Invincible Planes in GWX???

[teapot156]

Im in august of 1941, 2nd F, IXB.

There seems to be an issue where my flak gunners and I cannot shoot down planes. I've fired hundreds of 20 and 37 mm rounds at them and I can see that the rounds are hitting but there doesn't seem to be any apparent damage... :shifty:

Heres a list of the mods im running:
GWX - VIIC41 Player Sub
GWX - Late War Sensors Snorkel Antennas
Conus' SH3GWXWS 2.3
Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME)
MEP v3 VisualSensors for gwx3
O2-Gauges v2
M.E.P v3
FlatSunFix for M.E.P v3
Rbs1_SH4_Effects_GWX_30_71
Rbs10-enhancedoilexplosion
Bad Weather Fix V1.1 (Standard)
Type IXc - The Wolf
Real Depth Charge normal
Torpedo damage Final ver2.0

Also using SH commander, the latest version I think.

Anybody have a clue what it could be? It just seems so weird... and it's just allied aircraft.

[Raptor]

It helps to have a flak-qualified Watch Officer on the bridge,:rock: or at least one flak-qualified PO on the gun(s).

You'll be lucky to shoot down anything manning the flak gun yourself. Hit something? Yes; hit it enough to shoot it down? No.:damn:

[teapot156]

The plane in question was a twin engine bomber, I think it was British. Sorry I don't know my planes, I just consider them all dangerous.

I swear we (the AI and I) hit it several times to no effect.

[Victor Schutze]

:timeout: Man, if you're caught on the surface by a plane and it's already less than 2500 meters away, go flank, zig zag, use the AA gun then after the first pass of the plane, hit "C".

[RConch]

Imo, you stand almost no chance if it isn't a swordfish.:salute:
Seek the deep.

[Gargamel]

Imo, you stand almost no chance if it isn't a swordfish.:salute:
Seek the deep.

But not too deep

[Missing Name]

But not too deep

Unless you feel like everyone in the crew could stand to lose a little weight immediately.

[Sailor Steve]

Anybody have a clue what it could be? It just seems so weird... and it's just allied aircraft.
GWX is meant to be a realism mod, and the reality was that aircraft were exceedingly dangerous to u-boats. Even the famous u-flak boats were prey to the planes. You should never try to fight one.

[maillemaker]

The bi-planes you can tear up pretty good with one of those 4-barreled machine gun mounts. I can nail them good.

But I went toe-to-toe with some 2-engined bomber and I got him but it took me down to 85% HI. Not worth it.

Steve

[teapot156]

GWX is meant to be a realism mod, and the reality was that aircraft were exceedingly dangerous to u-boats. Even the famous u-flak boats were prey to the planes. You should never try to fight one.

Yeah I get the whole realism thing and i know planes are a sub's worst nightmare when riding on the surface. In reality though a 20 mm gun would tear the hell out of any plane from that era. I mean, it's a plane, its not heavily armored otherwise it probably wouldn't take off.

It's just mystifying when you are shooting at a plane 3 to 4 hundred meters away while its nose diving on you and you can see the bullets impacting all over the cockpit and wings yet it doesn't take any damage

[Sailor Steve]

The stock game had the weirdness that your sub could be attacked by dozens of aircraft, shoot down most of them and ultimately be overwhelmed by numbers. The reality was that one plane was enough to ruin a kaleun's career. Permanently. I think that the only way for modders to make them harder to shoot down was to make them stronger than they were in real life. It's either that or the u-boat ends up not fearing the planes at all. Unfortunately the game is far from perfect. It seems to be one or the other.

[Randomizer]

Yeah I get the whole realism thing and i know planes are a sub's worst nightmare when riding on the surface. In reality though a 20 mm gun would tear the hell out of any plane from that era. I mean, it's a plane, its not heavily armored otherwise it probably wouldn't take off.
The reason why they went to 37mm was because all too frequently they could hit Liberators, Sunderlands and even Hudsons all day with 20mm without apparent effect. Even the famous quad-20mm was less effective than the Bofors gun.

And yes, the four engined LRMP's and most of the twins were armoured, some more than others.

[Sailor Steve]

And yes, the four engined LRMP's and most of the twins were armoured, some more than others.
I've never heard that before. Links?

[Missing Name]

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/b17allamerican.jpg

Some planes gained reputations for being able to take on extraordinary amounts of AA fire. Like this B-17 that landed on its own power... and that's why I never engage them.

