, and if think it's wrong, because it certainly happened at least one time in reality ! I don't know why, but I hope TF can find the bug if there is one (and it seems so) !

[Spinal Tap]

I think kling is onto something... i have noticed that it is far easier to set british a/c alight while in single player. Online i see it far less frequently, and even when i do see allied planes burning it is usually just a small engine fire. I have seen a few hurries get fuel tank fires, never a spit. I have never managed to get a big fire to start on an allied plane... thats just me though. What i will say is that a few days ago i flew a few practice missions, and these were the results:
10725 10726
These planes were set on fire on back to back sorties... i did not spend two hours gunning planes just so i could show results.
Maybe there is some issue? Or was it just lucky shots?

[Talisman]

It would appear that many RAF fighter pilots seem to have survived fuel tank fires during the BoB, but I am not aware of accounts of many LW 109 pilots surviving fuel tank fires; has anyone seen evidence of many BoB 109 pilots surviving fuel tank fires?

[Vlerkies]

It would appear that many RAF fighter pilots seem to have survived fuel tank fires during the BoB, but I am not aware of accounts of many LW 109 pilots surviving fuel tank fires; has anyone seen evidence of many BoB 109 pilots surviving fuel tank fires?
An odd question.
It would appear that many RAF fighter pilots indeed did survive fires. The strange thing is though, the RAF don't seem to catch fire in Cliffs ;)
How quaint

[ATAG_Snapper]

I think Talisman's question relates to an earlier expressed concern that the Clod 109 pilots die too quickly and have no time to bail out. For those who measure their kill/death ratios or even their mission survival rate I can see how this would have a bearing.

[ATAG_Colander]

I have (only twice) got my 109 tank on fire and didn't get any burns. I did end up without any fuel in a few seconds though :D

[Talisman]

An odd question.
It would appear that many RAF fighter pilots indeed did survive fires. The strange thing is though, the RAF don't seem to catch fire in Cliffs ;)
How quaint

Have you been flying a different version of CloD then? Also, have you not seen pictures and vids?

P.S. I find that I see very few 109 fuel tank fires in on line servers these days. Possibly because more 109 pilots are taking less risks in dogfights with the RAF (flying a little bit more realistically perhaps), although I suspect they will still be taking far more risks than the real life BoB LW fighter pilots did.

Also, you might find that if servers provided more BoB type scenarios, like they used to, with RAF fighters trying to attack formations of AI bombers protected by LW fighters, you might find the RAF fighters having to take more risks than they currently do, resulting in more kills, including Spit and Hurry fuel tank fires, for LW fighters as they would then have more of the advantage that they actually had in the BoB.

Remember that the ATAG map scenarios do not give us the actual tactical situation of the BoB. So the RAF and LW in Cliffs is not fighting like the actual BoB. Bf 109 aircraft dropping in from altitude on lower flying RAF fighters trying to attack bombers in the BoB is likely to have provided a lot of opportunity for fuel tanks to get hit on the RAF side; we don't get that sort of thing much in Cliffs though.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Talisman]

I have (only twice) got my 109 tank on fire and didn't get any burns. I did end up without any fuel in a few seconds though :D

That is 2 more fuel tank fires than I have ever had when flying a 109, but then I try not tend to take too many risks. However, if I was to approach my flying as more of a game than a sim, then I would probably have crashed and burned a lot more. The only fires I have experienced have been in the Hurry, Spit, Me 110, JU88 and Blenny; never the Bf 109.

[Vlerkies]

You are both clearly 109 Uber gods then and I am imagining it all.

Cheerio.

[arglmauf]

Maybe the answer lies in the way the 109 attacks RAF planes in conjunction with the position of the fuel tanks in spits:

To my experience, in order to put a fueltank on fire, it needs to be punctured first. The 109 guns aren't known for their firing rate and maybe the M-Geschoss doesn't ignite on first hit (or with lesser chance, don't know the code). Perhaps people just don't get enough igniting ammunition in the proper place due to the on target time they have on spits (dodgy buggers they are). Also remember the way 109s usually attack their opponents. Staying time on target is usually short compared to the RAF planes who pretty much hose their opponents.

