Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

  1. #1
    ATAG Member ATAG_JackMaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    642
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.23 GB

    Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    I would be interested in seeing players opinions re the increase in aircraft resilience recently implemented by TFS, this has in my opinion been achieved by reducing the damage caused by rifle caliber guns. I cannot demonstrate this empirically, lack of skills, but my experience is that the rifle armed spittys and hurris are not causing historically accurate damage. it now often takes the full 12 seconds of firing to down a bomber and fighters also need a lot more hits. Historically pilots reported kills during the BOB after a 1 or 2 second burst on enemy fighters. Also the aircraft losses by both sides during the battle favored the allies indicating that the spittys and hurries armed with 303s were as effective as the cannon/7.62mm armed 109s. my opinion is that this is change that should be reviewed by TFS to see in it has achieved what was intended. my opinion is that it needs to be tweaked , because the effectiveness of rifle armed aircraft have been reduced too far.

    This is not a criticism of TFS who continue to do excellent work in the development of CLOD and Tobruk DW.
    Don't let Grudges fester and poison your future happiness......get your revenge as quickly as possible.

  2. Likes ATAG_Flare, Little Bill liked this post
  3. #2
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    We have tested the effects of the rifle armed aircraft and the effects in BLITZ do agree with the historical evidence.

    Typically rifle calibre damage had very little effect on larger aircraft like bombers if the rounds only hit the fuselage or wings and not critical areas like engines, fuel tanks or crew members.

    There are many reports of German bombers returning to France even though they were riddled with bullets.

    Very critical is setting convergence to the appropriate distance.

    200 meters is probably the highest distance convergence should be set... and the player needs to get into convergence range and aim at critical areas.

    Killing the pilot is the easiest way to down a bomber... which is the reason many RAF pilots liked the headon attack. The Heinkel 111H especially is vulnerable to this tactic.

    For single engined aircraft, shooting at the wings is not worthwhile unless you aim at the radiators.

    Try an attack on the 109E from slightly underneath, and aim at the area under the cockpit where the fuel tanks are... these are not self sealing so fires can be set easily.

    Remember the pilot has armor behind him which will deflect rifle caliber bullets at ranges higher than 100 meters. If you are directly behind, the bullets will hit the armor. Try to angle off a bit so you can see the cockpit and pilot and place your bullets in the cockpit.

  4. Likes ATAG_Slot liked this post
  5. #3
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_JackMaxx View Post
    Also the aircraft losses by both sides during the battle favored the allies indicating that the spittys and hurries armed with 303s were as effective as the cannon/7.62mm armed 109s.
    There's many different factors to consider when looking at aircraft losses, not just the plain armament of the fighters. Naturally the attacking side will always suffer higher losses than the defending side unless numbers are heavily stacked in favor of the attackers, which was not the case during the BoB. The Luftwaffe fought over enemy territory, bombers took a long time to form up and were visible on radar over long distances giving the RAF in most cases plenty of time to scramble and coordinate fighter formations. Also many damaged RAF aircraft were able to land back at base, be repaired and back in service within a day or two. The Luftwaffe did not have that luxury and many of its aircraft lost ended up in a British field or in the channel.

    Another thing to consider is that sim pilots always seem to think that an aircraft is only "properly" shot down when it has turned into a torch or is coming down in pieces. In reality many aircraft ditched more or less structurally intact but with their engines disabled as a result of their radiators shot up.
    Last edited by Karaya; Oct-30-2020 at 07:36.

  6. Likes 1lokos, von Graf, HenryLuebberstedt liked this post
  7. #4
    Manual Creation Group DerDa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Heidelberg
    Posts
    2,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    280.96 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karaya View Post
    There's many different factors to consider when looking at aircraft losses, not just the plain armament of the fighters. Naturally the attacking side will always suffer higher losses than the defending side unless numbers are heavily stacked in favor of the attackers, which was not the case during the BoB. The Luftwaffe fought over enemy territory, bombers took a long time to form up and were visible on radar over long distances giving the RAF in most cases plenty of time to scramble and coordinate fighter formations. Also many damaged RAF aircraft were able to land back at base, be repaired and back in service within a day or two. The Luftwaffe did not have that luxury and many of its aircraft lost ended up in a British field or in the channel.

