Cannon demage model

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Head-on avoidance and the "change to 20mm" cannons doesn't make sense to me. The La-5 always had twin cannons.

What do you mean with head-on-avoidance doesn't make sense? That's pretty widely known, even in sources that don't tell anything about the armor of those aircraft.

I was talking about the change from Shvak to B-20 cannons

 

Does the report actually say "way tougher structure than the La-5." It sounds unprofessional for a technical journal to write in that way.

No, it doesn't say that word for word. It does say "considerably better armored".

 

I compare the Yak-1 and the Bf109 on their overall durability which is lighter than that of the FW190 or LaGG-3. If I were to rate the fighters in-game for their toughness I'd suggest that it was the FW190 first (probably with some margin to spare), LaGG-3/La-5 second, Yak-1 third and Bf109F/G series in a very close fourth with the Bf109E-7 at fifth.

Don't know about the toughness of the 109 compared to the Russian models, but the stuff Holtzauge wrote about Minengeschoss against wood seems pretty well thought and plausible. About the Yak-1 overall structure i don't know, but i read two reports that mentioned that it was easy to shoot down due to catching fire pretty easy. It wasn't mentioned where the fire was ignited.

 

Thanks for testing

However i have one question..are you sure it were single shots? Those cannons have a really fast rate of fire, and i imagine you must only hold the trigger for 100milliseconds, otherwise you'd shoot more? I have never tried it myself, just asking.

 

Found the part, where it says that Shvaks are sometimes insufficient to down the 190 due to strong armor:

page 59 from the book i mentioned before

Edited December 11, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[unreasonable]

LoL .. "Redwhinwers" .. surely you can do better than that..  Look man.. "Luftwhiners" was original.. and I don't know who coined the term.. but "Redwhiners"..? 

 

Come on maaaiiun.... ! 

 

Commieplainers?

[ShamrockOneFive]

What do you mean with head-on-avoidance doesn't make sense? That's pretty widely known, even in sources that don't tell anything about the armor of those aircraft.

I was talking about the change from Shvak to B-20 cannons

 

No, it doesn't say that word for word. It does say "considerably better armored".

 

Don't know about the toughness of the 109 compared to the Russian models, but the stuff Holtzauge wrote about Minengeschoss against wood seems pretty well thought and plausible. About the Yak-1 overall structure i don't know, but i read two reports that mentioned that it was easy to shoot down due to catching fire pretty easy. It wasn't mentioned where the fire was ignited.

 

Thanks for testing

However i have one question..are you sure it were single shots? Those cannons have a really fast rate of fire, and i imagine you must only hold the trigger for 100milliseconds, otherwise you'd shoot more? I have never tried it myself, just asking.

 

Found the part, where it says that Shvaks are sometimes insufficient to down the 190 due to strong armor:

page 59 from the book i mentioned before

 

RE: Head on shots I was talking about that as an anndecdote for what we were discussing. Its a tactical consideration. There are few fighters where I'd want to consider head on and pretty much the only one where it makes sense is the FW190, not so much because of the armor, but because of the weight of fire. We'll move past that.

 

Thanks for copying the part from the book in there. Nothing I'm too surprised by although the authors aside on the "seeming invulnerable Schlacht aircraft" seems like a hyperbole to me.

 

The ShVAK vs B-20 thing is interesting. The La-7 with 3xB-20 is certainly more fearsome but there is little difference in performance between the two cannons except for the massive weight savings of the B-20. I'd still avoid a head on while flying such an equipped La-7 in IL-2 1946. The FW190s weight of fire and spread is still greater.

 

Anyways... this is all about weight of fire of different aircraft with different amounts of cannons to fire them. Useful but something of an aside from our main conversation here.

 

RE: Testing.

 

Yep, I was very precise with my counting. The HE shots are easy to count while the AP rounds still leave a spark but are harder to spot. I'm a stickler for accuracy when doing stuff like this, however, I'd still estimate that there is an error rate of 1-3 shots plus or minus. Still gives a fairly good accounting of what is happening on a larger aircraft. I still think 3 tests is far too low and I'd need far more tests to get a better average number of hits required. In this case it shows the MG151/20 being the heavier hitter than the ShVAK and anecdotally I can see the MG151/20 doing more area damage across the entire aircraft and doing things like killing gunners where the ShVAK would need a more direct hit (smaller explosive radius I'm guessing).

 

I would also want to test on a smaller aircraft. The area effect, the way it works in game, may not work as well on smaller aircraft. This is a theory that I intend to test and see if its true or not.

Edited December 11, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Another video from MrX. Get your conclusions

Edited December 11, 2016 by JAGER_Kampf

[kendo]

Exactly my take on this as well: Wood is a good design material for slower aircraft but not for WW2 type fighters: The Russians probably used what they had (and they did so to good effect) but when they were able to switch to aluminium they did. Also, still suspect that deltawood and Mingeshoss don't mix well......

 

Surely the archetypal example of a fast, strong WW2 aircraft made from wood is the de Havilland Mosquito.

 

It had a reputation for being able to absorb a lot of battle damage and still get back home.

[StG2_Manfred]

LoL .. "Redwhinwers" .. surely you can do better than that..  Look man.. "Luftwhiners" was original.. and I don't know who coined the term.. but "Redwhiners"..? 

 

Come on maaaiiun.... ! 

 

Ok, I admit Borys did it better, he's more creative than me!

 

I'll even toss out some ideas.

 

RedDeniers, Supercommies, LuftHaters, Red Lives Matter, Commspirators...

 

OMG lol RJWs! Red Justice Warriors! :D

 

 

 

...and 'Maaaiiun' ??? Berlin accent ???

[216th_Jordan]

Another video from MrX. Get your conclusions

 

Well I count 17 cannon hits and see a plane going down. While I generally agree that the Pe-2 soaks up too much this is not a particulary good example. What happens with Pe-2 is that its body is too tough overall maybe and thats where most hits landed.

 

If you compare that to the tests Shamrock did this result seems somewhat plausible.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Well I count 17 cannon hits and see a plane going down. While I generally agree that the Pe-2 soaks up too much this is not a particulary good example. What happens with Pe-2 is that its body is too tough overall maybe and thats where most hits landed.   If you compare that to the tests Shamrock did this result seems somewhat plausible.

Can someone count how many 20mm hits the wing on the straight side?

Edited December 11, 2016 by JAGER_Kampf

[Holtzauge]

Another video from MrX. Get your conclusions

 

That was truly funny to watch! If this sort of thing is not a freak outlier then the Pe-2 truly must be the Maus of the skies!

 

Surely the archetypal example of a fast, strong WW2 aircraft made from wood is the de Havilland Mosquito.

 

It had a reputation for being able to absorb a lot of battle damage and still get back home.

 

When I said the Russian used wood up until they could switch to aluminium its an educated guess on my part simply because as I said before: Making a wing stiff enough for a high Vne and a high aileron reversal speed is very difficult using a material that has such a low Young's modulus as wood. Of course you can build an aircraft that is fast with wood but it will still most likely have a low aileron reversal speed and consequently not be suited for high speed manouvers.

 

I love the Mosquito BTW and that plane had a build using balsa as a sandwich material which is even closer to modern composites so sure a very nice plane but it will still be hampered at high speed by Young's modulus irrespective if it was built in the east or the west.

 

About the damage tolerance: You would not happen to have some references, evaluations or anecdotes of a more technical kind? And I'm not being sarcastic: It would be good to get some input on damage tolerance of wooden structures.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Danziger]

Commieplainers?

Dev Defenders?

[kendo]

That was truly funny to watch! If this sort of thing is not a freak outlier then the Pe-2 truly must be the Maus of the skies!

 

 

When I said the Russian used wood up until they could switch to aluminium its an educated guess on my part simply because as I said before: Making a wing stiff enough for a high Vne and a high aileron reversal speed is very difficult using a material that has such a low Young's modulus as wood. Of course you can build an aircraft that is fast with wood but it will still most likely have a low aileron reversal speed and consequently not be suited for high speed manouvers.

 

I love the Mosquito BTW and that plane had a build using balsa as a sandwich material which is even closer to modern composites so sure a very nice plane but it will still be hampered at high speed by Young's modulus irrespective if it was built in the east or the west.

 

About the damage tolerance: You would not happen to have some references, evaluations or anecdotes of a more technical kind? And I'm not being sarcastic: It would be good to get some input on damage tolerance of wooden structures.

 

No actually    This is very much from an anecdotal, received wisdom point of view ...and therefore may be completely wrong! I'd like to know more myself on the details.

 

Don't worry - my sarcasm meter didn't even flicker.

[Brano]

Does anyone have any input on this? For example Russian WW2 era instructions for repairs on wooden aircraft structures or pictures/examples of how this was done?

 

https://yadi.sk/d/wu4iO_F2favoh

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Dev Defenders?

 

DevRight Red Wings

[unreasonable]

Dev Defenders?

 

VvictimS?

[Holtzauge]

https://yadi.sk/d/wu4iO_F2favoh

 

Cпасибо!

Dev Defenders?

 

Virtuous Victims in Stalinwood?

[Willy__]

 

 

Virtuous Victims in Stalinwood?

 

This one wins....        ROFL 

[Holtzauge]

Comrades! Let us jump into our shiny new Yak-1b’s and crush the revanchist Fw-190 bourgeoisie!

[L3Pl4K]

Has someone comparable tables for the other guns?

Looks like, the link was hacked. So i deleted it.

Edited December 16, 2016 by L3Pl4K

[Bearcat]

I'll even toss out some ideas.

 

RedDeniers, Supercommies, LuftHaters, Red Lives Matter, Commspirators...

 

OMG lol RJWs! Red Justice Warriors! :D

 

Commieplainers?

 

Ok, I admit Borys did it better, he's more creative than me!

 

 

 

 

...and 'Maaaiiun' ??? Berlin accent ???

 

Dev Defenders?

 

DevRight Red Wings

 

The problem with all these is that they cross over into the political. "Commie" "Red" ... just .. no .. stop. Please do not go there. Luftwhiners was a classic play on words from the legitimate Luftwaffe .. Hard to duplicate.. 

 

VvictimS?

 

This is actually the best I have seen..  although... Doesn't this contradict the whole premise of the Luft... err uhhh..  pilots who prefer to fly German planes.. that no flight sim developer can ever get the uber German aircraft... or weapons... right ... cause... the last I saw... the pilots who prefer to fly Allied aircraft.. aren't complaining much..  unless they are flying P-40s. 

 

In all seriousness though..  from my perspective.. the best way to show "the problem" is with video evidence..  All these charts and stuff from actual aircraft are interesting..  but video evidence it best. In my opinion anyway.... for what that is worth.

[ACG_KaiLae]

The problem with all these is that they cross over into the political. "Commie" "Red" ... just .. no .. stop. Please do not go there. Luftwhiners was a classic play on words from the legitimate Luftwaffe .. Hard to duplicate.. 

 

 

This is actually the best I have seen..  although... Doesn't this contradict the whole premise of the Luft... err uhhh..  pilots who prefer to fly German planes.. that no flight sim developer can ever get the uber German aircraft... or weapons... right ... cause... the last I saw... the pilots who prefer to fly Allied aircraft.. aren't complaining much..  unless they are flying P-40s. 

 

In all seriousness though..  from my perspective.. the best way to show "the problem" is with video evidence..  All these charts and stuff from actual aircraft are interesting..  but video evidence it best. In my opinion anyway.... for what that is worth.

 

Probably has something to do with the P-40

 

You think something is wrong? Back it up with data and write up a package to get it fixed. Otherwise it's an opinion, which is great fun for forum threads but useless for changing anything.

 

Personally, I think that sometimes, netcode gets wonky and hit registration goes fubar. It's not a german only thing. If you don't believe me, I present to you the amazing powers of hitlermetal:

 

 

By the way, youtube causes resolution loss, so what I can see by looking at the original video (and what isn't for sure clear on youtube) is 4-6 cannon strikes. I'll also point out that I once completely blew off the tail of a 109 with one 37mm round once with a 0 deflection shot from about 800m away, so it's not like the round lacks power. 

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

the pilots who prefer to fly Allied aircraft.. aren't complaining much.. unless they are flying P-40s.

Maybe they dont complain because they have nothing to complain!

It 's hard to complain about PE-2 and its reagunners or about the efficacy of russian guns!

[Aap]

 

 

The problem with all these is that they cross over into the political. "Commie" "Red" ... just .. no .. stop.

 

 

To me "Red" does not sound too political. After all, Soviet army at that time was officially called "Red Army" and even if the word "Red" is not part of VVS itself, if was used in other parts of air force organization (for example Red Banner Air Armies) as well as in informal vocabulary.

 

I don't really see the point of name-calling in discussions, but just from the pure sound of that type of kindergarten-insulting approach, all these "victims" or "defenders" are just not comparable to "whiners" when you are trying to throw an insult. It should rather be in the line of something like "VVexploiters",  "VVabusers", "Red-dopers" or similar to suggest that the other person is defending the status quo just to exploit or abuse an unhistorical advantage when flying VVS, just like the term "Luftwhiner" refers to whining for no reason. Ask from some rap-artist, if you want something creative.

 

Anyway, I don't see how any of this name-calling really benefits the community or helps the game.

[Danziger]

Maybe they dont complain because they have nothing to complain!

It 's hard to complain about PE-2 and its reagunners or about the efficacy of russian guns!

Of course we complain! We are constantly complaining about the Luftwhiners spamming the forums with emotionally charged posts and unfounded accusations because they can't win easily enough!

 

All joking aside, I thought it was just a good bit of rivalry fun on the forum but I guess some people take it pretty seriously...

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

 

 

that no flight sim developer can ever get the uber German aircraft... or weapons... right ... cause... the last I saw... the pilots who prefer to fly Allied aircraft.. aren't complaining much..  unless they are flying P-40s.

 

Wait until you have more Western Allied planes in the game.

 

As you have pointed out, how many are there right now? 1.

And what percentage of western Allied planes in game currently have issues with it that require as you put it - 'complaining'?

 

Wait until your beloved P51 gets introduced. At least you can rejoice that the .50cals are performing spectacularly. That's a handy sum of future threads that you won't have to moderate if the original Ubizoo was any indication.

 

There are many threads on the Russian forums seeking improvements for VVS planes. With the number of people able to interpret Russian documentation that's not so surprising eh?

[III./ZG1_LoHan]

@Bearcat....... lol, u are totaly wrong!

 

Luftwhiner was used from reds after they were called Redwhiners from Luftwhiners like me........ :D

Its so many years ago, even Santa couldnt remeber the right days. It was arround the first onlinewar in IL2 ever. The VEF war build by Starshoy.

The blues whined about the concrete I16 UFO, about the non destroyable so called "Lakirowanije Garantirowanije Grob" better known as LaGG-3 and for sure about there own "Paper109planes"

And as Oleg and his buddies starts to overthink the FM of these planes, the reds starts to cry and to whine....so we caled them "Redwihiners"..... but thats so long ago, yea, even Santa..... ah, u know

 

But what can we see for now, if we read these old storys!? Nothing has changed ........ :D :D :D

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

150GCT_Veltro, on 23 Oct 2016 - 22:14, said: 1) My question is about Pe-2 (DM and gunners sniping capabilities). Actually Pe-2 is more similar to a B-17 "Flying Fortress" than a medium bomber, and it's really going to ruin the game online. It's really exagerrated. Are you planning to review this aircraft, or do you think is realistically modelled? 2) What do you think about MG151/20? 1 - We have checked and re-checked. Pe-2 is weaker than Ju-88 and He-111, but stronger than Il-2. 2 - It's burst summary damage capabilities are near to be the same with ShVAK. ShVAK have more fire rate, more muzzle velocity, while MG have more HE damage

 

That´s sort of insightful right? Pe-2 is weaker than the Ju-88 and He-111, but stronger than IL-2!!!

 

This mean on a toughness scale list from TOUGHEST to WEAKEST the listing should be

 

1) Ju-88

2) He-111

3) Pe-2

4) Il-2

 

 

Whoaw! Seriously, can anyone - even the the redwhiners    - confirm this?

 

IMO this makes it even more clear that it is a HE/AP issue

[Danziger]

Has to be something with HE explosions then.

[ShamrockOneFive]

That´s sort of insightful right? Pe-2 is weaker than the Ju-88 and He-111, but stronger than IL-2!!!

 

This mean on a toughness scale list from TOUGHEST to WEAKEST the listing should be

 

1) Ju-88

2) He-111

3) Pe-2

4) Il-2

 

 

Whoaw! Seriously, can anyone - even the the redwhiners    - confirm this?

 

IMO this makes it even more clear that it is a HE/AP issue

 

I only tested the He111 and Pe-2 and I found the Pe-2 was taking a few more hits on average than the He111 was. I did not test the Ju88. I also found the ShVAK was weaker than the MG151/20. So... take that for what you will

 

On a side note... I'm pretty tired of the "I only fly one side" madness. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the folks who complain so loudly about one thing or another fly only on the one side, only with one set of planes, and have this massively skewed perspective. It's called "the grass is greener on the other side" and it happens in lawn care and flight simulators.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Just sharing my opinion about some comments I read in this thread

I'm flying LW 98% of the time, and I'm also a regular flyer of Berloga server, with a 180ms ping in average. 

 

 

German planes often explode, Russian planes never do

In my exprerience, that 100% wrong. I've been killed by my plane explosion quite a lot, but I've seen a fair share of Russian planes going BOOM as well. 

I noticed that 3 time out of 4 my plane explode, the russian guy was attacking from underneath my plane, thus most likely hitting the fuel tank pretty hard. When in dogfight, getting shot at when turning (so the Red is shooting the upper face of my plane), that almost never happens. So shot placement is important for this matter.

In most engagements LW is attacking from above, and VVS is stuck under so most shots the Red guys will pull out will be directed at the underbelly. Not surprising that it feels like our planes are more explosives.

Like the german planes, I found the mig3 to be very belly sensitive as well...

 

 

Control surfaces loss

It depends on what plane I would say. The 109 is very weak in this regard, and a few shots at the tail region often removes more than one bit (if not all of them). The russians feels much sturdier, but they lose their elevators quite easily (or at least half of it).

Comparable to the russian planes is the 190, it's structure is tough as well and I'm always having fun seeing sometimes how long it takes to shoot me down. Loosing half of the horizontal tailplane is common but getting the whole stuff shot off is very rare.

So again, it feels to me that the inside structure of the plane plays an important role in this. I bet that most people only take the 109 as a their reference point, but the truth is that this plane is just fragile overall. But what can you expect of a plane with just a single wing spar ? By making it skinny and hard to nail, when you nail it, you'll often hit something critical.

Lately I went on a spree on vertical tailplane sniping. I attacked successively 3 russians (yak, la5 and an i16 if I remember well) from their dead 3 or 9 o'clock and all 3 lost their whole vert. tailplane with a single 20mm hit. So in some situations, the 20mm does it's job very well.

 

 

ShVAK more effective from dead 6

I noticed that too and to me it is only half surprising as the ShVak have a good proportion of AP rounds in their belts (save from the la5 with custom ammo) and a high muzzle velocity that reduces chances of round bouncing off the enemy plane. Shot on dead 6, half of the ammo have a fair chance to get through the fighter fuselage, kill the pilot and end stuck in the engine block. German 20mm on the other end will just keep exploding and cause damage only where the hits lands.

 

 

High speed attack are more effective for german planes

Yep, Noticed that too. The extra kinetic energy pays off quickly when you hit the target. Angle might be another important parameter :

One thing I remember is a sortie on TAW in a 190. After shooting down a couple of Pe2, I was chased by two P40. I managed to flee full throttle and increase the gap between us, so they started spraying .50s from long distance before breaking away. Some bullets hitted me but when seeing the replay, I counted 8 distinct hits against my plane, but all bouced off the wulf skin (I could tell with the tracers, you can see the bullets deflected after hitting the plane). They were shooting from 700m away. I landed safely and the server log didn't recorded any damage on my plane. 

 

So I would tend to think that German 20mm suffer from this kind of problem, when tailing a plane and shooting at him the shells barely have power to penetrate the Stalinwood if the angle is close to parallel, the shells exploding more or less on surface and not causing significant damage (I little like the sloped armor of the tanks).

When arriving fast, the extra oompf the plane's speed provides slightly increases the penetrating power where the high explosive load will do much more damage when it reaches the internals. Also on high deflection shots when the relative angle between the target surface and the shell trajectory is more perpendicular, 20mm rarely fails to cut off a wing or a control surface. And as high deflection and high speed attack often come together...

Edited December 28, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[MatSK]

i just sprayed about 40 rounds into yak1 from FW only to pierce his fuel tanks... and when i tried to zoomclimb away from him he activated his magic rocket engine somehow keeping with 190 with about 300 km/h advatage in zoomclimb and started spraying all around me with only 1 shot hitting me and killing my engine

 

litteraly.. IL2 battle of warthunder

 

yesterday when i played yak i killed 4 109 and 1 110... well done that with only 110 rounds of shvak while i can barely take out 2-3 yaks with 200 rounds in 151

[Mmaruda]

 

 

Personally, I think that sometimes, netcode gets wonky and hit registration goes fubar.

 

I would not call this wonky, it's just how things work online. With interpolation, you see every object in the game acting totally fine so you don't visually notice any lag. Same thing happens in other games like Battlefield or whatever. The thing is, it's either like that, or we go back to warping objects when lag occurs. The problem with BOS is that it's hard to judge lag honestly - I can hardly see a ping rating on the server and most of us fly where others fly like Wings of Liberty, and that has like 70+ people from various parts of the world every evening, I bet some guys have pings like over 300 (and that is just the basic network lag, without the game overhead etc.)

 

I am not good at explaining this and I have no idea how the netcode in BOS works, but I recommend watching this, if you want to get a sort of clear picture (would be awesome, if he could do BOS analysis someday).

 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that for any sort of accurate testing to be sure we are just talking about damage model, we should stick to offline.

[Willy__]

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that for any sort of accurate testing to be sure we are just talking about damage model, we should stick to offline.

 

 

I agree with your other points, but if we only test on offline mode we have another problem: it wont be the same as online, since online will always have the ping variable...

Edited January 8, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[LLv34_Stafroty]

current damage model favors AP ammunition over Chemical. If it was as so in real, there wouldnt be reason for modern planes using HE these days.

Problem with sims is that they just take in account the kinetic energy and chemical energy, and thats just it.

Nothing else.

 

In reality, ap ammo punctures hole in plane, and in parts it hits in its way through the structure, and if it doesnt hit anything too important in its way or even if it does, its just a hole it makes, and after complete penetration of the target, rest of the kinetic energy is totally wasted from the hit, as the projectile still possesses kinetic energy, WHICH it didnt transfer to target.  In GAME, it everytime transfers all its kinetic energy to target, no matter what it hits, a thin part of the plane, or just empty part of the wing/fuselage leaving only(in reality) a exit hole and enter hole size depending of the angle of it hitting the two plates. it hit would be 90deg hit, its about 13mm holes on both sides and thats it. if it hits in angle the round hole stretch to ellipse shape.

 

When it comes to Cannon HE ammo, it almost always, depending the type of ammo/explosive content, leaves on target area 15-30cm (half ft-1ft) hole, as well bending from the blast the parts surrounding the area plus the fragment damage around the area.    In plain area damage in structures, single HE hit makes many times of the damage single AP hit could make. it needs hundred or even more hits from AP rounds to do the same amount of area damage the single area to be able to eat as much off from the surface itsself.  This is the fact that the "efficiency tables doesnt bring up when taking only in consideration the KE/chemE factors. In reality things are much more complicated than just that really simple and in effect terms, FALSE method of calculating the efficiency of a weapon/round.

 

Here you can find something i made on different "simulation" back on history, using open office or such and all the pics and blueprints i could find calculating different angles of hits from certain targets and with that seeing the difference of effects guns COULD more realistically do.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/154327-ap-vs-he-ammo-comparizoncalculations/&page=4&tab=comments#comment-2968456

 

Someone who would be intrested i could provice those files where you could urself see how things are done in that. 

Im not so intrested on continuing that but i BET that this way of looking the efficiency brings alot of LIGHT how things in REALITY works comparing how they work in imagination/in currently in sims and so on.

 

Damage modelling needs perhaps 3 levels of how it calculates damage, one is AP type of damage which doesnt eat up stuctrure integrity as much but in critical areas with lucky hits enought to archieve parts dropping off, but in breaking internal components and hurting the pilot/engine more likely  while cannons with HE ammo rely on breaking the structure of the plane in a way it could not stay intact anymore..

 

Same comes to speed DROP and maneuverability of the planes. HE hit on a plane makes LOTS of more bigger hole to target than 10 hits of AP hits, which also should reduce speed/maneuverabily of the target differently. Now 2 hits from AP hit making 4 holes size of an golf ball drops speed more than it makes from HE hit from cannon which makes hole of size of a soccer ball.. Just asking how many AP hits is needed to make hole size of an soccer ball on single plate?   that brings some light in here if one  is able to ask that from self.

 

check that WT page for more info in a link i provided.

 

This just for making cannons on what they really was, and in hopes for getting damage models more realistic in future sims if not in this.

Edited January 27, 2018 by LLv34_Stafroty

[LLv34_Stafroty]

fuel tanks should provide "armor" cover vs AP rounds btw. IIRC  every 200mm of fuel equals as 10mm of armor plating. This fact came across to me when i was watching this video

In that there is swedish S tank live ammo trials vs that tank.  in it is mentioned current value of how much fuel itself provide cover versus penetation. And it is even common today that fuel tanks in ships and as well in tanks are used as extra "armor".

Same has been done in several planes, for several reasons. 

like lets say FW, it has fuel tank under and rear of the pilot. I dont know dimensions of the fuel tanks.

In game currently it kinds feels that tailplane stuff in it doesnt provide any armor value at all. that there is only a skin and armor plate in between modelled.

 

btw in that vid tank is also shot by jet fighters using 20mm API ammo and 30mm minengeshoss ammo, starts at 8:45

Edited January 27, 2018 by LLv34_Stafroty

[LLv34_Stafroty]

here is also intresting data.

seems that PGU-13 rounds are high explosive fragmentation type of ammo.

 

https://youtu.be/5FAPcK9uPwo?t=499

its stated in that test that 30mm HEI ammo made 9 times more area damage and 5 times more volyme(?) damage than 25mm kinda same type of ammo with same fuzes..

[Pail]

 

 

I am not good at explaining this and I have no idea how the netcode in BOS works, but I recommend watching this, if you want to get a sort of clear picture (would be awesome, if he could do BOS analysis someday).

 

Thanks for that. It looks like an interesting channel.