Perhaps the reduced ratios of fires in RAF planes stems from before a fueltank gets hit, the plane already suffered enough critical hits that it had to be abandoned (control cables, I'm looking at you) which would of course reduce the ratio of noticed burning defeats (as putting stuff on fire requires concentrated fire for a comparatively long stretch of time).

It could very well be circumstances outside of the damage modelling that reduce the chance of a 109 putting their opponent on fire... And to draw a line below it all: 109 can put RAF planes down well enough, whether they burn or not.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I regularly get PK'd (The Black Screen of Death) by 109's. When that happens I usually ALT F2 to morbidly watch my Spitfire's demise. Busted up, yes. In flames -- never. Logic tells me that the proximity of the fuel tanks behind the instrument panel should erupt in massive flames with all that explosive cannon fire and armour piercing flying about the cockpit area. Not every time perhaps, but probably more often than naught. I'm dead anyway, but the pyrotechnics should be there. In short, based on my misadventures, Spitfires should be in flames far more often than what we're seeing online just based on the odds of fuel tanks being punctured and ignited.

WRT survivability of 109 fires (in fact, all aircraft). If the 109 blows up outright, then it's likely game over for the pilot. But if it's a flamer, then I think there should be in many/most cases time for a quick-thinking pilot to jettison the hood and bail -- say 5 - 10 seconds? This could be accompanied by a rapidly reddened screen to represent injury by burns, but the pilot survives. Dawdling pilots will see the red screen rapidly get darker towards The Black Screen of Death.

Just my thoughts.

[SG1_Lud]

I regularly get PK'd (The Black Screen of Death) by 109's. When that happens I usually ALT F2 to morbidly watch my Spitfire's demise. Busted up, yes. In flames -- never. Logic tells me that the proximity of the fuel tanks behind the instrument panel should erupt in massive flames with all that explosive cannon fire and armour piercing flying about the cockpit area. Not every time perhaps, but probably more often than naught. I'm dead anyway, but the pyrotechnics should be there. In short, based on my misadventures, Spitfires should be in flames far more often than what we're seeing online just based on the odds of fuel tanks being punctured and ignited.

WRT survivability of 109 fires (in fact, all aircraft). If the 109 blows up outright, then it's likely game over for the pilot. But if it's a flamer, then I think there should be in many/most cases time for a quick-thinking pilot to jettison the hood and bail -- say 5 - 10 seconds? This could be accompanied by a rapidly reddened screen to represent injury by burns, but the pilot survives. Dawdling pilots will see the red screen rapidly get darker towards The Black Screen of Death.

Just my thoughts.

I concur.

As I have posted in other similar discussions, I believe that our observations are very affected by the ammunition factor.

The red planes are way more effective in setting afire planes, because of the De Wilde ammo.

Blue can set afire too, if used the correct ammo & combo & timing but it's less effective (which I don't find wrong at all).

The problem may well be in the quantity of De Wilde carried. We all know that historically should be 1/8 o2 2/8, but there is nothing that can be done (AFAIK) to avoid non historical ammo loads.

You can limit the number of certain models of planes, and such, but the squadron stores I don't think so.

So yes the blues miss this nice effect, but as it is eye candy I think we can live with it. (learning to jump un historically fast when burning LOL)

S!

[SG1_Lud]

P.S. I find that I see very few 109 fuel tank fires in on line servers these days. Possibly because more 109 pilots are taking less risks in dogfights with the RAF (flying a little bit more realistically perhaps), although I suspect they will still be taking far more risks than the real life BoB LW fighter pilots did.



Talisman


This.

When the patch came out I died twice in a row burned.

Now I can't honestly remember the last time I did.

Or the code changed magically in my PC, or I adapted.

The funny thing is that you adapt yourself to the new threats and you hardly notice it We are humans and our brains play funny tricks on us.:)


S!

[arglmauf]

I regularly get PK'd (The Black Screen of Death) by 109's. When that happens I usually ALT F2 to morbidly watch my Spitfire's demise. Busted up, yes. In flames -- never. Logic tells me that the proximity of the fuel tanks behind the instrument panel should erupt in massive flames with all that explosive cannon fire and armour piercing flying about the cockpit area. Not every time perhaps, but probably more often than naught. I'm dead anyway, but the pyrotechnics should be there. In short, based on my misadventures, Spitfires should be in flames far more often than what we're seeing online just based on the odds of fuel tanks being punctured and ignited.

WRT survivability of 109 fires (in fact, all aircraft). If the 109 blows up outright, then it's likely game over for the pilot. But if it's a flamer, then I think there should be in many/most cases time for a quick-thinking pilot to jettison the hood and bail -- say 5 - 10 seconds? This could be accompanied by a rapidly reddened screen to represent injury by burns, but the pilot survives. Dawdling pilots will see the red screen rapidly get darker towards The Black Screen of Death.

Just my thoughts.

Don't know how well things are modelled in CloD but remember: In order for that fuel in your tank to burn, it needs oxygen. An AP bullet entering your tank will cause a leak but it likely won't ignite as there's probably not enough air around it. Also at the moment it sparks, when it connects with a metal surface, there's no fuel around it. A combustible mixture needs a second to form before a second spark can ignite the runaway fire.

Don't tell me you're being cockpit hosed by 109s for a second straight on a regular basis, Snapper:D

[Vlerkies]

This.

When the patch came out I died twice in a row burned.

Now I can't honestly remember the last time I did.

Or the code changed magically in my PC, or I adapted.

The funny thing is that you adapt yourself to the new threats and you hardly notice it We are humans and our brains play funny tricks on us.:)


S!

Or, you just fly once a month on ATAG ;)

[SG1_Lud]

Or, you just fly once a month on ATAG ;)

Hi Vlerkies: You spy me? LOL
+2000 hours, I am holidays now and I dont fly.

Cheers!

[Vlerkies]

:)

[ATAG_Snapper]

Don't know how well things are modelled in CloD but remember: In order for that fuel in your tank to burn, it needs oxygen. An AP bullet entering your tank will cause a leak but it likely won't ignite as there's probably not enough air around it. Also at the moment it sparks, when it connects with a metal surface, there's no fuel around it. A combustible mixture needs a second to form before a second spark can ignite the runaway fire.

Don't tell me you're being cockpit hosed by 109s for a second straight on a regular basis, Snapper:D

That's why I mentioned exploding cannon fire in the cockpit. Do you not think that would provide a sufficient ignition source for 100 octane petrol spraying the cockpit? LOL

When you fly online on the ATAG Server, you'll find there are lots of ways to die in a Spitfire. It's a feature. :D

[arglmauf]

Every spit is a pinto! :D

Look at the positive side of it:
10780

relevant reads:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryCarIsAPinto
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadeOfExplodium
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffBlowingUp

[hnbdgr]

I remember somebody mentioned that the Spit had a lot of armour around it's fuel tank, that could be pierced by AP 20mm but not the minengeschoss... Now who here honestly uses a 20mm AP? not me:) And bullets won't cut it. So you'd need 20mm AP + HE + minengeschoss to get a chance of a spittie fire. But honestly I've only seen a "small" spit fire once in MP.

Anyway I also remember there's a review coming up of the fuel tank armour for both planes in the next patch.

[Vlerkies]

from an old post for interest only.


Decisive Duel
http://i.imgur.com/dj5Wpd9.jpg

The BoB: Myth and Reality

http://i.imgur.com/2Z0lYvY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/buRr0U3.jpg

[Karaya]

Now who here honestly uses a 20mm AP?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eg_4kg813VM/ULJIyO6TLyI/AAAAAAAADdc/ed_QXKoMMXc/s1600/captain-picard-waving.gif

[Vlerkies]

LOL Karaya.