[Sailor Steve]

That particular B-17 wasn't hit by AA fire. It was rammed by a Bf.109.
http://saltofamerica.com/contents/displayArticle.aspx?18_90

The B-17 was famous for bringing its crews home, except for the 40% that didn't. Of 11,931 B-17s built, 4,754 didn't return.

On the other hand the B-24 was famous for not bringing its crews home. The funny part is that out of 18,482 Liberators built, 2,112 of them didn't make it back. That's a loss rate of 11%.
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

None of the Allied bombers were armored.

[Randomizer]

Part of the problem with the B-24 was with its thin Davis wing and deep bomb bays. The former meant that at high altitudes the Liberator was closer to stall than the Fortress and the wing itself was not as strong structurally. The latter meant that it was more difficult to escape from a crippled plane. The B-17's innate toughness, due to the nature of its construction tended to give more time to the crews.

For details see William H. Cook, The Road to the 707 where he, a Boeing engineer, goes into some detail on the design features that made the B-17 so damage resistant. There's probably some internet links out there somewhere as well.

As for armour, the RAF used a one pilot system, there was usually no co-pilot even on the long Coastal Command patrols. Aircrew took a very dim view of anything that might prevent the pilot from bringing them home. Until several years ago there was a ex RCAF Canso (PBY-5A Catalina to all the Americans out there) water bomber parked at Nanaimo Airport and I got a walk through tour one day. There was still armour plate behind the pilots seat and since the aircraft was a WW2 vet, it is unlikely that it was installed after the war.

Most bombers did have some protection for the flight deck so the blanket statement that Allied bombers had no armour is inaccurate. Dad told me that the First Pilot on Lancaster's and Whitley's had armour protection, he did 13-trips over Germany in Lancaster's an half dozen Coastal Command patrols in Whitley's as a navigator. I would get his testimony but he passed away in '99.

And lastly there is the biggest piece of empirical evidence that the 20mm was lacking. If it had been really effective there would have been no requirement to introduce the 37mm! First hand account repeatedly tell of RAF "Tired Bees" shrugging off gunfire and Liberators hit time and again only to come round for additional attacks. Weapons are only replaced when they cease to do their job, if the 20mm worked it would not have been supplemented by the Bofor's.

Last SH3 patrol an air attack developed while leaving Flensburg and my boat shot down four Liberators using "Engage Closest Target". This in GWX3 so if anything, aircraft are too easy to kill. But that's just my opinion.

[Sailor Steve]

Part of the problem with the B-24 was with its thin Davis wing and deep bomb bays. The former meant that at high altitudes the Liberator was closer to stall than the Fortress and the wing itself was not as strong structurally. The latter meant that it was more difficult to escape from a crippled plane. The B-17's innate toughness, due to the nature of its construction tended to give more time to the crews.
But talk is cheap, and it amazed me to discover that the loss rate of the B-24 was actually far better than that of the B-17.

Most bombers did have some protection for the flight deck so the blanket statement that Allied bombers had no armour is inaccurate. Dad told me that the First Pilot on Lancaster's and Whitley's had armour protection, he did 13-trips over Germany in Lancaster's an half dozen Coastal Command patrols in Whitley's as a navigator. I would get his testimony but he passed away in '99.
I don't argue that for a moment. US helicopters in Vietnam had armored seats for the pilot. It doesn't meant the chopper itself was "armored" or protected against gunfire. Most combat aircraft have some pilot protection. This doesn't make them "armored" either. There is little or nothing to protect the aircraft itself.

And lastly there is the biggest piece of empirical evidence that the 20mm was lacking. If it had been really effective there would have been no requirement to introduce the 37mm! First hand account repeatedly tell of RAF "Tired Bees" shrugging off gunfire and Liberators hit time and again only to come round for additional attacks. Weapons are only replaced when they cease to do their job, if the 20mm worked it would not have been supplemented by the Bofor's.
Again I agree. Planes, like ships, have a lot of empty space where a hit does no effective damage. I was only talking about literal armor, and now I'm not sure why I was doing that.

The bottom line is still the same: staying on the surface to fight airplanes was a bad idea, and it should be in the game.

Last SH3 patrol an air attack developed while leaving Flensburg and my boat shot down four Liberators using "Engage Closest Target". This in GWX3 so if anything, aircraft are too easy to kill. But that's just my opinion.
I wouldn't know. I've never stuck around to fight them, even in the stock game. :sunny:

[Randomizer]

But talk is cheap, and it amazed me to discover that the loss rate of the B-24 was actually far better than that of the B-17.
It shouldn't. The Liberator benefited from some four-years of improvements in aerodynamics, engine and fuel technology between the 1935 Army Air Corps requirements that led to the Boeing 299/Y1B-17 and the 1939 contract that became the B-24.

That same Davis wing that helped make the Liberator relatively fragile compared to the Fortress also facilitated greater speed, payload and range, things you wanted in a strategic bomber.

All technology is about trade-offs and compromises, that's why these popular but silly "Best Of" lists are generally rubbish.

As for the Flensburg thing, I didn't want to fight it out either but not much one can do in a Type IX and 11-metres of water...

[Sailor Steve]

It amazed me because I bought into the myth of the "indestructible fortress". It's just like the "flaming coffins" nickname given to the DH-4 in World War 1. The plane was no more flammable than any other Great War aircraft, which of course isn't saying much.

[vanjast]

Imo, you stand almost no chance if it isn't a swordfish.:salute:
Seek the deep.
In reality the Swordfish was harder to down than the then modern bombers because of one simple fact.... it was made of fabric and the AAA shells passed right through it without exploding. The Bismark had this horrible experience.. and was torpedoed.

Of course if the shell hit something solid, that would possibly down any aircraft.
:)

[RConch]

[QUOTE=vanjast;1838059]In reality the Swordfish was harder to down than the then modern bombers because of one simple fact.... it was made of fabric and the AAA shells passed right through it without exploding. The Bismark had this horrible experience.. and was torpedoed.

Of course it the shell hit something solid that would possibly down any aircraft.
:)[/QUOTE

I agree in real life-however my experience in the game has been they are the easist to shoot down.
I had real bad encounter with a Kingfisher, anything like it or bigger is an instant crash dive.:arrgh!:

[Gargamel]

Because the game runs on a hp system, a Swordfish would naturally have fewer.

[Sailor Steve]

In reality the Swordfish was harder to down than the then modern bombers because of one simple fact.... it was made of fabric and the AAA shells passed right through it without exploding. The Bismark had this horrible experience.. and was torpedoed.
Do you have a single citation for that? I meant the part about shells passing through the fabric? According to every source I've seen, Bismarck's AA fire was innefective due to rangefinders being calibrated for faster aircraft. The Swordfish were save because they were too slow for the tracking equipment, and being made of fabric had nothing to do with it. When a Swordfish squadron attacked Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, all six aircraft were shot down, so those bullets apparently didn't pass through the fabric.

When hundreds of bullets are in the air, which part of an aircraft is hit becomes a statistical probablility. Some might pass through without causing damage, but that is true of metal as well as cloth. There is always a chance of control or engine damage, or the pilot being hit, and those chances don't change no mattere what the plane is made of.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Yeah I get the whole realism thing and i know planes are a sub's worst nightmare when riding on the surface. In reality though a 20 mm gun would tear the hell out of any plane from that era.

This is true if you can hit him enough. The suck-tacular ROF of the flak gun and the low magazine capacity and its comparatively long reload time should be more than enough convincing to order Alarmtauchen the second you confirm his presence. Like everyone else has said, if it is too late to go deep, all you can do is maneuver like mad. As nasty as planes are, they are just as vulnerable to missing with its payload as a sub when faced by abrupt zig-zagging and speed changes. Not as effective as when a merchant does it to a sub, but it is a lot better than trying to duke it out with a pea shooter.

[vanjast]

Do you have a single citation for that?
It's in a book related to the Bismark hunt.. if I remember correctly. It also mentions what you say about the slow aircraft foiling the AA sytems.
The fabric construction is explicitly mentioned in enabling the Swordfish to get much closer (and drop torps) than normal metal aircraft.... I'll have to dig through my library.

And there's also a chance of a shell hitting a metal surface and exploding, damaging vital pieces, whereas hitting a fabric surface, the shell would just carry on (also possibly hitting control wires)..... same argument from the other side :)

[Gargamel]

Steve, I've read in a number of places ( no sources sorry) the same thing about older cloth aircraft having great durability in WWII.

[Randomizer]

It's in a book related to the Bismark hunt.. if I remember correctly. It also mentions what you say about the slow aircraft foiling the AA sytems.
This is one of the great frauds in the Bismarck legend. Anybody who has ever trained in All-Arms Air Defence and every duck and wild bird hunter knows from experience that slow targets are dead targets. The crew of Bismarck were lousy shots and her AAA was poorly arranged and badly controlled.

They even had to add phony Swordfish losses in the movie Sink the Bismarck (and a bogus scene with an RN destroyer getting blown up) because the producers feared that the historical lack of battle losses, other than Hood, would make for poor drama.

See comments from the Bismarck chapter in The Worlds Worst Warships by Anthony Preston.

As for the rest every time Swordfish met effective opposition they were slaughtered. That said, they were very strong airframes and many brought their crews home after being shot to pieces or got then to the ground alive.

CDR Charles Lamb in his excellent To War in a Stringbag waxes lyrical in praise of the Swordfish but had no illusions as to its vulnerability in action.

[Raptor]

Fabric coated airframes are a lot less susceptible to AA fire. When struck by a shell, fabric doesn't fragment into multiple sharp pieces like steel or aluminum will. Those fragments flying about act like mini-AA shells and can do considerable damage to surrounding areas and personnel missed by the actual shell.

Any shell that strikes the solid airframe, be it metal or wood, can do a lot of damage, irregardless of the type of material used to cover it.

The aircrew is likewise susceptible.:down:

[Sailor Steve]

So, a Hurricane is safer than a Spitfire? I'll bet those Wellington pilots were glad they weren't flying Lancasters. The fact is that what knocks airplanes down are critical hits. Many metal aircraft came home full of holes. A fabric-covered plane is just as susceptible to engine hits, control hits and pilot hits as any other plane, and that's what brings them down, not holes in the fuselage or wing surfaces.

My initial point was that it wasn't the fabric that saved the Swordfish against Bismarck, it was the fact that they weren't hit.

[teapot156]

I don't know guys, I'm reading this thread here and looking up some of these designs and I'm not sure if GWX models planes well.

Don't get me wrong, it's great and I love the hell out of it. It doesn't bother me that I can't kick the crap out of squadron after squadron of enemy bombers while watching the explosions and chomping on my cigar.

What really bothers me is the knowledge that when I fire a 20 mm gun at VERY close range and SEE the bullets hitting the cockpit, I'm not doing any damage. A 20 mm round is not going to be stopped by a piece of 8mm steel the size of a lunch box under the pilots butt or whatever. The 20 mm should end the party for the dumb pilot that is nose diving my position more than he needs to in order to take out the sub. It's more likely that the 37 mm was installed to complement the 20 mm because of the larger effective range and great destructive power of using flak shells.

Thats why im guessing there might be something wrong with the mods im using and maybe not GWX at all, it just seems too weird. Reread my first post, I shot this one bomber with everything I had. No not "shot at", I mean actually hit. Hit without effect.

And on the subject of armor, the most I can really find on planes being armored is these models having protection from 14mm or .50 cal ammunition which has a significant difference from 20 or even 37. A lot of these armored positions where critical areas where a stray round could destroy the entire plane or kill a crew member. They weren't made to actually TAKE fire.

[Deepmoc]

1, 2, or max 4 Pings with 20mm is the End of the Fun for any Plane.
That clearly true.

40mm or 37 a single Hit is enough
1 engined Planes comes apart with a such Shell und you can collect a Jigsaw Puzzle on the Water Surface..

Greetings

Moc

[Sailor Steve]

Thats why im guessing there might be something wrong with the mods im using and maybe not GWX at all, it just seems too weird. Reread my first post, I shot this one bomber with everything I had. No not "shot at", I mean actually hit. Hit without effect.
No, there's something wrong with the way the game was made in the first place. As I think I said earlier, in the stock game you get attacked by dozens of planes and could shoot down a bunch of them before they finally got you. The armor values are for the whole aircraft, not individual parts. The only way to make it so one plane is dangerous was to up the armor value.

Talking about how protected the pilot may or may not have been is irrelevant. What is relevant is that single aircraft attacked u-boats and sank them. Sunderlands and especially B-24s were the bane of the u-boat.

The fact is that 250 u-boats were sunk by aircraft in WW2. They shot down a lot of planes as well, but the trade-off was never worth it.

[Frenchy849]

1, 2, or max 4 Pings with 20mm is the End of the Fun for any Plane.
That clearly true.

40mm or 37 a single Hit is enough
1 engined Planes comes apart with a such Shell und you can collect a Jigsaw Puzzle on the Water Surface..

Greetings

Moc
Now,explain how B-17's came back home with several machine gun and 20mm shell impacts practically everywhere and even maybe a flak round or two,or even a ramming.
I tell you,I've seen a photo where the radio room was absolutely so ripped apart by a 150mm flak round that 4 men could fit in the hole,and still made it back home.
Or maybe you mean any smaller planes.
Typhoons could also take several 37mm shells in the fuselage without flinching...or maybe simply getting the radio fried.