Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.007 discussion: Bf109K4, P47D28, Camel, Pfalz, FM, Multiplayer, Damage and more

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Don't think you can use the Spitfires wing as a valid comparson to what Minengeshoss would do a P-47s wing
Image result for Spitfire wing construction

P-47's wing's compartmentalized multicellular construction is much more effective at containing blast damage. Providing a direct hit to one of the spars, there are still the auxiliary spars there to keep the wing.

I was referring to the "the metal skin will almost always detonate HE shells". Since you were arguing towards the sturdiness of the P-47 you are also referring to Minengeschosse, which almost always detonate after penetrating the hull.

 

Your answer to my post ignores that absolutely. 

 

Also: Minengeschosse are firing with 9-13 round per minute. It's quite common that a round will enter an already blasted part of the wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I couldn't tell you much about the il2 unfortunately but I know it's wing construction is robust like the Jug, the P-47 and Il2 are nearly the same size, Il2 has a little bit longer wingspan.

 

Here's a cutaway that I found though.

il2resize.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the sturdiness of the IL-2 compared to the P-47, consider this:

 

The P-47's empty weight is around 200 kg more than the IL-2's, and it has substantially less armor protecting the engine and cooling system as well.

We also know the load bearing parts on the P-47's wing could take each the weight of a 1000 lb bomb, which - again - the IL-2 couldn't lug around.

 

And we certainly know the P-47's wing has two main spars in addition to three auxiliary spars.

 

Also consider the P-47 didn't have internal bomb bays in its wings to potentially weaken the structure, and the ammunition bins were sandwiched in between the two main spars.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

 

Regarding the sturdiness of the IL-2 compared to the P-47, consider this:

 

The P-47's empty weight is around 200 kg more than the IL-2's, and it has substantially less armor protecting the engine and cooling system as well.

We also know the load bearing parts on the P-47's wing could take each the weight of a 1000 lb bomb, which - again - the IL-2 couldn't lug around.

 

And we certainly know the P-47's wing has two main spars in addition to three auxiliary spars.

 

Also consider the P-47 didn't have internal bomb bays in its wings to potentially weaken the structure, and the ammunition bins were sandwiched in between the two main spars.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

Oh I know, I was just showing the cutaway from the Il2. P-47s could handle some extreme weight upwards of 18,000 lbs (most of it was it's own weight of course)

 

EDIT: If anyone is interested in getting a more in-depth look at the construction of the P-47 here is a really good site (or two sites technically)

 

https://www.aircorpsaviation.com/project/p-47d-23-razorback/

 

This site has tons of engineering drawings:

https://aircorpslibrary.com/

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the video match pretty much exactly what Diggun was describing a few posts before?

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Doesn't the video match pretty much exactly what Diggun was describing a few posts before?


Yeah because 0.125-0.25 second burst of the worst machine guns in the game into the wing should rip of the P-47's wing where it is probably strongest at the wing root. Sounds about right....

 

None of the bullets even hit the main front spar.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

 

Guys it's got 2 wing spars same as most planes, it's not really any more robust then a Spits wing. It's not made from magic FDR alluminum.

 

Yes there are accounts with planes comming back with severly damaged wings but plenty of planes had that happen. It's the exception...not the rule

I couldn't agree more.  Planes can be and were shot down by "small" calibre rounds like 7.7 and 7.9 mm guns, let alone the grapefruit sized holes that result from 20 and 30 mm cannon rounds.  The Jug was/is durable to a degree, but temper your expectations-because as we know even the robust il2 could be downed with a few rounds in the right spots.  Not arguing the Jug should be fragile, but it didn't have force fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Yeah because 0.125-0.25 second burst of the worst machine guns in the game into the wing should rip of the P-47's wing where it is probably strongest at the wing root.

 

You probably did not read what Diggun wrote and compared it to what happened in the video? No need to get defensive/offensive about the topic. Also, if a plane loses a wing, wing root is the most probable place for it to happen, especially if it had taken damage there. Just like any other plane in the game or in real world (look from google) or do a test by attaching a pencil to a vice and bend it until it breaks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

You probably did not read what Diggun wrote and compared it to what happened in the video? No need to get defensive/offensive about the topic. Also, if a plane loses a wing, wing root is the most probable place for it to happen, especially if it had taken damage there. Just like any other plane in the game or in real world (look from google) or do a test by attaching a pencil to a vice and bend it until it breaks. 

Suffers hit from flak cannons, at around the same region, no tear from the wing root
Image result for P-47 damaged wing

Image result for P-47 damaged wing

Image result for P-47 damaged wing


500lb bomb exploded under aircraft, wings still attached, pilot survived
Image result for P-47 bomb exploded

 

The absolute state of wehraboos to justify their delusion and justification that the P-47 was "not really any more robust then a Spits wing"

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoflSeal said:

Suffers hit from flak cannons, at around the same region, no tear from the wing root
Image result for P-47 damaged wing

Image result for P-47 damaged wing

Image result for P-47 damaged wing


500lb bomb exploded under aircraft, wings still attached, pilot survived
Image result for P-47 bomb exploded

 

The absolute state of wehraboos to justify their delusion

 

As the wings are still attached that might not count as a kill anymore!!!!!

 

 

Witch

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

I couldn't agree more.  Planes can be and were shot down by "small" calibre rounds like 7.7 and 7.9 mm guns, let alone the grapefruit sized holes that result from 20 and 30 mm cannon rounds.  The Jug was/is durable to a degree, but temper your expectations-because as we know even the robust il2 could be downed with a few rounds in the right spots.  Not arguing the Jug should be fragile, but it didn't have force fields.

 

True. A single 7.62 in the forehead of the pilot or the water line of an inline engine will end that plane´s mission (and something more). But we are talking about a much different effect; taking a wing. By all kind of measure seems an exaggerated effect by such a small amount of small calibre rounds. So far, very much personal impression and few tests done but still feels odd that this can happen to such a robust wing.

Edited by HR_Zunzun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Suffers hit from flak cannons, at around the same region, no tear from the wing root

 

So, could you post some videos, how these planes pulled high-G maneuvers after the damage? Or are you deliberately missing the point of what Diggun said?

 

Want some proof that gunshot to head is never deadly? Here you go:

article-1081775-024C2C2B000005DC-718_468

The man survived.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to get a fix on this wing issue is to do a systematic test, say using a turret MG on a parked P-47's wing and compare with the same on other aircraft.  See how many hits are required to detach wing. 20 or so repetitions for each aircraft type would probably be enough to start getting a reliable average, but more never hurts.

 

Unless someone is prepared to do this anyone's observations can be and will be written off as confirmation bias.  (Even after it is done some people will never accept the conclusions: I learned that from spending days doing flak testing, but at least the reasonable people will have some solid ground on which to base their opinions).

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

So, could you post some videos, how these planes pulled high-G maneuvers after the damage? Or are you deliberately missing the point of what Diggun said?

Just a small note, all of those pictures show aircraft that landed. Landing itself causes a high stress on the construction, particularly if it was damaged it could fail. Despite that, outside of damage area I dont see any deformation. The only worse scenario is related to carrier landing where tail has to hold the rapid deacceleration. 

 

But regardless, while I acknowledge the point Diggun made and I think its fairly well done in Il-2, I dont think it applies to this video. Aircraft lost its wing not when in manouver sustaining a high G load, but shortly after it in a dive. And it spun before, as at the time when it was hit, it was rotating. Only in a straight dive, shortly after rotation, wing failed.

Last but not least, you can actually count most of the hits as sparks and explosions are seen, if you slow it down to 0.25 speed on tube. I dont think there were more than 8 to 14 hits with both 12.7 and 7.7 mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Hey Legioneod, here is the video I was speaking of. Got permission from author to post it, so there it is:

 

 

There's prior damage clearly visible (wing skin missing from the trailing edge) on that wing already before those hits are scored by the Macchi.

Edited by LLv34_Wmaker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that the Jug is portrayed more accurately in this sim than anything else out there; past or present. However, it’s important to point out these issues with the damage model, so the aircraft can be the best representation of the real thing as possible. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

But regardless, while I acknowledge the point Diggun made and I think its fairly well done in Il-2, I dont think it applies to this video. Aircraft lost its wing not when in manouver sustaining a high G load, but shortly after it in a dive. And it spun before, as at the time when it was hit, it was rotating. Only in a straight dive, shortly after rotation, wing failed.

 

Still, the wing was not sawed off by MG fire, but it came off a bit later, due to other forces applying to the previously damaged wing. That's what Diggun said.

 

Anyway, to get more conclusive data, would be reasonable to do what unreasonable said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Anyway, to get more conclusive data, would be reasonable to do what unreasonable said. 

Absolutely, I just need a free weekend. Unfortunately, its not a holiday here were I live (looking jelously at all today turkey eaters). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, old guy pontificating warning.

If the Spit was not maneuverable I’d cry foul; if the IL2 or Hurricane were not excellent gun platforms I’d cry foul, if the Sherman was not a “Ronson” for the Tiger’s 88 I’d cry foul.

The ‘Jug’ could withstand quite a bit of metal twisting, cable snapping punishment and still get a pilot home.

In this case its a given, no need to reinvent the wheel, not a common fallacy, nor a popular misconception to be revealed by historical data- it was made that way by design.

 

The Spit was easier to fly at the edge of its envelope. The 109 much harder.  Both had very similar manoeuvrability- but the pilots ‘Lore’ based on flight experiences captured the nuance of actual dogfights and pilot experience- the average encounter with average pilot participants saw the Spitfire being more maneuverable with the 109 displaying a swifter dive- early War era...carbs... yadda. Dispute this too in the Internet forms but no actual participants would  support you- for the typical pilots engaging typical opponents.

 

The “Jug” took more punishment and could be kept in the air then bounced down the runway by an average pilot.  Not Eddie Rickenbacker flying half inverted with a kite with no upper wing fabric- that takes pilot genius. Your average ground attacking ‘Joe’ found the ‘Jug’ a safe bet to bring him back.

So, we know better?! Really?

Edited by Yankee_Mayhem
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Anyway, to get more conclusive data, would be reasonable to do what unreasonable said. 

Sigworthy stuff right there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love the Kurfürst! It's Engine feels so much more powerful, than in earlier 109 variants - good job! And I'm thrilled to learn my way in the P47.

 

But to be honest - the greatest news to me personaly are the changes to AI. While they don't seem fundamental, they finally show the intend to improve the games AI at all - if these are first steps, than the single player part of the game might turn from goodish to awesome!

 

I do hope so much for more human like situational awareness (possibility of a surprise bounce), a greater maneuver catalouge (not limited to high speed turns on tree top level after a downwards spiral), more human like decision making (when engage when flee?), the possibility to panic (novice AI making flying mistakes under stress), historical tactics (All air forces had distinct group tactics - would be great to have the AI trying to reproduce them ) and of course communications :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee_Mayhem said:

if the Sherman was not a “Ronson” for the Tiger’s 88 I’d cry foul.

 

Once the Americans had learned not to stuff ammunition anywhere and everywhere it could fit the Sherman was no more likely to set on fire than any other tank

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Once the Americans had learned not to stuff ammunition anywhere and everywhere it could fit the Sherman was no more likely to set on fire than any other tank

Thank you. NO tank does particularly well when penned by an 88.

Edited by CMBailey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally tested this new version, all my time before that was on updating the server software and fixing some compatibility issues with my campaign. I'm really pleased with the experience so far in VR. Having 90 FPS on the ground with the chat visible is nice. Now I can leave it on most of the time, ensuring I don't miss any important subtitles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Thank you. NO tank does particularly well when penned by an 88.

 

All things considered a tank being hit by a shell isn't as deadly as you'd expect. Some busy fellow on another forum digitised a document titled "A survey of casualties amongst armoured Units in N.W. Europe by Capt H.B. Wright RAMC and Capt R.D. Harkness RAMC" which you can find here:

http://ww2talk.com/index.php?tags/wo-2051165/

 

And turned it into a spread sheet to track the casualties from penetrating hits

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jUX4nTyHbwvc6b4QjH_-FqCIe9h0KpKzyx-5XQA6vEo/edit#gid=0

 

It generally works out to about one tanker killed per shot, but you can see that there are a couple of instances where a tank was hit by an 88mm shell and everyone got away alive! This is further agreed with by another study of a similar kind

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/08/26/u-s-tank-losses-and-crew-casualties-in-world-war-ii/image.png.628a68796e1fef45bc5fada8fb32f700.png

 

The idea that allied tanks are explosive death traps is Hollywood nonsense to make the enemy seem scarier and isn't supported by any real data

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

The idea that allied tanks are explosive death traps is Hollywood nonsense to make the enemy seem scarier and isn't supported by any real data

 

That is correct once wet stowage was introduced. Before that they burned like torches, as did the german tanks btw. Look at the 1945 vid of the german Panther killed before the Cologne cathedral.

 

 

A longer analysis:

 

 

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

I think what actually used to occur was that the last one hitting the enemy was awarded a kill, even if the first one caused 10% of damage and smoked enemy's engine heavily, another one came in and shot at fuselage, causing 0,5% of damage, then if engine stopped after that, 89,5% of damage was also awarded to the last guy and he was awarded the kill. Neither system is perfect.

 

This one might do a better job of minimizing the concept of "kill stealing bastards" who come in and nail a plane that is already going down with the very last bullet, but it is doing a lousy job of crediting the person who really shot the guy down.   Now a guy who peppers an enemy with machine guns and gets a bunch of 0.1 type damage, and doesn't truly disable the enemy, is more likely to get the kill than the guy who comes and actually gets the job done.  If I bounce a guy and only manage to pepper him up a little bit, and then my wingman comes in and cleans the guy's clock with a well aimed burst of masively catastrophic fire into the guys wingroot, then he deserves the kill...he isn't "kill stealing" anything, and just because I happened to hit the guy first and racked up the most number of "minor" hits shouldn't matter.  The new system (which obviously came not with this update, but could only have come from a master server change several weeks ago when this started happening) is simply not accurately capturing this frequent situation, and as a result seems much less "fair" than before.   I hope this new way of calculating who gets the kill is not final, because imo it feels a lot more like a bug, not a feature.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, =SqSq=CrazyGman said:

Anyone else notice that the sound of the Mk 108 for the K4 sounds different then the one for the G6 and G14. It sounds like a Mg 151/20 in the K4

Yes, it's been reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, coconut said:

Finally tested this new version, all my time before that was on updating the server software and fixing some compatibility issues with my campaign. I'm really pleased with the experience so far in VR. Having 90 FPS on the ground with the chat visible is nice. Now I can leave it on most of the time, ensuring I don't miss any important subtitles.

I was able to go from low shadows to ultra. In order to achieve that i just had to reduce SS a bit. Overall great improvement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Want some proof that gunshot to head is never deadly? Here you go:

 

The man survived.

WHAT?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Elem said:

WHAT?

 

Well, if you want me to break the analogy down for you, if a picture of a plane with heavily damaged wing is supposed to somehow prove that P47's could not lose a wing, then a picture of a living man with a bullet in his head should also prove that a bullet in the head could not kill a man.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The only way to get a fix on this wing issue is to do a systematic test, say using a turret MG on a parked P-47's wing and compare with the same on other aircraft.  See how many hits are required to detach wing. 20 or so repetitions for each aircraft type would probably be enough to start getting a reliable average, but more never hurts. 

 

Unless someone is prepared to do this anyone's observations can be and will be written off as confirmation bias.  (Even after it is done some people will never accept the conclusions: I learned that from spending days doing flak testing, but at least the reasonable people will have some solid ground on which to base their opinions).

 

 

 

LOL

 

may i quote you on Ivy´s test, who has done pretty much what you suggest and more?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 5:14 AM, unreasonable said:

Hence the burden of proof position they take: they will make changes, but you have to prove that they have something clearly and obviously wrong.  This is extremely difficult:  IMHO the OP has not done it, he has only showed that the results of his tests are not consistent with his assumptions about what should be driving the amount of damage, but these assumptions themselves are at least as questionable as the test results.

(the OP you refer to is Operation Ivy who has done some thorough and extensive tests on the 20mm) https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37192-bug-report-20mm-he-ammunition/

 

So, i hope once this "test" on the "issue" as you have proposed it, is finished, you will just as rigidly defend the status quo with that logic as in Ivy´s test, right? 😄 😄 😄

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

LOL

may i quote you on Ivy´s test, who has done pretty much what you suggest and more? (the OP you refer to is Operation Ivy who has done some thorough and extensive tests on the 20mm) https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37192-bug-report-20mm-he-ammunition/

 

So, i hope once this "test" on the "issue" as you have proposed it, is finished, you will just as rigidly defend the status quo as in Ivy´s test, right? 😄 😄 😄

 

LOL.   Ivy's tests were not done on the P-47, which is the plane being discussed.  This question is not about the destructive power of particular types of ammunition - which Ivy was addressing: it is about the relative capacity to absorb damage of different wings, given the same input of damage.  Given your track record of getting the wrong end of the stick it does not really surprise me that you appear to be capable of understanding the difference.

 

As for defending the status quo - you have me confused with someone else. In Ivy's case I simply pointed out that that the quantification of average hit damage that he was using is contentious and not authoritative - indeed the two pieces of "the literiture" as I recall you calling it, use different quantifications that come up with different answers. It is not my fault if some people are incapable of understanding the difference between momentum and kinetic energy or reading the source documents that they post.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Ivy's tests were not done on the P-47, which is the plane being discussed

 

Which is what your point pretty much boils down to

 

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

relative capacity to absorb damage of different wings

 

which isn´t based on any assumptions on your part right?

 

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

It is not my fault if some people are incapable of understanding the difference between momentum and kinetic energy or reading the source documents that they post. 

 

No it´s not, but it´s in your hands to to improve yourself on that matter.

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Which is what your point pretty much boils down to

 

 

which isn´t based on any assumptions on your part right?

 

 

No it´s not, but it´s in your hands to to improve yourself on that matter.

 

I know very little about the P-47 and have no preconceptions. The observations people have made might be flukes - or not.   Until the ability of the P-47 wing to absorb damage is tested systematically; and those tests subjected to proper critical appraisal;  the forum will continue to be plagued by tiresome trolls pedaling their "side's" propaganda. 

 

Since you are a gold card carrying member of that latter group, I am now placing you on perpetual "ignore".  I doubt I will miss much of value.  Goodbye.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also had the impression that the P-47 loses wings a bit too easily at first, so i made tests during beta testing and again did some tests yesterday, shooting down 40 P-47 AI planes total.

 

20 of those using 50 cal. while flying P-47 myself (because why not). I was unable to shoot the wing off of any of the planes (however, three planes exploded and lost the wings that way).

10 only using MG 131 of the G-14. Was unable to to shoot the wing off of any of the P-47. 

10 using MG 151/20 nose cannon of the G-14. Three times the wing fell off after being hit multiple times.

 

Overall, most kills were pilots kills or i damaged the engine so much, that it started burning or the pilot decided to bail out.

 

I can't say i've a huge interest in testing what effect the Mc.202 guns have on the P-47 (because i extremely dislike the Mc.202), but will probably do that aswell. In any case, one video of a P-47 (or any other plane) losing a wing too quickly is not gonna cut it and if there's a problem, it needs to be reproducable.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Well, if you want me to break the analogy down for you, if a picture of a plane with heavily damaged wing is supposed to somehow prove that P47's could not lose a wing, then a picture of a living man with a bullet in his head should also prove that a bullet in the head could not kill a man.

 

Then you misunderstood my analogy too. Most likely I did not explain it correctly. When I said always, I really meant in the majority of occasions. We were talking about probabilities and most likely scenarios and you are pointing to "exceptions to the rule".

Receiving 9gr of lead inside your cranium leads to your demise in the vast majority of occasions. Surviving to one is the exception to the rule.

It is my impression that, due to the size and internal structure of the wing of a p-47, receiving a few impacts of mg bullets shouldn´t lead to its detachment from the plane. Losing it, it is my understanding, should be the exception of the rule.

Hope that this will put us on the same page.

Now the question is if this is really happening in the sim or is just wrong impressions. Testing is the answer to this.

Edited by HR_Zunzun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Since you are a gold card carrying member of that latter group, I am now placing you on perpetual "ignore".  I doubt I will miss much of value.  Goodbye.

 

Ok, I´ll try and explain it to you again.

 

a) In one case you are shooting different ammo against a single target and rank the results which you then compare that to a benchmark (literature)

This is what Ivy did

What you did is point out that his conclusion id flawed (I disagree, because the difference to the benchmark is evident, but I´ll give you this point for the sake of argument)

 

b) you propose to shoot a single ammo type at different wings and compare the results... well TO WHAT? To the story you heard about the p47 being really tough that one time? WHAT IS YOUR BENCHMARK?

So even if you find a benchmark other than some photographs, I´m sure there is going to be people like you questioning every bit of it saying it´s flawed

 

The Kruger Dunnings is really strong in you and for someone who constantly claims to be working with models, you have astonishingly little knowledge of testing.

 

See I´m not even disagreeing with you that the P-47 might be to nimble, but I guess you have very high standards regarding those tests adn it would only be fair if you upheld them for all tests

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

b) you propose to shoot a singe ammo type at different wings and compare the results... well TO WHAT? To the story you heard about the p47 being really tough that one time? WHAT IS YOUR BENCHMARK?

So even if you find a benchmark other than some photographs, I´m sure there is going to be people like you questioning every bit of it saying it´s flawed

 

The Kruger Dunnings seems to be really strong on you and for someone who constantly claims working with models, you have astonishingly little knowledge of testing

 

3

 

Well, any armament/durability test is, in essence, flawed. There is no benchmark for that. It is, in reality, impossible testing all the possibilities. In the sim, you can only aim to compare the effect of the same armament to different objects (planes) and then the other way around. After this, is all about interpretation of the experiences of the time (pilot quotes and the like). That is going to be different depending on the person and his/her bias. But there is always some common ground that can be achieved regarding which plane should be more durable and which armament should be stronger. For instance, It would be common ground saying that the 30mm is stronger than the 7.6mm and that an IL-2 is generally more durable than Bf-109.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×