Never fear, a 20mm anything is devastating.

I just fly an E1 with pop gun ammo :recon:

[hnbdgr]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eg_4kg813VM/ULJIyO6TLyI/AAAAAAAADdc/ed_QXKoMMXc/s1600/captain-picard-waving.gif

Ha, maybe that's the secret then :) which ones are you using exactly? you might start a new trend.

[Karaya]

Panzerbrandgranate (API)
Brandgranate (I)
3xMinengeschoss (HE high cap.)

for the FF/M

4x Sprenggranate (HE)
1x Panzergranate (AP)

for the FF

[Leifr]

Perhaps the Luftwaffe pilots here would see more flaming RAF fighters if the very same RAF fighters took more to the Hurricane! Aircraft ratio is very often completely skewed 3:1 for the Spitfires, something which is a bit of a bugbear for me (and I assume many others).

My Hurricane has no problem alighting itself when a 109 shuffles nearby. :-P

[indyscout]

Ive managed to light small fires in the engines of spits by hitting them with API machine-gun rounds in the 109 directly to the engine.
However just today I pulled this off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWP7mL9oBwQ
Thats one crispy Hurri :D

[hnbdgr]

Perhaps the Luftwaffe pilots here would see more flaming RAF fighters if the very same RAF fighters took more to the Hurricane! Aircraft ratio is very often completely skewed 3:1 for the Spitfires, something which is a bit of a bugbear for me (and I assume many others).

My Hurricane has no problem alighting itself when a 109 shuffles nearby. :-P

Realistic Ratios for both sides would be nice, but it requires a custom script to be put in by the mission builder. noone is able to do such a thing atm.

[Talisman]

Perhaps the Luftwaffe pilots here would see more flaming RAF fighters if the very same RAF fighters took more to the Hurricane! Aircraft ratio is very often completely skewed 3:1 for the Spitfires, something which is a bit of a bugbear for me (and I assume many others).

My Hurricane has no problem alighting itself when a 109 shuffles nearby. :-P

The ratio of LW bombers and 2 engine fighters in the BoB would mean less single seat fighters available for the blue side, so I don't think an historic ratio would be very popular. If you split a server of 100 pilot slots to 50 aircraft for blue and 50 aircraft for red (or perhaps less for red, as the RAF was outnumbered) and then took into account that the LW used more bombers than fighters because it was attacking with a bombing campaign, then a lot of people might be put off. Especially if people wanted to fly a LW single engine fighter but there was only bomber pilot slots left. Red would likely have 100% of its slots for single engine fighter aircraft, as the BoB was a defensive action by RAF Fighter Command, so red players hoping to fly an RAF bomber might be disappointed. Setting a ratio might be good for a set of server campaign missions, but not for a general sand box server.

[Talisman]

Ive managed to light small fires in the engines of spits by hitting them with API machine-gun rounds in the 109 directly to the engine.
However just today I pulled this off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWP7mL9oBwQ
Thats one crispy Hurri :D

Nice kill with that Spitfire in a fire ball too as shown by the picture with your signature at the bottom of your first post. Has any one seen a Bf 109 fuel tank explode like that when set on fire by a Spit or Hurry since recent patches? Yes, they burn, but 109 fuel tanks don't seem to explode. Or am I wrong about that?

I seem to remember that you could hit a 109 fuel tank with a Spit or Hurry early on in CloD and the 109 would explode. When it did though, nothing much would happen and it would fly on as though no explosion had taken place. There is now some benefit from a hitting the Bf 109 in the fuel tank, after a long time waiting for it (well done TF) but no explosion. Should we see more explosions if fuel tanks are hit, on all aircraft, or not?