    Another thing to consider is that sim pilots always seem to think that an aircraft is only "properly" shot down when it has turned into a torch or is coming down in pieces. In reality many aircraft ditched more or less structurally intact but with their engines disabled as a result of their radiators shot up.

    Don't forget the flak that most probably was much more efficient against bombers than fighters with their pea shooters, even in 1940.

    I don't know what would be 'realistic' and how to proove one point of view against the other.
    But as far as the game is conserned I gave up long ago to attack bombers (even AI) with Spits or Hurricanes. Usually during the first attack you get your oil cooler perforated (and no, I do not park behind the bombers and it does not get any better when you are attacking not alone).
    In Blitz I used Beaus (not historically accurate but effective) and in Tobruk Beaus or P40s.
    And even if I cannot proove it by tests I still feel that the AI gunners in a bomber flown by a human are perfectly useless in comparison to the deadly snipers in AI flown bombers.

    In general, I made the observation that all kinds of games have a very strong bias against me personally

  8. #5
    Ace 1lokos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.04 GB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Don't forget the flak that most probably was much more efficient against bombers than fighters with their pea shooters, even in 1940.
    British FLAK during 'B of B' was no much effective, was responsible for about 5% of German losses in "B of B".

    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421867.pdf

    They are more effective in make bombers crews turn around and run for home before hit targets, that shooting they down.

  9. #6
    Supporting Member 9./JG52_J-HAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    Total Downloaded
    266.37 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Still getting my radiators perforated or my controls disable almost every single time someone places shots on my plane using the .303. Not to mention PK.
    The old adage “don’t get shot” still holds true most of the time.

    Half a second burst and it’s done.

    And except for the venting coolant (which in the F-4 will be immediately shut off) not much will be seen from the outside.
    i7 13700KF @5.3 Ghz | RTX 4090 526.86 1440p | 32 Gb RAM 6000 | Win10 64 bit | TrackIR 5 | VKB Gunfighter III | MFG Crosswind V2 | Warthog Throttle | Reverb G2 100% SteamVR SS

  10. Likes ATAG_Flare liked this post
  11. #7
    ATAG Member ATAG_JackMaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    642
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.23 GB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    I have flown the Hurri 1 100 oct in various servers for a few days, I have had a few successes but I feel that if the armament of these aircraft (and the early spits) was so inefficient as represented in the sim the British would not have been victorious in the battle of Britain, IMHO this aircraft resilience issue should be revisited by TFS
    Don't let Grudges fester and poison your future happiness......get your revenge as quickly as possible.

  12. #8
    Ace HenryLuebberstedt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    167.36 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    And even if I cannot proove it by tests I still feel that the AI gunners in a bomber flown by a human are perfectly useless in comparison to the deadly snipers in AI flown bombers.
    Good to see I'm not alone on this one. The gunners are pretty much incompetent in MP (at least in a Ju88). If possible I would like to kick out the MGs, amunition plus the useless observer to get some extra speed or a better climb rate.
    System: i7-6700K, MSI Nvidia 1070GTX, 16GB RAM, Gigabyte GA-Z170 K3, Win10 64Bit, TrackIR5, HOTAS Warthog, Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals, Sennheiser 350 Headset, LG 34' 21:9

  13. Likes DerDa liked this post
  14. #9
    ATAG Member ATAG_Oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    908.31 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    And even if I cannot prove it by tests I still feel that the AI gunners in a bomber flown by a human are perfectly useless in comparison to the deadly snipers in AI flown bombers.
    Gunners use the same logic in SP or MP. The only possible difference is the skill settings which the mission builder sets.

    I think the game is just biased against you personally.

  15. #10
    Manual Creation Group DerDa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Heidelberg
    Posts
    2,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    280.96 MB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Oskar View Post

    I think the game is just biased against you personally.
    Well, there cannot be a question about that!

    And it's not only the game.
    It's the whole world!!!


  16. Likes 56RAF_stickz, ATAG_Snapper liked this post
  17. #11
    ATAG Member ATAG_JackMaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    642
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.23 GB

    Re: Increasing aircraft resilience success or fail?

    Many changes have been made to the sim in the trade off between historical accuracy and playability, this is one IMHO that really should be considered to make CLOd Blitz more enjoyable and playable for the red side.

    "That's all I have to say about that"
    Don't let Grudges fester and poison your future happiness......get your revenge as quickly as possible.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •