Lost in translation?

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

This was posted on the Russian forums developer update 89 -

 

25. Fixed (increased) resistance Soviet inline engine damage. Now all inline engines in the game are about the same combat survivability, radial engines have a 2-fold greater vitality; (Google translation)

 

Vs 

 

25. All radial engines in the game got their durability incresed; (English forums)

 

Now having a biased opinion as I fly German planes almost exclusively I am surprised to see the Russian inline engines getting a resistance increase. Anyone that flies Russian planes care to comment? Do you feel your engine gets damaged more than 109s?

[Yakdriver]

reading?
who says that russians have radial engines?

190!

[wellenbrecher]

Well, doesn't that make you wonder even more then, why they'd say they increased the resistance of an apparently non-existent engine for the Soviets? 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Anyone that flies Russian planes care to comment? Do you feel your engine gets damaged more than 109s?

Well, very often I lost my engine due to minimal hits done by German machine guns in He-111 or Ju-87. Something low caliber should not instantly destroy the engine as it often happens. So if they are equal now in durability ... I dont see that as a problem.

 

And what non-existent engine are you talking about ? La-5 has what ? A jet engine ?

[SKG51_robtek]

Afaik the AsH82 is very similar to the BMW801, and they are both in the game.

[Finkeren]

Tbh as a mostly VVS pilot, I never really noticed much difference in the frequency or severity of engine damage. All engines are pretty easy to damage, but outside of that, I have noticed some differences:

 

The La-5 and Bf 109s appear to cope better with engine damage than the other fighters, with the engine producing more power and lasting longer. In the La-5 I've had engine damage with black smoke that never actually killed the engine on the almost 100km flight home.

 

In general the VVS fighters seem structurally stronger than the LW ones, which lose wings and tail section quite readily. This will likely be evened out somewhat in 1.009.

 

The 109s seem more prone to suffer coolant leaks, but that might just be because the water radiator intakes take up more space and are easier to hit.

[unreasonable]

La-5?

 

Edit: blimey, the police are quick this evening!

Edited February 22, 2015 by unreasonable

[Fortis_Leader]

I don't think it's making Russian planes too strong. Personally, I've given up completely on the La-5, 95% of this is due to the relatively large size of the engine making it prone to take the first hit. And when it does, far more often than not the engine won't last more than a minute at best, even if it was literally speaking only one single round hitting it.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Tbh as a mostly VVS pilot, I never really noticed much difference in the frequency or severity of engine damage. All engines are pretty easy to damage, but outside of that, I have noticed some differences:

The La-5 and Bf 109s appear to cope better with engine damage than the other fighters, with the engine producing more power and lasting longer. In the La-5 I've had engine damage with black smoke that never actually killed the engine on the almost 100km flight home.

In general the VVS fighters seem structurally stronger than the LW ones, which lose wings and tail section quite readily. This will likely be evened out somewhat in 1.009.

The 109s seem more prone to suffer coolant leaks, but that might just be because the water radiator intakes take up more space and are easier to hit.

They do seem tougher. Particularly the Lagg-3 and La-5 but then I expected that. The Yak-1 seems nearly as vulnerable as the Bf109 and moreso in some ways.

 

None of them can really take a pounding. Several 20mm hits will end anyone's day

[Finkeren]

They do seem tougher. Particularly the Lagg-3 and La-5 but then I expected that. The Yak-1 seems nearly as vulnerable as the Bf109 and moreso in some ways.

And that really puzzles me. Everything I've read about the early Yak design talks about it being extremely structurally strong, more so than the LaGG. It had the same problems with the delta wood skin on the wings cracking at high dive speeds, and it had something of a reputation for catching fire more easily (not sure if there's any truth to that) but the all-steel structure was much stronger than the mixed construction of the LaGG. That made the Yak much better suited for service on small, primitive airstrips, because its tough structure meant that it coped better with the rough handling and uneven runways, where the LaGG prefered concrete beneath its tyres. So it really should be the LaGG that was more prone to structural damage than the Yak.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[BlitzPig_EL]

Afaik the AsH82 is very similar to the BMW801, and they are both in the game.

 

Both are essentially copies/derived from, the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp.  So they should have similar battle damage resistance.

[Sokol1]

And what non-existent engine are you talking about ? La-5 has what ? A jet engine ?

 

Maybe a Wankel engine.   

 

In "my" La5 every time a He 111 gunner hit a 7,92mm in his engine, this thing loose all oil and broken minutes after. 

Edited February 22, 2015 by Sokol1

[bivalov]

Now having a biased opinion as I fly German planes almost exclusively

 

all inline engines in the game are about the same combat survivability

 

All radial engines in the game got their durability incresed

 

 

nice which-hunt..........

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

All .303 (or 7.92 mm, 7.7 mm, 7.62 mm) caliber rounds should not be very effective against the engines, there were situations when rounds were stuck in the cylinders or in the cooling fins around them.  

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

 

all inline engines in the game are about the same combat survivability

 

All radial engines in the game got their durability incresed

 

 

nice which-hunt..........

 

 

Have you noticed any difference in durability currently is the question?

[Wulf]

All .303 (or 7.92 mm, 7.7 mm, 7.62 mm) caliber rounds should not be very effective against the engines, there were situations when rounds were stuck in the cylinders or in the cooling fins around them.  

 

 

Sure, if a rifle caliber projectile is 'spent' or somehow deflected in flight (by an aircraft's superstructure for example) it may do very little if any damage.  But, at short range (0-250 m) something like a .303 or 7.92 round would wreak an engine - if it hit something critical (like an engine block).  Remember, engines are typically constructed from quite thin castings.   .303 or 7.92 ball ammunition will penetrate 1/4" rolled steel plate at 200 m.  AP rounds would typically do much better.  However, a lot depends on the range and what part of the engine the projectile strikes and at what angle. 

Edited February 22, 2015 by Wulf

[MiloMorai]

.........

 

nice which-hunt..........

 

Which hunt would that be?

 

The witch hunt or some other type of hunt.

[Venturi]

All bullet penetration is dependent on at least four things.

 

1. Ratio of armor (or target steel/Al/Ti/Ur etc) thickness to projectile caliber diameter. 

2. Angle of incidence of impact. Increased angles effectively increase thickness of armor. See T-34 for period example.

3. Design of projectile. WW2 30cal AP projectiles usually contained hardened steel inserts to resist deformation upon impact. In actuality these usually reduced the weight of the projectile and thus its effectiveness in everything but a pure armor penetration role. Tungsten inserts were used in rare cases to offset this as Tungsten both was hard and heavy.

4. Yaw of projectile. Dramatic reductions in penetration are apparent on even the smallest deflection and yaw of the projectile. Any obstacles penetrated by the projectile on its way to the vital structure will tend to induce yaw and this tendency will increase with the angle of incidence, with the thickness/strength of material penetrated, with the distance between the penetrated obstacle and target, and with less weighty projectiles as compared to weightier ones. For instance, a German 7.9mm (~30cal) AP (SmK) projectile weighs 11.5g, versus a Browning/BMG 12.7mm (50cal) M8 API projectile, which weighs 40.3g.

 

 

#1 is very high for 30cal/7.62-8mm projectiles versus just about anything, especially thick steel engine blocks

#2 is very high for just about any imaginable scenario in air to air combat. 

#4 is likely to be high for 30cal projectiles

 

This all points to the fact that 30cal projectiles were useful en masse against light targets, but that against heavy, sturdy structures, were much less effective.

 

This doesn't mean that heavy ordinance such as 20mm cannon (even more so 30mm) or 50cal BMG couldn't rip apart heavy structure (for aircraft) with ease.

 

Read http://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery#scribd for more info.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Venturi

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Sure, if a rifle caliber projectile is 'spent' or somehow deflected in flight (by an aircraft's superstructure for example) it may do very little if any damage.  But, at short range (0-250 m) something like a .303 or 7.92 round would wreak an engine - if it hit something critical (like an engine block).  Remember, engines are typically constructed from quite thin castings.   .303 or 7.92 ball ammunition will penetrate 1/4" rolled steel plate at 200 m.  AP rounds would typically do much better.  However, a lot depends on the range and what part of the engine the projectile strikes and at what angle. 

I'm not a specialist of the European armament but more Pacific. What I can bring is the report that was issued in the months following Hawaii operation, which compiled the experiences and advice's. According to the report 7.7 mm rounds produced poor results in attacking grounded aircraft. On the other hand Zeros 20 mm cannon were deemed highly effective although the ammunition supply was low (same as in German MG FF - 60 rounds). Further evidence of the weakness of rifle caliber fire was that some Zeros or other aircraft returned to their carriers with .30 and .50 caliber rounds embedded in the cylinder of their engines having done no serious damage. 

 

From something closer area, early in the war British conducted tests with their own .303 caliber rounds and German 7.92 mm against one of their Blenheim bombers equipped with armor. Fired from 200 yards through the bomber structure (.028-inch aluminum alloy skin, almost same as on He-111) at an angle of 60 degrees against 4 mm armor plate the majority of the shots were deflected by the aircraft's structure (skin mainly) and of those hitting the armor only a few penetrated (British rounds proved to be somewhat superior to the German in the test).

 

Interesting example can be combat over Europe in 1939 and 1940. First German plane to be shot down by the RAF over Europe was Dornier Do 17P which fell in flames on October 30, 1939.  Days later three RAF Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron attacked another Do 17P recce plane of 4(F)/122 at 25,000 feet over France. Bursts from the Hurricanes  combined twenty-four guns punctured the fuselage and tail surfaces and disabled one of the engines of Do 17. Two crewman bailed out but aircraft did not burn or fall of the sky. The Hurricane piloted by P/O Cyril Palmer closed in on the riddled Dornier in order to observe what appeared to be a doomed plane and its possibly dead pilot. Sergeant Arno Frankenberger eased off the throttle of the Dorniers remaining engine and fired his fixed 7.92 mm MG 15 at Palmer. Scoring 34 hits he managed to hit the Hurricanes windshield, disabled the hydraulics and damaged the cooling system. Palmer rode his aircraft down to a crash landing.

After additional attacks from Palmer companions disabled his remaining engine Frankenberger brought Dornier in for a belly landing. Though badly damaged, aircraft landed safely.

 

Small caliber machine guns were not very effective against the structure, they could often be deflected by the aircraft skin. They should be and were effective against the fuel tanks, coolant and oil tanks or capable of killing pilot if he possessed no protection. However not disabling the engine with 1-2 or couple of hits, from which only part would get inside of the airframe.

 

Sources:

- Sterling, "Inspection of German Bomber (Dornier 17) forced down in France, and information on German fighter (Me 109), U.S. Military Attache report - Paris, 1939.

- British Air Ministry, "Vulnerability of German Aircraft", (Letter S. 2029, November 1940)

- "Battle Lessons Investigating Committee, "Air Operation Lessons of the Sea Battle off Hawaii", Yokosuka Kaigun Kokutai (1942) 

Edited February 23, 2015 by =LD=Hiromachi

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

(increased) resistance Soviet inline engine damage

(Russian forums)

 

 

 

All radial engines in the game got their durability incresed;

  (English forums)

 

Devs apparently exactly know, what (and what not ) to publicly tell their customers about their game updates, to please, or not to annoy them....

The Russian cries about something, the Devs "fix" it, and tell them in their changelog. They leave it out in the English changelog.

Really don't know what i should make out of this....

[taleks]

Conspiracy theories. I love it*

 

* in cinema, not on forums.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

No I think it your standard thesis, PhDs hunters who think there paper is more correct.

[wellenbrecher]

Conspiracy theories. I love it*

 

* in cinema, not on forums.

Just out of interest, why is there this difference in the change-logs then?

[taleks]

Just out of interest, why is there this difference in the change-logs then?

Native language of most BoS' developers is Russian, thus list is assembled in Russian, then translated to English, and with help of community to other languages. That change list firstly was assembled in 11th, February in Russian, than it was translated to English somewhere near beginning of last week in preparation for DD'89 and upcoming version release. Later several changes were added to game and list, others subtracted from this list, because some work was completed ahead of schedule, other will take some additional time. BTW, mentioned here engine's durability related statement was not in original list at all. List was updated several times, some latest changes seems were not translated to English version. That's hidden secret behind found differences.

Topic starter is correct literally and answer to his question in topic's theme is yes, as far as I know.

 

I don't know much about durability of different type of engines, thus I can't comment on it and whose cry was heard. And to be honest, I don't want it discuss, because from my observations - each thread, in which I post about matter out of scope of technical details related to my work, is doomed to be closed. It's some kind of frigging curse, which makes everyone angry and discussions unfinished.

[Chuck_Owl]

From what I read from Taleks' post... It makes sense, in a way. I started to work with members of the russian community to translate a documentary on russian ace Aleksandr Pokryshkin (which I will post on the forums once it is done), and lemme tell you... it is a living HELL to translate anything from russian to english properly, especially if it is technical stuff.

 

I can give them a free pass for omitting a thing or two in a 61-items-long list of changes.

[wellenbrecher]

Cheers. And now that that is cleared up and put to clear words everyone is happy and can move on.

Clear communication is soooo important, especially when the subject in question has gone through troubled waters when it comes to PR.

[Sokol1]

All bullet penetration is dependent on at least four things.

 

In "my" La5 only depends on hear - but not necessary - a faint "tzing", no mater distance, angle.. the engine will die minutes after.

[voncrapenhauser]

This was posted on the Russian forums developer update 89 -

 

25. Fixed (increased) resistance Soviet inline engine damage. Now all inline engines in the game are about the same combat survivability, radial engines have a 2-fold greater vitality; (Google translation)

 

Vs 

 

25. All radial engines in the game got their durability incresed; (English forums)

 

Now having a biased opinion as I fly German planes almost exclusively I am surprised to see the Russian inline engines getting a resistance increase. Anyone that flies Russian planes care to comment? Do you feel your engine gets damaged more than 109s?

When I first started this game It only took one hit from an AI gunner to take down the yak.

In reality although the Radial engines present a bigger head on target they are by design tougher to take out as they do, not have a cooling system to damage other than an oil cooler.

IMO the radials increase of durability compared to inline is only right.

I do not see this as biased as both the FW and La 5 have radials,

 

 

even if it was literally speaking only one single round hitting it.

 

If that one round is a cannon round I do not think an aero engine has been designed to take that kind of punishment.

 

It was the Yak for me earlier on that seemed to be affected most by the one round phenomenon.

 

BTW I fly both the German and Russian aircraft and like them both, each has their strengths. 

Edited February 23, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[II./JG77_Manu*]

When I first started this game It only took one hit from an AI gunner to take down the yak.

In reality although the Radial engines present a bigger head on target they are by design tougher to take out as they do, not have a cooling system to damage other than an oil cooler.

IMO the radials increase of durability compared to inline is only right.

I do not see this as biased as both the FW and La 5 have radials,

190 and La5 definitely have to be more durable. But i really don't see why the Lagg should get further increased..it's already a flying Tank, don't get where this comes from..It has still an inline engine

[voncrapenhauser]

 

 

None of them can really take a pounding. Several 20mm hits will end anyone's day

 

+1

190 and La5 definitely have to be more durable. But i really don't see why the Lagg should get further increased..it's already a flying Tank, don't get where this comes from..It has still an inline engine

Agreed +1

[Brano]

In water cooled engines water circulates around pistons.Inbetween inner and outer case of engine.So you do not have to shot the engine thru.It is enough to damage outer casket and leakage is inevitable.

[Fortis_Leader]

No, I'm talking about single hits from rear gunners. Literally speaking hearing one single hit, and seeing the engine go.

[voncrapenhauser]

Sure, if a rifle caliber projectile is 'spent' or somehow deflected in flight (by an aircraft's superstructure for example) it may do very little if any damage.  But, at short range (0-250 m) something like a .303 or 7.92 round would wreak an engine - if it hit something critical (like an engine block).  Remember, engines are typically constructed from quite thin castings.   .303 or 7.92 ball ammunition will penetrate 1/4" rolled steel plate at 200 m.  AP rounds would typically do much better.  However, a lot depends on the range and what part of the engine the projectile strikes and at what angle. 

+1

[voncrapenhauser]

No I think it your standard thesis, PhDs hunters who think there paper is more correct.

Agreed I go by what anecdotal evidence of the people who flew these planes and how they feel in game.

I'm not interested in what pressure the air is in the manifold and other boring stuff, I do that for a living.

Close enough is good enough where a GAME is concerned for me.

 

 

I see no Bias.

Edited February 23, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[senseispcc]

reading?

who says that russians have radial engines?

 

190!

The La-5 and  IL-4 did have radial engines!

 

Maybe a Wankel engine.   

 

In "my" La5 every time a He 111 gunner hit a 7,92mm in his engine, this thing loose all oil and broken minutes after. 

+1 same for the Yak. this is already been signalled the machine gunners of the bombers or attack planes are a lot to ace like!

 

Have you noticed any difference in durability currently is the question?

Durability faced with light machine guns.

 

In water cooled engines water circulates around pistons.Inbetween inner and outer case of engine.So you do not have to shot the engine thru.It is enough to damage outer casket and leakage is inevitable.

Correct in a radial engine some planes could fly with one or two pistons shot out, per example the Corsair.

[LukeFF]

No, I'm talking about single hits from rear gunners. Literally speaking hearing one single hit, and seeing the engine go.

 

Highly, highly doubtful it was "one single hit."

[bivalov]

Which hunt would that be?

 

The witch hunt or some other type of hunt.

yes yes, whitch-hunt........ missed "t"..........