Russian planes are made out of ?

[216th_Jordan]

To be honest I don't see why the La-5 would not be flying anymore after 3 Mineshell hits. I have myself put more than 50 UB rounds into a 109 in MP and it kept flying fine.

 

But I do agree on 2 phenomenons: HE rounds causing too little damage compared to AP (which hits german planes harder because they have more HEs in their belts) and netcode/package-loss handling.

Edited April 2, 2017 by 216th_Jordan

[Lusekofte]

This is a dispute as old as multiplayer CFS, there is 99% frustration factor making people post topics like this. If the HE shells are off, test with values are needed.

For me it is what it is , always have. At one point I am on the verge of binning this, another I love it. 

One thing for sure frustration will never end, it is always something

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

For everyone getting frustrated when playing cfs i have one advice.
Instead of getting mad at the devs for being biased, mad at the other pilot for cheating, or mad at your plane for being bad,
just get mad at yourself for giving your enemy a chance to shoot you down.
There may be performance differences between planes, but they are so small that it is always within your own range of abilities to dictate the terms of a fight.
And when you dont like those terms then you dont have to accept them, the better pilot is the one who forces his terms on other pilots.
Its not a fight of planes but one of willpower.
So for your own sake, dont get mad at things you cant change, change the things you can, and the only thing you can ever change is yourself.

[VesseL]

ARTOA, good advice. That is exactly what i think too. But its ruining some of the fun when flying 109. Sometimes it feels like hard work to try down a Rus ac. And when a yak out turns you after getting 5 or more hits it feels not real. So maybe this sim is game after all. And its ok to mee. I love this game.

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

I understand that this is frustrating.
Im often frustrated by this myself, the thing is that for yaks there are other things that are equally frustrating.
Frustration is not limited to the german planes.^^

[Holtzauge]

I agree this argument (that mingeschoss are weak) is old but that does not make it any less relevant: AFAIK IRL the Germans, who could belt with HE, AP or minen actually recommened a belting that had more minen for combating fighters. However in-game, the conscensus seems to be that AP is more efficient for combating fighters than minen. So to me there seems to be something off here. Note if not saying there is any bias, I'm simply saying it looks like minen are not modeled as efficient as they were IRL because I have a hard time seeing why the Germans IRL would not have belted with more AP than minen if they IRL had the same relative performance as we have in-game.

[-SF-Disarray]

Holtzauge, I think there is something to consider here. You are relying completely on anecdotal evidence. War stories are not the most reliable form of evidence for a start and going by what people are telling you from in game experience isn't much better. If I were to go by what I read on these forums I would have to conclude that I am, myself, deluded because I have been on servers in Soviet fighters and had wings blown clean off my plane by one or two rounds from a 109 on many occasions. Conversely I have dumped ammo into 109s just to see them fly away none the worse for wear. But according to the forums this never happens. As for pilots saying the minen for killing fighters it could be a bias in their perception. Seeing an HE shell impact on an enemy plane was undoubtedly more spectacular than the impact of an AP round. Perhaps this appearance of a more violent impact made them think they were better at killing enemy planes. Ultimately my point is this isn't the best basis for examination of the performance of the weapons.

 

The video posted in 161 is a little unclear as well. You show rounds impacting the LA 5 and then the damage that it sustained but there is little of what happened to the 109 that was shot, as far as I could tell. All I can really glean from that video is that a LA 5 was shot and a 109 was shot. One thing to also consider is the construction of the various planes. I was talking to a guy who knows a thing or two about how planes are put together and he tells me the way the skin of the 109 was used to, in part, bear the load of the wings and the spacing on the rivets make the wings more prone to failing if the skin is broken. Meanwhile the Soviet designs were different in their construction and materials. That could account for the fragility experienced in the German planes that isn't found in the Soviet planes.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Disarray

[JtD]

German belting decisions historically were based on stereotypical German, extensive testing. It has nothing to do with anecdotal evidence or war stories. It has something to do with test laboratories, shooting ranges, field studies, measurements and damage analysis.

 

Stressed metal skin as used on the Bf109 and Fw190 wings is generally more damage resistant than a wooden spar and rib construction as used on Soviet fighters.

Edited April 3, 2017 by JtD

[-SF-Disarray]

So you say, but I haven't seen the proof of it. I'm sure it is "around the forums somewhere" but I'm not about to scour the whole thing to find it.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Disarray

[JtD]

I'm afraid that you'd need to do a lot more than to just scour the forums if you want to get a good idea about the whole thing.

[Lusekofte]

War stories are often told by the aces, they knew excactly where to hit a specific plane to bring it down. I fly PE 2 and IL 2 and I never came off a attack from a fighter that would not make me RTB or crashland. I might have damage the attacker in the process , but he did stop me. And the fact that he did not get the kill on his stats, he did still do his job

[Solmyr]

War stories are often told by the aces, they knew excactly where to...[...]

 

Careful though, by reading the war stories, testimonies I mean, you could believe that USA had night jet fighters above Italy by '43, or that German fighters almost never met any La-5 but only LaGG-3, or that each nation's planes' production has to be multiplied by 2 or 3 (because of over-claiming), and a lot of other inexactitudes or things that simply are impossible. 

 

For example, even a Erich Hartmann can pretend one illegitimate victory talking about a particular morning... To just forget 2 more actual victories of him in the actual afternoon the day he's talking about !   

 

Specialised litterature shows that testimonies, even more if they're collected quite some time after the events, are to be taken with a certain grain of salt..

Edited April 3, 2017 by Solmyr

[Grancesc]

So you say, but I haven't seen the proof of it. I'm sure it is "around the forums somewhere" but I'm not about to scour the whole thing to find it.

 

Please read the literature if you want to make an appropriate contribution to this discussion. E.g. the reference publication for aircraft guns (the "Flying Guns" trilogy, by Antohony G. Williams and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin) one finds in vol. 2 on pages 329-331 a comparison of the most important WWII aircraft guns and their ammunition. The German M-Geschosse (92g) and the later MX-shell (105g) are here considered the most effective ammunition against fighter and bomber targets in the 2nd World War. Data used for this publication are based on rl-tests of the RAF, the Dept. of the US Air Force TO 11A-1-39 and further validation test by the USN.

[Scojo]

[JaffaCake]

It really concerns me that a lot of people argue against the experiments and the historical data purely on the basis of the possibility that the data is biased or incorrectly evaluated. These same people fail to provide counter evidence both in historical documentation and in-game experiments to support their claims.

 

Given the clear amount of bias on both sides of the argument and one of the sides lacking factual support it strongly concerns me that the same bias could be present in the development team as well, as most of their testers are on the red side.

 

I am surprised that developers only once addressed this issue by stating that they checked the HE explosions and that they were fine comparatively. I can only hope the developers would look into these topics again and provide some input.

 

I also wish we had the tools to actually reliably test the damage model! The easiest argument to make against any test right now is that it was not exactly the same experiment in every run that you do - you can literally dismiss every one of the tests by claiming that.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Given the clear amount of bias on both sides of the argument and one of the sides lacking factual support it strongly concerns me that the same bias could be present in the development team as well, as most of their testers are on the red side.

 

And how did you draw that brilliant conclusion?

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

People seem to think that the testers have influence over damage/flight modeling, but that is not the case.
All a tester does is to look for bugs.

As to the bias accusation, the damage modeling of the weapons is a complex process I'm sure and fine tuning is a long process.
The damage model we have right now is not perfect and unless it is perfect, it will always favor one weapon over another, as it just happens many players, myself included, feel that the Mg151/20 is slightly undermodeled.
The devs are working on a tight budget and have to sell and create new content to get the money to do important upgrades and fixes on the side.
Those things they do on the side, they sort by importance and work that list of as fast as they can, but their time is very limited.
Flight sims are a niche market and so funding is the biggest problem.
As it is right now the damage model is a low priority, because the damage model we have works very well despite its flaws.
Accusing the devs of being biased wont fix the damage model, it doesnt help the hobby we all share and it hurts the product.
The devs want to make a succesful product and being biased in the development in any form would mean the death to this product and their jobs.

So guys, instead of getting dogmatic on this issue and fight with eachother, lets realise that IL2 is the best WW2 flight sim out there and that all of us in this forum share the same hobby.
Constructive criticism is important to keep the product alive and so is a healthy, undivided community.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

I would generally agree with you that fine tuning is a long process. However something fundamentally wrong must have happened that the russian 20mm is better than the german Minengeschoss. This not fine tuning!, The Devs might run on a tight budget but the best way to make people buy their new stuff is not to frustrate the playerbase with bad modelling. It being a niche market is the only reason why devs can get away with a lot of these, lets be generous here and call it blunders. There simply is no competitor when it comes to ww2 sims.

I played WT for years. There is probably no other game where people scream "russian bias" as much as there and i was never one of them. However this game leaves me in serious doubts, because the DM is heavily favored for the VVS. It is not even a niche opinion and there are probably hundred of videos showing hilarious results of 20mm damage. Saying you shouldn't call it out because it hurts the product is just wrong. Having a bug report open about it for nearly half a year without any progress despite good documentation on the issue however is hurting the product!.  

[Scojo]

I would generally agree with you that fine tuning is a long process. However something fundamentally wrong must have happened that the russian 20mm is better than the german Minengeschoss. This not fine tuning!, The Devs might run on a tight budget but the best way to make people buy their new stuff is not to frustrate the playerbase with bad modelling. It being a niche market is the only reason why devs can get away with a lot of these, lets be generous here and call it blunders. There simply is no competitor when it comes to ww2 sims.

I played WT for years. There is probably no other game where people scream "russian bias" as much as there and i was never one of them. However this game leaves me in serious doubts, because the DM is heavily favored for the VVS. It is not even a niche opinion and there are probably hundred of videos showing hilarious results of 20mm damage. Saying you shouldn't call it out because it hurts the product is just wrong. Having a bug report open about it for nearly half a year without any progress despite good documentation on the issue however is hurting the product!.  

I fly both sides and I disagree.

 

German shots that land do lots of damage. The damage difference isn't the ammo, it's the durability difference between the factions given their different design philosophies.

 

Maybe the damage models are wrong. Maybe not.

 

But a sure fire way to make it absolutely wrong would be to make the durability of all planes equal.

 

The only argument I've seen that I've been open to is the one about AP vs HE. That could explain any differences that are actually existent in the debate of red vs blue durability and weapon damage. How do belt makeups between red and blue 20mm compare?

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

So for your own sake, dont get mad at things you cant change, change the things you can, and the only thing you can ever change is yourself

 

 

Fortunately that has been proven wrong.

 

 

 

But a sure fire way to make it absolutely wrong would be to make the durability of all planes equal.

 

Who ever demanded that?

[Scojo]

Who ever demanded that?

My point was that the damage difference isn't from the 20mm differences. It's the fact that the durability of both factions and each plane differ.

[Lusekofte]

as most of their testers are on the red side.  

You should consider the possibility of why they fly Red, I know a couple of testers dying to fly German planes, but every fu*PIIIP*ng server is German 50 against  Red 20 making such a endeavour impossible. 

I got one team mate very frustrated by this, and I am with him on that. Flying Red side all the time is half the time a sacrafice we have to make, in order to attempt some kind of balance.

 

And look at my branch the bombers, we got basically nothing compared to German side, who is biased?

Edited April 5, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Scojo]

You should consider the possibility of why they fly Red, I know a couple of testers dying to fly German planes, but every fu*PIIIP*ng server is German 50 against  Red 20 making such a endeavour impossible. 

I got one team mate very frustrated by this, and I am with him on that. Flying Red side all the time is half the time a sacrafice we have to make, in order to attempt some kind of balance.

 

And look at my branch the bombers, we got basically nothing compared to German side, who is biased?

He means in beta testing

[curiousGamblerr]

 

 

every fu*PIIIP*ng server is German 50 against  Red 20

 

Story of my life... If you Germs think the Russian planes are so OP, why don't ya fly them? I'd be happy to fly "glass" 109s more often...   

[JaffaCake]

My point was that the damage difference isn't from the 20mm differences. It's the fact that the durability of both factions and each plane differ.

 

 

It has been shown that AP performs better than HE against the same aircraft (Pe2 in the case of the test video I have shown above).

 

VVS planes mostly have AP damage, with LA5 having an option to load AP-only. German planes are mostly hampered by having 66% of ineffective ammo loaded into the belt without the ability to change.

 

It may not be bias in the damage of German 20mm HE vs Russian 20mm HE, but its an outcome of AP vs HE damage first of all. Followed by possibly lack-luster model of flight performance vs. skin damage etc.

 

The only answer that I am aware of was from the devs stating that they looked at HE on the german vs russian basis, stating that german HE produced more fragments in line with it being more effective. They never, to my belief, addressed the issue of HE vs AP damage.

 

 

I mostly fly VVS side ground attack, but it kills me to see the obvious under performance of German belts in these videos. And it damages my trust in the development team that no continued attention is being shown towards this subject.

 

We have no ability to reliably test this for developers - cant fix plane in a position and fire at specific points to test the DM. From the limited testing I have seen community did it is obvious that HE performs worse and in turn LW planes cause less damage

We have no evidence from the devs that our belief is unwarranted, they provide no insight on how the damage model works, no explanation of why it may appear that AP overperforms. Most threads are left unanswered.

We also have no counter-evidence from community itself against the notion that HE underperforms. A lot of arguments are against the testing method, not supported by counter-tests.

 

I am not sure what is the motivation to neglect this fundamental issue. But it certainly does not build my trust when developers appear to focus on throwing content at us as long as the rest of the game holds up somehow. I understand some people are in love with the recent 190 FM changes, for example - but could that time have not been spent on dealing with an issue that affects all planes in the game?

 

 

Latest reply from Jason on this topic dated Nov. 2016 : https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26071-g4-question/?view=findpost&p=408818

Last "Damage model tweaks" were performed on Oct. 2016, the video below is prior to the patch, so a new test may be necessary? Unfortunately the devs did not specify what the damage tweaks involved and HE did not suddenly become commonly believed to be effective.

 

 

Quoting this video again, performed against the same aircraft but with german 20mm vs the russian 20mm loaded with AP I believe.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by JaffaCake

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

Fortunately that has been proven wrong.

 

I didnt mean that literally. :D

What I meant is that improving ones own skill will make someone more effective than more powerful german armament.

Especialy if the way to obtain the more powerful armament is dogmatic, biased whining that some poeple execute on the forums.

 

I would generally agree with you that fine tuning is a long process. However something fundamentally wrong must have happened that the russian 20mm is better than the german Minengeschoss. This not fine tuning!,   

 

The russian 20mm has a better fire rate and ballistics, the damage output of the german 20mm is slightly higher in my experience.

One thing that makes the german 20mm look worse than it is, is that the russian planes generally can take more damage.

 

 

 It is not even a niche opinion and there are probably hundred of videos showing hilarious results of 20mm damage. 

 

All I see is a few videos where tests are performed that are hardly scientific and lots of videos that display horrible aim.

And tons of videos by skilled pilots that consistently down russian planes with 2-5 mineshell hits.

Granted the russians can do the same, but is there data that contradicts this?

I mean data not anecdotes or beliefs.

 

 

 Saying you shouldn't call it out because it hurts the product is just wrong. 

I explicitly said the opposite, calling it out is important.

Spreading half thruths and conspiracy theories however doesnt help the cause or the game.

And dont get me wrong the sentence before doesnt address you but the discussion in general.

Edited April 5, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[Scojo]

-snip-

And I said earlier that I do agree that AP or HE could use a review.

 

But AFAIK the belt compositions are meant to be based on the common belt compositions in the war, no? So damage differences will be there because of that, but that damage difference is supposed to be there because the belt differences are supposed to be there. And how do fire rates compare?

 

Even if there really is a problem with AP or HE, they're still going to act differently. And since belts are different between factions, someone is still going to complain about too much damage on one side or that there's bias on one side or the other.

Edited April 5, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[JaffaCake]

And I said earlier that I do agree that AP or HE could use a review.

 

But AFAIK the belt compositions are meant to be based on the common belt compositions in the war, no? So damage differences will be there because of that, but that damage difference is supposed to be there because the belt differences are supposed to be there.

 

Even if there really is a problem with AP or HE, they're still going to act differently. And since belts are different between factions, someone is still going to complain about too much damage on one side or that there's bias on one side or the other.

 

 

Well, yes. That is the entire point of the argument.

 

LW loaded HE ammo because their tests shown it to be more effective - 66% HE 33% AP. VVS loaded either 66% AP or 100% AP if you choose AP La5. 

 

Poor performance of HE shells has 66% impact on LW and 0-33% impact on VVS. 

 

The key difference between AP and HE was that HE damaged the skin, reduced performance and was effective against crew. AP was used to efficiently take out engines, but caused little damage otherwise.

 

 

 

The russian 20mm has a better fire rate and ballistics, the damage output of the german 20mm is slightly higher in my experience.

One thing that makes the german 20mm look worse than it is, is that the russian planes generally can take more damage.

 

All I see is a few videos where tests are performed that are hardly scientific and lots of videos that display horrible aim.

And tons of videos by skilled pilots that consistently down russian planes with 2-5 mineshell hits.

Granted the russians can do the same, but is there data that contradicts this?

I mean data not anecdotes or beliefs.

 

This was shown to not be true by the videos about the 37mm guns and the 20mm guns, quoted above.

 

It does not matter how many times the tester misses if the hits are made in the same place, even if its just 1 out of 5 rounds fired.

 

Pros will always find a way to down planes efficiently, but any of their videos hardly come in the realm of repeatability of these test videos that you call "unreliable" 

Edited April 5, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Scojo]

So then, we're back to the original point....

 

Russian planes are made out of what they're supposed to be.

 

If people want to discuss the actual issue, visit the HE vs AP thread.

Edited April 5, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Dakpilot]

Are La-5's regularly racking up huge kill streaks in MP servers with their overperforming AP ammo or is this more of a "concern" than reality?

 

I spent a lot of time observing on normal server (lots of quick kills) and just do not seem to see so much of an issue that really stands out..maybe I did not look hard or long enough?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JaffaCake]

So then, we're back to my original point....

 

Russian planes are made out of what they're supposed to be.

 

If people want to discuss the actual issue, visit the HE vs AP thread.

 

 

This thread is a symptom of the issue, not the core of it, from my belief. Toughness of LW vs VVS planes is a separate issue that is difficult to access due to the disparity in the HE vs AP. I wish we had an option to load AP only on all aircraft and see what different does that make.

 

Ideally I hope we get LW HE as a strong performer counteracted by the VVS wood being tougher (don't have much knowledge here I heard statements quoting documents that said otherwise, where stressed skin alum was stronger than wood).

 

 

Are La-5's regularly racking up huge kill streaks in MP servers with their overperforming AP ammo or is this more of a "concern" than reality?

 

I spent a lot of time observing on normal server (lots of quick kills) and just do not seem to see so much of an issue that really stands out..maybe I did not look hard or long enough?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Performance in kills in MP does not come just from the ammo efficiency of course. 

 

 

Oh how I wish this game had a bullet camera where you could see the actual damage and bullet behaviour :D

Edited April 5, 2017 by JaffaCake

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

 

This was shown to not be true by the videos about the 37mm guns and the 20mm guns, quoted above.

 

It does not matter how many times the tester misses if the hits are made in the same place, even if its just 1 out of 5 rounds fired.

 

My comment to bad aiming wasn't in regards to this video, it of course doesnt matter how many shots miss if you hit the same place often enough.

What I meant by bad aiming is videos that show someone hitting a russian plane with 2-3 mineshells in areas where fatal damage is not granted and then think their point is proven.

 

I have one gripe with the test video that geramos made.

 

It shows wings being shot at from behind, that are under low stress due to flying level at low speed.

I make the same experience that when shooting from behind, russians guns are better than germans.

However I think its a bit logical that an AP shell hiting from behind will severely damage the wing spar, while an HE shell will explode in the far back of the wing, away from the wing spar.

The HE shell will thus not weaken the wing as effectively.

I know about stressed skin construction but the wing spar is still the main load bearing part.

 

In my experience as soon as the shell comes on top of the wing the german 20mm is extremely deadly with 1-2 shots often being enough to rip the wing off, when they actualy get close to the wing spars and the structuraly more important front part of the wing.

I will admit Im not an engineer so if this is horribly wrong please enlighten me.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

"What I meant by bad aiming is videos that show someone hitting a russian plane with 2-3 mineshells in areas where fatal damage is not granted and then think their point is proven."

 

Can you point out these videos where 2-3 mineshells hit? I would love to see them actually

Edited April 5, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

Can you point out these videos where 2-3 mineshells hit? I would love to see them actually

 

I'd prefer to not point fingers but I gotta stand by my word.

 

Just one example from the top of this page, I count 3 mineshells (puffs of smoke)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG3LYraI6sk

 

Just today i saw a video from Sherrif where I saw a lot oof bad gunnery and never more than 1-2 consecutive mineshell hits i just forgot its name...

I will edit in the link when I find it.

 

And I dont want to insult anyone by calling it bad gunnery, Im a pretty bad shot myself, no shame in that.

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

Can you point out these videos where 2-3 mineshells hit? I would love to see them actually

 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Well pointing fingers is actually better than making general statements and accusations because you don´t want to get pinned down on anything.

Counting the puffs of smoke is a relatively good start.

But as an informed forum member I am sure that it must seem kinda stupid to you right? If you have a gun firing 12 rounds per second for every second that you have on target... well I´m sure you can do the math, Even if 50% miss we still have 6 hits.

Additionally thank god there is a statistics page that has my hits on target for this round. It´s actually 32. With all due respect 3 is a pretty low estimate. I count a lot more fireballs... But puffs seem to be the scientific approach that you call for :D

 

I do agree that it wasn´t my best shot.

 

What DD_Arthur posted is actually a good example of how it should be

Edited April 5, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[JaffaCake]

----

 

 

Your argument has some merit with regard to spar vs skin damage for AP vs HE. Unfortunately the 37mm cannon shell comparison should show inverse - the HE would obliterate the wing - barring the spar - while the AP would have to hit the spar perfectly. That does not happen.

 

And we are not even considering the fact that the AP round would first have to go through the entirety of the wing root before it hits the front spar. I am talking about the skin, inner structure, fuel tank, actual fuel, fuel tank again and finally the spar on the other side.

Edited April 5, 2017 by JaffaCake

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

Well pointing fingers is actually better than making general statements and accusations because you don´t want to get pinned down on anything.

Counting the puffs of smoke is a relatively good start.

But as an informed forum member I am sure that it must seem kinda stupid to you right? If you have a gun firing 12 rounds per second for every second that you have on target... well I´m sure you can do the math, Even if 50% miss we still have 6 hits.

Additionally thank god there is a statistics page that has my hits on target for this round. It´s actually 32. With all due respect 3 is a pretty low estimate. I count a lot more fireballs... But puffs seem to be the scientific approach that you call for :D

 

I do agree that it wasn´t my best shot.

 

What DD_Arthur posted is actually a good example of how it should be

 

I didnt want to offend you, but I can tell you are. Im sorry.

In the video more than 50% miss.

Counting puffs of smoke is the best way to determine how many mineshells actualy hit.

The other sparkles on the plane are MG hits.

On the range the fire was opened in the video I wouldnt expect more hits/damage than the damage that was actualy inflicted.

 

Your argument has some merit with regard to spar vs skin damage for AP vs HE. Unfortunately the 37mm cannon shell comparison should show inverse - the HE would obliterate the wing - barring the spar - while the AP would have to hit the spar perfectly. That does not happen.

 

And we are not even considering the fact that the AP round would first have to go through the entirety of the wing root before it hits the front spar. I am talking about the skin, inner structure, fuel tank, actual fuel, fuel tank again and finally the spar on the other side.

 

 

You snuck your post in before i hit send so I have to answer with edit.^^

 

The 37mm gun with HE doesnt actualy have that much more he filler in it than the MG151/20 I believe I read somewhere.

I have no sources for that though.

I think a high velocity 37mm gun wouldnt have problems to travel trhough the skin of the wing, however a fuel tank with fuel in it would surely stop an AP round I believe.

Or at least slow it down significantly.

Edited April 5, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I didnt want to offend you, but I can tell you are. Im sorry.

 

I´m sorry but you call for a more scientific approach and count puffs of smoke. How exactly do you differentiate between multiple puffs of smoke if you have 12 rounds a second. I´m not offended I just call bs when I see it.

 

We can even do a little math. The MGs have a frequency of 20 rps. I have 2 MGs. makes 40 rps. MG151 has 12 rps.

20+20+12=52

12/52=23% 23 percent of all hits should be Minengeschoss

.23*32=7.36.

 

So 7.36 should by purely mathematical considerations be Minengeschoss

Edited April 5, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[Scojo]

I´m sorry but you call for a more scientific approach and count puffs of smoke. How exactly do you differentiate between multiple puffs of smoke if you have 12 rounds a second. I´m not offended I just call bs when I see it.

 

We can even do a little math. The MGs have a frequency of 20 rps. I have 2 MGs. makes 40 rps. MG151 has 12 rps.

20+20+12=52

12/52=23% 23 percent of all hits should be Minengeschoss

.23*32=7.36.

 

So 7.36 should by pure mathematical considerations be Minengeschoss

And what you just demonstrated would hold true for VVS as well. If more rounds are hitting than we can see well for LW, then that's the same case for VVS.

 

If video is good enough evidence for VVS shooting LW, then it's good enough for LW shooting VVS.

Edited April 5, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo