The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

[Legioneod]

29 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

At the end of the day you're shooting at a conventionally constructed aircraft with explosive/incendiary ammunition. The tail section of the Jug isn't fundamentally different from the tail section of any other aircraft. It might be stronger but its also dealing with the forces acting on a much heavier craft. The wings in this game come off relatively easily, maybe too easily, but there's ammo stored in the wings of a P-47 so hitting it with an explosive shell could easily ignite the ammo stores and de-wing a plane - much more likely than it happening in a 109 or a Yak IMO. once again Jug wings aren't fundamentally different than other wings, and they also have to support a heavier aircraft. Engine fires are to be expected if you hit an engine with incendiary or explosive rounds.

 

Except the P-47s ammo is in the outer wing not near the wing root. Also, .50 cal cooking off wont do enough structural damage to actually separate the wing. Another thing to consider is actually causing the rounds to cook off, just hitting them is very unlikely to cause a cookoff, only real way is with fire/heat to cause a significant cookoff of rounds.

 

Wings coming off the P-47 has to do with the simplified damage model used on all aircraft,until they start using actual cells to represent spars, etc. it's unlikely to change. Only other thing is to just make the P-47 wing tougher.

[RedKestrel]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Except the P-47s ammo is in the outer wing not near the wing root. Also, .50 cal cooking off wont do enough structural damage to actually separate the wing. Another thing to consider is actually causing the rounds to cook off, just hitting them is very unlikely to cause a cookoff, only real way is with fire/heat to cause a significant cookoff of rounds.

 

Wings coming off the P-47 has to do with the simplified damage model used on all aircraft,until they start using actual cells to represent spars, etc. it's unlikely to change. Only other thing is to just make the P-47 wing tougher.

I stand corrected on the ammo explosion thing. I really don't think simply increasing wing strength for the Jug is the way to go though. Is there evidence for the wing being stronger, relative to weight and forces involved, than other aircraft wings? My understanding is that it was a fairly conventional construction, built to withstand similar forces. if there's evidence for the wing being stronger from an engineering point of view, I'd support that change.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I stand corrected on the ammo explosion thing. I really don't think simply increasing wing strength for the Jug is the way to go though. Is there evidence for the wing being stronger, relative to weight and forces involved, than other aircraft wings? My understanding is that it was a fairly conventional construction, built to withstand similar forces. if there's evidence for the wing being stronger from an engineering point of view, I'd support that change.

 

Broadly speaking, a larger heavier aircraft has a stronger wing than a smaller lighter aircraft - the end. “Relative forces” is not a linear equation,  and not a factor so much, if it was then it would take the exact same amount of energy to de-wing a 109e as it would a B-29. 

 

Not saying that there was no variation inside of that statement. For instance an A-20, Pe-2, and Beaufighter were not equal in their ability to take a hit.

 

The Jug is huge in fighter terms - I’ve seen one sitting next to a Yak - the difference in size is stunning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

 

plus 2 1000lb bombs is a lot of weight for the outer wing to carry.

[Gambit21]

34 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

plus 2 1000lb bombs is a lot of weight for the outer wing to carry.

 

Yep - add a belly tank on top of that - and the ability to maneuver with that load -which necessitates a very strong wing. 

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

5 hours ago, 392FS_Jred said:

Stop playing quick mission? Go play on TAW and see how boring and arcade it is hahahaha. Probably wouldn't last ten minutes up there. Clubbing p-47's at low altitude against the brain dead AI isn't a complete judgement of the game. The AI also seems to have trouble flying the p-47 properly. Nothing to really write home about here.

Want to add your attitude sucks, we are talking about the P47 what does this has to do with TAW, how am I going to test the P47 online? You should not diminish single player guys , you think you are cool and better because you play online? Just checked your profile in TAW and you are not doing that good 2 deaths  no kills jajajaj not impressive at all.

 

I fly online 90% of the time and TAW is my favorite, but I dont diminish guys who do single player, take that toxic attitude somewhere else, doesnt help anyone here.

 

[JonRedcorn]

54 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Want to add your attitude sucks, we are talking about the P47 what does this has to do with TAW, how am I going to test the P47 online? You should not diminish single player guys , you think you are cool and better because you play online? Just checked your profile in TAW and you are not doing that good 2 deaths  no kills jajajaj not impressive at all.

 

I fly online 90% of the time and TAW is my favorite, but I dont diminish guys who do single player, take that toxic attitude somewhere else, doesnt help anyone here.

 

Man I must be living rent free in your head. Thanks for the discount friend. Settle down, have a drink, take a breather. It will be alright bud.

 

Oh and I have 2 ground kills with the i16. Give Kota a try they have the p-47 available to fly.

Edited November 28, 2018 by 392FS_Jred

[Panthera]

The wing construction certainly does look pretty beefy, and the cellular construction should allow it to retain good structural rigidity in the event of blast damage. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Panthera

[RedKestrel]

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Broadly speaking, a larger heavier aircraft has a stronger wing than a smaller lighter aircraft - the end. “Relative forces” is not a linear equation,  and not a factor so much, if it was then it would take the exact same amount of energy to de-wing a 109e as it would a B-29. 

 

Not saying that there was no variation inside of that statement. For instance an A-20, Pe-2, and Beaufighter were not equal in their ability to take a hit.

 

The Jug is huge in fighter terms - I’ve seen one sitting next to a Yak - the difference in size is stunning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere. If the wing is too weak now, we need some kind of numbers or justification to prove it. This is the only thing that's changed the Dev's minds in the past, so someone needs to find some engineering drawings, technical specs, etc. about relative strength and provide that to the devs so they can consider altering the DM. Its fine to say something is stronger or better, but how do you translate that to actual code?

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

P47 is by far the most damage resistant single engine fighter in this game. Even tougher than the LaGG-3. Aside from aileron loss at high speed there is nothing wrong with it. It can take 30mm, for christ's sake what more are folks wanting from the machine?

 

Only the Pe2 trumps it. 

 

It's not cannons that are the problem, it machineguns taking off wings that is the problem.

[Gambit21]

21 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Now we're getting somewhere. If the wing is too weak now, we need some kind of numbers or justification to prove it. This is the only thing that's changed the Dev's minds in the past, so someone needs to find some engineering drawings, technical specs, etc. about relative strength and provide that to the devs so they can consider altering the DM. Its fine to say something is stronger or better, but how do you translate that to actual code?

 

Well I'm just speaking globally of real aircraft, any real aircraft.

With regard to the simulated Jug one way or the other I feel obligated to reserve comments for elsewhere. 

[Panthera]

Has anyone tested wether the P-47's wing is more resilient than the wings of the other aircraft ingame? 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Has anyone tested wether the P-47's wing is more resilient than the wings of the other aircraft ingame? 

 

I tested it and found against 20mm German HE rounds it has similar resistance to IL-2 wings. I plan to test with 13mm and 7.92mm but I need a bit of time.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

On 11/26/2018 at 9:23 AM, 216th_Retnek said:

Rall describes that incident in detail in his book (pp 166, German edition). His wingman Trepte later told him Ralls propeller cut through the La-5 plane wing near the fuselage. That pilot didn't make it out of the plane. The propeller of his 109 G-6 was damaged obviously and shook the plane badly. He was over enemies territory. Flying with adapted rpm to reduce the shaking as good as possible he made it back to the airstrip "Ugrim". After the "softest landing of his life" he discovered his 3 prop-blades in different stadium of damage. His belly fuselage was ripped off badly by the propeller of the La-5. 10 cm more and his fuel tank would have been cut open.

 

Hey bro,

 

At last, I finally found the video detailing this incident, so I thought I'd post this for you in case you haven't seen this. From 18:32- a truly incredible, priceless bit of history:

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Kurfurst]

8 hours ago, Panthera said:

The wing construction certainly does look pretty beefy, and the cellular construction should allow it to retain good structural rigidity in the event of blast damage. 

 

If there is one thing blast damage likes, its exactly this kind of tight space celluar construction.

 

Pressure can build up so nicely and do its thing.

[DSR_A-24]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

If there is one thing blast damage likes, its exactly this kind of tight space celluar construction.

 

Pressure can build up so nicely and do its thing.

 

I'd imagined pressure building up has nothing to do with anything and the skin of the aircaft would surely release the "pressure" before the structure takes damage. Theres a reason why you see pictures of P-47s with ridiculous damage on the wings.

 

You know what's funny? The dev's haven't said anything about the P-47s damage model they'd rather have us speculate with various opinions. They could've just said they made the P-47 structurally stronger than X plane(as a benchmark). The P-47s damage model was obviously intended to be as it is since a Pe-2 is objectively stronger than a Bf-109. It's just a matter of them telling us why it was modeled the way it is currently.

 

I have done any testing but I'm sure or at least hoping the P-47 tougher than a LaGG.

Edited November 29, 2018 by DSR_T-888

[MiloMorai]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

If there is one thing blast damage likes, its exactly this kind of tight space celluar construction.

 

Pressure can build up so nicely and do its thing.

 

Over pressure would find the weakest link and that would be the skin.

[Kurfurst]

5 minutes ago, DSR_T-888 said:

 

I'd imagined pressure building up has nothing to do with anything and the skin of the aircaft would surely release the "pressure" before the structure takes damage. Theres a reason why you see pictures of P-47s with ridiculous damage on the wings.

 

HE shells, especially Mine shells used by the Germans rely on pressure to make the damage to the. When the explosive filling explodes, the reaction will create a very large volume of gas, which as it cannot fit it into the given space will be compressed and under high pressure. The whole pressure build up and reaction happens incredibly fast, and even to all directions, and there is simply no way of releasing it if it already reached one of the plates, for example the skin. By the time it deforms the skin it is already damaging other components nearby before the pressure build up could be vented off. 

 

Now, on the other hand, there are incredibly high pressures involved (50+ atü within 30 cm) which will easily deform and rip apart any plates of skin or similar thickness, at least close to the point of detonation where the pressure is extremely high. The trick is that the pressure also decreases very rapidly with distance, as the same amount will try to fill into larger space. In short, only large, open volumes will decrease effectiveness. Densely packed, closed structures such as a honeycomb will only improve its effectiveness.

[Caudron431]

4 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Over pressure would find the weakest link and that would be the skin.

 That's probably the most spectacular part of shell damage. Perhaps wing off is a simplification of the aerodynamical issues caused by skin damage.

 

The skin is  damaged,  because it is the weakest link but also because the explosion does not actually occur in a totally confined place (where HE shell shine). A part of the overpressured gasses would chose the path of least resistance and try to go out through the entry hole of the shell ripping the skin further. Still the remaining pressure would have great potential to damage structural internal parts.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Caudron431Rafale

[Panthera]

I need to understand what you're saying here Kurfurst. Are you saying that the hole will be bigger because of the cellular construction, or are you just saying that there will be a higher localized pressure peak. There's a big difference between the two. 

 

 

[Sunde]

4 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

Over pressure would find the weakest link and that would be the skin.

Put a grenade in a can, put a plastic film over the top of the can.

Whilst the pressure will indeed surge towards the point of least ressistance, the can will still get obliterated. 

[unreasonable]

Having done a few runs of the Airfield defence mission - 46 aircraft making two low fast passes over an airfield defended by 8 AA pieces, in this case 3.7cm Flak 36 on Normal AI,  I am getting the following results.

 

- The P-47s get hit more often than 109 G-4s - they are all flying through the same waypoints at the same speed. So the difference is down to the size of the target.

 

- The ratio of lost/hit for the P-47s is lower: they are significantly more robust.

 

- So far these two factors roughly cancel out when it comes to the percentage loss rate.  

 

I will quantify these conclusions once I have done a few more runs for each type.  Might then do a set for the LaGG and see if what everyone says about it is true...

 

4 minutes ago, Sunde said:

Put a grenade in a can, put a plastic film over the top of the can.

Whilst the pressure will indeed surge towards the point of least ressistance, the can will still get obliterated. 

 

True enough, but put a fire-cracker in a can and just the plastic film will blow off. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

5 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

HE shells, especially Mine shells used by the Germans rely on pressure to make the damage to the. When the explosive filling explodes, the reaction will create a very large volume of gas, which as it cannot fit it into the given space will be compressed and under high pressure. The whole pressure build up and reaction happens incredibly fast, and even to all directions, and there is simply no way of releasing it if it already reached one of the plates, for example the skin. By the time it deforms the skin it is already damaging other components nearby before the pressure build up could be vented off. 

  

Now, on the other hand, there are incredibly high pressures involved (50+ atü within 30 cm) which will easily deform and rip apart any plates of skin or similar thickness, at least close to the point of detonation where the pressure is extremely high. The trick is that the pressure also decreases very rapidly with distance, as the same amount will try to fill into larger space. In short, only large, open volumes will decrease effectiveness. Densely packed, closed structures such as a honeycomb will only improve its effectiveness.

 

9 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

If there is one thing blast damage likes, its exactly this kind of tight space celluar construction.

 

Pressure can build up so nicely and do its thing.

 

 

Cases where the wing skin above the ammunition clearly became detached due to pressure from explosion in the ammunition bays. Interesting in the top photo, the rear main spar has completely buckled and probably been destroyed, but the wing is still is in one piece due to the 2 auxiliary spars positioned behind the main aft spar

Edited November 29, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Bremspropeller]

The lower picture is a great example of a classical starburst blast-pattern on aircraft skins.

Note how the worst internal damage is relatively confined, but the skin zips open along the fasteners. That takes away a lot of the damage-potential.

The damage-pattern largely depends on the type of HE shell and the dimensions of your structure, though. If most of the pressure-wave hits the skin first, there'll be less internal damage.

 

22 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Broadly speaking, a larger heavier aircraft has a stronger wing than a smaller lighter aircraft - the end. “Relative forces” is not a linear equation,  and not a factor so much, if it was then it would take the exact same amount of energy to de-wing a 109e as it would a B-29. 

 

It's also a matter of what your remaining load-path is capable of doing.

A 50 cal hole through a 109 spar will leave a relatively larger hole and thus the stress is focused on less structure than on a B-29.

Size does matter, after all.

 

Also, altering load-paths may lead to a remote overload because of stress-peaks in that area. But that's just general trivia and may or may not be of importance in a specific case.

 

 

[Voidhunger]

P47 durability after the last update: 10x MK108 hits with multiple MG131hits.

 

Right damaged wing survived 3 MK108 hits

Left undamaged wing break after 3 MK108 hits

Tail/Rudder/Elevator(slightly damaged by MG fire) survived 4 MK108 hits without loosing any parts

 

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

P47 durability after the last update: 10x MK108 hits with multiple MG131hits.

 

Right damaged wing survived 3 MK108 hits

Left undamaged wing break after 3 MK108 hits

Tail/Rudder/Elevator(slightly damaged by MG fire) survived 4 MK108 hits without loosing any parts

 

 

 

This cannon was designed to take down 4 engine bombers. I am a Jug fan from before even the original IL-2 existed, but you are perfectly correct here sir.

[Panthera]

I think statistically it took 3-4 hits by the Mk108 mine shells to down a bomber, so this damage resistance does seem a bit excessive. I mean the P-47 was tough alright, but that was in comparison to other single seat fighters, not in comparison to a B-17 (!)

 

So question then becomes, is it the P-47 which is too resilient to any form of fire ingame or is it the Mk108 which is doing way less damage than it should?

 

Footage from British testing:

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Ehret]

14 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I think statistically it took 3-4 hits by the Mk108 mine shells to down a bomber, so this damage resistance does seem a bit excessive. I mean the P-47 was tough alright, but that was in comparison to other single seat fighters, not in comparison to a B-17 (!)

 

Again the de-winging nonsense and using it as like as some kind of damage unit.

"down a bomber" is not "rip apart a plane". For how long the P-47 from the test above would manage to be airborne after just 1 or two 2 hits? What odds it would have of returning to a base, distanced like 300-400km? This obsession with catastrophic structural failures needs to stop.

 

The P-47 is twice as heavy - is build from twice the material as the Spitfire from the video. Someone has posted official data about resilience of the P-47D, before. The 108 hits were included and as they were very dangerous they weren't always fatal; much less causing structural failures every time.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Ehret

[Panthera]

Easy there buddy, I wasn't saying a single Mk108 hit should completely obliterate a P-47, or any other plane for that matter. But in general it should at most take 2 hits to the wing of a P-47 to damage it enough that it's load bearing ability has pretty much gone (took just one to a Spit as we could see), and as such anything other than really careful level flight (nursing your way home) would result in it coming off.

 

I mean those Mk108 shells were nasty business, esp. if they detonated after penetrating the skin (from RAF ground testing):

 

Thus if the ingame P-47 currently can take 4 direct hits to the rear fuselage without any parts coming off, I trust you can then see we have a problem?

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

Easy there buddy, I wasn't saying a single Mk108 hit should completely obliterate a P-47, or any other plane for that matter. But in general it should at most take 2 hits to the wing of a P-47 to damage it enough that it's load bearing ability has pretty much gone (took just one to a Spit as we could see), and as such anything other than really careful level flight (nursing your way home) would result in it coming off.

 

I mean those Mk108 shells were nasty business (from RAF ground testing):

 

 

 

One of the things that has changed in the update is that the angle of the hit now affects the damage output.  We do not know yet how, exactly, but this does mean that it is no longer enough just to count hits: especially when comparing them to firing tests that show the maximum damage that a 30mm shell could do to a fuselage.   A "hit" just means the shell made enough contact with the target to trigger the fuze: it does not necessarily mean significant penetration before the explosion, so unlike in the firing test there is no guarantee that the majority of the energy of the shell should be absorbed by the target structure.  

 

We really need to give this a few weeks and let people do some systematic testing before jumping to conclusions or calling for changes. 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

"down a plane" means that the damaged plane will not land at home but somewhere else. It could be over the enemy territory or sea. A ditch could happen half hour later after the actual hits. It will be a "downed plane", too.

 

If your armament is routinely de-winging/ripping targets then is it a good thing? That's waste of ammo, potential waste of scrap materials, loss of PoWs and extra risk of hitting debris by your interceptor. It can be seen in the sim - load the 190-A8 with 2x30mm and have fun avoiding all the flying off parts.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I guess the problem would be that the penalties (loss of lift, instability) of these big impacts isn't as big as it should be.

The left wing itself came off at the 3rd hit, so in regards to the wing itself I think it isn't bad, it is a big wing after all and of a very sturdy construction, some users were comparing it to the wings of the IL-2, with some arguments that it would be stronger since it has solid ribs (instead of the perforated ribs in the IL-2). There are some pictures of these planes hit by 37mm, which is comparable to the 30mm since they have similar explosive filling, so about 3 or so to cause a complete structural failure doesn't sound off imho.

However, the other scattered 7 hits of this importance would seriously affect the ability of the plane to remain controlabe/airborne.

I like what this new DM tries to achieve (more shotdowns by other causes rather than mostly wing loss as we had in the past), it just looks like it needs some tweaks in certain cases, like making the FM really feel having such large areas of skin torn off by these big cannons.

Edited December 6, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[SCG_motoadve]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I guess the problem would be that the penalties (loss of lift, instability) of these big impacts isn't as big as it should be.

The left wing itself came off at the 3rd hit, so in regards to the wing itself I think it isn't bad, it is a big wing after all and of a very sturdy construction, some users were comparing it to the wings of the IL-2, with some arguments that it would be stronger since it has solid ribs (instead of the perforated ribs in the IL-2). There are some pictures of these planes hit by 37mm, which is comparable to the 30mm since they have similar explosive filling, so about 3 or so to cause a complete structural failure doesn't sound off imho.

However, the other scattered 7 hits of this importance would seriously affect the ability of the plane to remain controlabe/airborne.

I like what this new DM tries to achieve (more shotdowns by other causes rather than mostly wing loss as we had in the past), it just looks like it needs some tweaks in certain cases, like making the FM really feel having such large areas of skin torn off by these big cannons.

Like the new DM much better now, if they could implement partial damage to affect flight with wings missing sections or full of holes would be  really awesome.

 

Tried Berloga and dont see why there are complaints, you can still shoot down the P 47, just did it with the Macchi , just machine guns.

No more de wing, no more paper feel of planes being broken in pieces with a couple of shots, 109 takes more punishment than before too, which is good.

 

Do you guys think planes were that fragile in WWII , as the past damage model was? If so there would have been thousands of aces with hundreds of kills.

Definitely feels more realistic now.

[Rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

 

 

Do you guys think planes were that fragile in WWII , as the past damage model was? If so there would have been thousands of aces with hundreds of kills.

Definitely feels more realistic now.

Implying that the primary limiting factor on acehood was poor gun lethality and not other things, such as the actual frequency of aerial engagements...you’re smarter than that.

 

Right now the damage modeling is only “realistic” in that it feels much as it was for the British in the BoB, which made theM realize their .303s were inadequate. And like the BoB the Germans are a little better off because muh big flippin’ cannon. But this is NOT the BoB, and the 30mm shouldn’t rank as “adequate”, nay the thing should actually be borderline ridiculous over-kill for fighter-on-fighter.

Edited December 6, 2018 by CMBailey

[SCG_motoadve]

5 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Implying that the primary limiting factor on acehood was poor gun lethality and not other things, such as the actual frequency of aerial engagements...you’re smarter than that.

 

Right now the damage modeling is only “realistic” in that it feels much as it was for the British in the BoB, which made theM realize their .303s were inadequate. And like the BoB the Germans are a little better off because muh big flippin’ cannon. But this is NOT the BoB, and the 30mm shouldn’t rank as “adequate”, nay the thing should actually be borderline ridiculous over-kill for fighter-on-fighter.

Hope we never again get the past DM really, a flight in Berloga was a fest of de wing aircraft, which was totally unrealistic.

Definitely not the way it was according to all the books written.

 

Was way to easy to down planes , all of them, 109s felt like cardboard, wouldnt take any punishment.

Frequency of aerial engagements , almost every day in BoB, and multi combat sorties per day in the eastern front were not rare.

 

It was not as easy as it has been in this sim, now finally is getting more realistic, good step in the right direction, I am sure the developers will fine tune it.

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

38 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Hope we never again get the past DM really, a flight in Berloga was a fest of de wing aircraft, which was totally unrealistic.

Definitely not the way it was according to all the books written.

 

Was way to easy to down planes , all of them, 109s felt like cardboard, wouldnt take any punishment.

Frequency of aerial engagements , almost every day in BoB, and multi combat sorties per day in the eastern front were not rare.

 

It was not as easy as it has been in this sim, now finally is getting more realistic, good step in the right direction, I am sure the developers will fine tune it.

 

 

WWII aerial guns were perfectly capable of de-winging enemy aircraft if that is where the rounds happened to land. It makes more sense to shoot center of mass in most cases though, because one will almost certainly get a kill that way also. (but not in this game, as of latest update).
In this example, a P-51D makes a deflection shot on a 190. Because the 190 is well within the P-51's convergence the root of each wing is hit by 3 .50s. Both wings immediately fail and fold up like a carrier aircraft's.
And American tests reckoned that a single 20mm was roughly as damaging as 3 .50s btw. If anything the toughness of the airplanes to cannon fire was a little too much *before* the latest update.

"It was not as easy as it has been in this sim,"-You do realize that nearly all of us have many more hours "on type", and thus are better shots, than anybody got a chance to be in the real war, right? If 90 day wonders could shoot down an enemy plane while actually feeling the G forces and the terror of combat then it SHOULD be easy in the extreme for people who've been doing it for years/decades and who are sitting in their computer rooms free of fear and physical stress to bring down a relatively non-maneuvering aircraft.. Will the fallacy of "Harder=more realistic" in flight sims never die?

If the gunnery was as ineffective as currently modeled there would have been *no such thing* as boom and zoom and one pass kills. Or every nation would have switched to 30mm or greater autocannon for engaging fighters.

"now finally is getting more realistic"-Your definition of the word realistic apparently has nothing to do with the observed reality that WWII fighter guns of larger than rifle caliber were generally effective enough to bring down enemy planes with snapshots and single passes, without having to re-engage the enemy A/C 2-5 times, empty half of a Jug's ammo load per kill, or wait for five minutes for his engine to die.

Edited December 6, 2018 by CMBailey

[Panthera]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

One of the things that has changed in the update is that the angle of the hit now affects the damage output.  We do not know yet how, exactly, but this does mean that it is no longer enough just to count hits: especially when comparing them to firing tests that show the maximum damage that a 30mm shell could do to a fuselage.   A "hit" just means the shell made enough contact with the target to trigger the fuze: it does not necessarily mean significant penetration before the explosion, so unlike in the firing test there is no guarantee that the majority of the energy of the shell should be absorbed by the target structure.  

 

We really need to give this a few weeks and let people do some systematic testing before jumping to conclusions or calling for changes. 

 

 

Well the British tests against the Spitfire wing had it fired upon from directly astern, no doubt in order to recreate the scenario of an enemy fighter firing from directly 6'o'clock, and it didn't seem to change anything.  

 

Also I somehow doubt that the thin and soft aluminium skin of a WW2 fighter would be able to bounce a HMG or cannon caliber round fired at it, even at some rather extreme angles. I think it would simply buckle under the impact, allowing the projectile to bite into the material and penetrate.

 

 

Btw I just want to make clear that I completely support that the P-47 should be noticably more resilient to gun fire than most other fighters, but not that it should eat up an absolutely absurd amount that in real life not even a bomber would've survived. I mean 10 hits with 30mm HE(M) no bomber would have taken and made it back home in real life.

 

Video of the hit to the Spitfire's tail:

 

 

 

 

and a better video & image of the wing:

 

 

Pictures/vids are from this gallery which also describes the tests & ammunition in more detail: https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Panthera]

and vs a Blenheim bomber:

and a B-17, which shows the extra skin tear that will happen due to the high wind speeds in flight:

 

I mean by now I'd expect even the most hardcore opponent against Mk108 shells ripping the wings off of fighters SHOULD be convinced.

 

I'm even starting to doubt how right I was in suggesting that it would be ok if it took two to rip the wing off a P-47, as I now seriously question wether a P-47 would actually be able to make it back home after just one hit by one of those rounds to the wing in real life - The videos and pictures up above are just too conclusive if you ask me. The 30mm HE(M) rounds really were extraordinarily destructive. Makes the damage done by 20mm rounds look puny in comparison.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Hope we never again get the past DM really, a flight in Berloga was a fest of de wing aircraft, which was totally unrealistic.

Definitely not the way it was according to all the books written.

 

Was way to easy to down planes , all of them, 109s felt like cardboard, wouldnt take any punishment.

Frequency of aerial engagements , almost every day in BoB, and multi combat sorties per day in the eastern front were not rare.

 

It was not as easy as it has been in this sim, now finally is getting more realistic, good step in the right direction, I am sure the developers will fine tune it.

 

 

Agreed. I really like the new DM, it feels much more realistic.

 

For all those who say it makes aircraft too strong I think you need to work on your shooting and maybe leave the aircraft to it's demise instead of waiting for that kill message.

 

My buddy and I were fighting each other today and I can say for a fact that aircraft aren't any tougher than before. The wings may not come flying off but the aircraft still goes down easily enough. My buddy flew the K4 and put some 30mm in me, only took one or two shots to make me combat ineffective, after that he just had free reign on me. If he would have let me go I probably wouldn't have made it back to base.

Was flying the 190 and my buddy put a burst of .50s into me, hurt me pretty bad and them he set me on fire.

 

 

As long as your aim is accurate the first burst is enough to make the enemy combat ineffective, after that you could just leave him to his demise instead of wasting ammo on an aircraft that will eventually die anyways.

 

My accuracy is poor so it takes a bit longer for me to actually down an aircraft, my buddy on the other hand is a good shot so it only took him 1-2 burst to get me down or badly hurt.

 

The DM is headed in the right direction imo, hope we never see the old on again.

[Rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

 

I'm even starting to doubt how right I was in suggesting that it would be ok if it took two to rip the wing off a P-47, as I now seriously question wether a P-47 would actually be able to make it back home after just one hit by one of those rounds to the wing in real life. Those videos and picture up above are just too definitive if you ask me.

I agree 100%.  The Jug was absurdly resistant to the 30mm BEFORE the latest update. 30mm not easy to hit with, if he lays it on you you’ve lost the dogfight. Accept it, get a shiny new plane and try again. Demanding that any plane resist multiple hits from it is basically asking for  a godmode cheat to be coded in.