[hnbdgr]

The ratio of LW bombers and 2 engine fighters in the BoB would mean less single seat fighters available for the blue side, so I don't think an historic ratio would be very popular. If you split a server of 100 pilot slots to 50 aircraft for blue and 50 aircraft for red (or perhaps less for red, as the RAF was outnumbered) and then took into account that the LW used more bombers than fighters because it was attacking with a bombing campaign, then a lot of people might be put off. Especially if people wanted to fly a LW single engine fighter but there was only bomber pilot slots left. Red would likely have 100% of its slots for single engine fighter aircraft, as the BoB was a defensive action by RAF Fighter Command, so red players hoping to fly an RAF bomber might be disappointed. Setting a ratio might be good for a set of server campaign missions, but not for a general sand box server.

It would be a hotly discussed topic and there would be many people that would disagree for sure. My take is that in a "completely ideal world" :) we could consider only putting limitations on fighters and don't touch the bombers (they would be AI and still available to fly) - the only problem would be bf110's as the ratio of twin to single fighters was 2:8 i believe and it's not a very popular aircraft to fly.

[1lokos]

OT


The ratio of LW bombers and 2 engine fighters in the BoB...

Depends on day/attack:

September, 7

Bombers - 348
Fighters - 617 (both types)

September, 15 Midday Attack

Bombers - 25
Fighters - 171 (both types)

This attack was meet by 254 RAF fighters.

The 25 Do17 of KG76 Dornier's fight a epic battle - be his luck at some stage with the ineffective Balbo "circus" - Leigh-Mallory's/Badder "Big Wing", more occupied in dont collide with each other, than hit the bombers.

15 Dorniers returning to France after bombing his targets (London docks) - four others had try return before.

They lost six bombers (24%), include the famous Zehbe's F1+FH, the one rammed by Sergeant Raymond Towers Holmes - and the myth that his target where Buckingham Palace. :thumbsup:



as the BoB was a defensive action by RAF Fighter Command, so red players hoping to fly an RAF bomber might be disappointed.


About 2/3 of missions flow by Bomber Command during BoB period was against Channel ports, "Sea Lion" invasion barges, German airfields in France and Belgium. One can say in support of Fighter Command.

Numbers from this book - that use references/researchs of several other books written before:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Most-Dangerous-Enemy-History/dp/1845134818

http://i58.tinypic.com/2uhqq9z.jpg



Myth - The RAF fighters were hopelessly outnumbered by the Luftwaffe fighters.
At the beginning of the battle the RAF had approximately 650 fighters whereas the Luftwaffe had about 1000 - if one includes twin-engined Me-110s.
By the end of the battle the RAF had over 700 fighters, and the Luftwaffe had fewer than 300.


Numbers based on serviceable aircraft (~80% in Luftwaffe ~84% in RAF).

Sokol1

[SoW Reddog]

Realistic Ratios for both sides would be nice, but it requires a custom script to be put in by the mission builder. noone is able to do such a thing atm.

Really? I could have sworn I've seen it in at least two missions.

[hnbdgr]

Really? I could have sworn I've seen it in at least two missions.

Well I guess it's possible then! :)

[istruba]

No problems for me about limiting the number of types of aircraft for each side, I actually enjoy flying the 110 :)

But I've never seen a mission on ATAG server that has such scripts limiting the airplanes, every plane is free to choose independently of the number. What I see is that some missions has only Hurricanes at Hawkinge, Lympe and Littlestone, while the Spitfires are limited to spawn at Canterbury (the Ia model) and at Eastchurch (the IIa model).

And about the fires... I could be wrong, but from my personal experience, the Spitfire seems to be much more rugged than the Hurris (at least in game, while real life reports seems to be the otherway around), dont know why, but I shoot down hurris a lot more faster than the spits.

[Vlerkies]

Ok its not a Spitfire but I will take it with a smile, 1 in hundreds :)

Somewhere over France, names and exact location have been removed :-)


http://youtu.be/Jtd0L8RO300