The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

[Voidhunger]

anyway any tweaks to the FM/DM/AI is important and its super cool that the team still try to improve the game.

 

[CountZero]

37 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

problem is that you hit P47 into tail section with some MK108 rounds and nothing happens.

Maybe in MP its hard to fly after those hits but in SP the AI continue to fight and its still dangerous.

I think that even one solid MK108 shot to the wing, rudder, elevator send you home without fighting anymore. thats the problem.

If you dont hit something important the Jug can fly and fight with 5 hits in the wing and 4 in the tail.

 

 

im more afraid of wonded/damaged human player then AI, humans usealy play vs you until their engine quits and still then they will shoot at you if you show up infront of them by mistake, wing lost no problem if you get infront they will shoot at you, half elevators on 109 no problem it will still outturn you, smooking engine nah who cares go untill it stops, ai atleast bail out at some point.

 

26 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

...

 

And many Jug pile-its are so lacking in insight that they are celebrating this, instead of realizing that the 30mm just became the most/only viable fighter versus fighter gun package in the game. It should actually be borderline absurd overkill for WWII fighter versus fighter, as opposed to  smaller cannons/HMGs that are easier to hit with.

 

same can be said for allied side , now i expect even more players to use 23mm, as 20 and less is opsolite now, while on 23mm i didnt notice big differance after patch, one pass now flames or killes pilot, insted dewing enemy as before. So its 23mm vs 30mm then it seams 

[Mauf]

@Panthera You need to be a bit more careful in how far you interpret the 30mm Mineshell video that you posted. Mineshells primarily inflict damage by pressure from the explosion (shrapnel from the casing was actually pretty minor in comparison as it was pretty lightweight due to the thin projectile mantle). It's actually required to have a closed compartment that contains the pressure and therefore suffers from the blastwave. What you see in the video is a perfect edge-on hit that has the projectile enter the wing and have it detonate in the still enclosed compartment with the blast directed practically right into the meat of the wing. That was a devastating hit and would as the reports state end in a catastrophic failure of the structure. By the Luftwaffe's own trials, they found that hits from the topdown of the wing were less devastating because the blast would exit the wing structure on the opposite site and therefore have less impact on the overall surrounding structure (it blows its load outside of the wing:). These hits were still crippling but would probably not lead to a wing loss right out of the gate (it would probably cause the wing to be much more susceptible to fatigue. A fighter after such a hit was in no more condition to fight for sure). 

 

And that is probably the reason why there are conflicting reports of planes taking these high explosive hits and soldiering on while other reports like the video you posted shows its grand devastating effect. Different strike angles and distance = much different outcomes. Modelling this probably requires a complete overhaul of the DM and until then, we have to make due with what we got, despite it feeling off in certain areas. C'est la vie.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Not knowing how it was in real life, but suspecting wings came off too easily before, I like the new DM.  On the flip side of that though, I did have a head scratching moment with a P-39 online, where the guy's wings were visibly torn to shreds, but he kept being able to pull high G manuevers up until the point that his engine quit after several minutes (me:  "Why the hell is this guy not going down???!!!) and he went in.   I liked the fact that his wings didn't just rip off from the firing alone, but when he was doing split-esses, eye-bulging pullouts, high speed breaks, etc after the kind of hits I (and others) appeared to be getting, and the visible damage I observed, it seemed like something should have broken apart...In other words, I was thinking that if a wing is going to come off, that would have been the situation where a wing would come off.

Edited December 6, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HR_Zunzun]

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Not knowing how it was in real life, but suspecting wings came off too easily before, I like the new DM.  On the flip side of that though, I did have a head scratching moment with a P-39 online, where the guy's wings were visibly torn to shreds, but he kept being able to pull high G manuevers up until the point that his engine quit after several minutes (me:  "Why the hell is this guy not going down???!!!) and he went in.   I liked the fact that his wings didn't just rip off from the firing alone, but when he was doing split-esses, eye-bulging pullouts, high speed breaks, etc after the kind of hits I (and others) appeared to be getting, and the visible damage I observed, it seemed like something should have broken apart...In other words, I was thinking that if a wing is going to come off, that would have been the situation where a wing would come off.

 

Yes, I also think the new DM is better but will need some tweaking.

[GP*]

4 hours ago, CMBailey said:

You’re gonna need to try harder. Calling someone who was actually there a liar didn’t work, calling ME of all people a bad shot won’t work either.

 

Maybe you just want gun effectiveness neutered because you are really bad at flying the plane and you consciously realize that pea-shooter lethality tends to make the outcome more effectively randomized, instead of being about who selects the maneuvers that puts the other guy in front of guns first. Ultimately the less lethal the gunnery the more and more turners are favored over energy fighters because they can effectively “saddle up”, so maybe this is your goal.  Though tbh I kind of doubt you are this insightful enough to have figured these things out on your own. 

 

And certainly the unrealistic lack of gun effectivess enhances pixelated safety for those bold souls who never venture forth without at least half a dozen wingmen on TS along with them. Less chance that one of them will be embarrassed by losing their precious virtual “life” to the overshoot and snapshot by whatever loner they are hording.

 

 

 

Yep, I’ve never much cared for arguing over the finer points of aircraft durability given that this is a GAME. While I’m not dismissing it*, as far as I’m concerned, if the bandit achieves a gun solution on me, I’ve already lost the fight. I’ve nothing for the virtual pilot who soaks up MG and cannon fire, keeps fighting, and neutralizes the fight just because his damage and flight models are generous, and he never has to deal with the same fear that real WWII aviators encountered. I haven’t experienced much of this in this latest iteration of IL2, but it was quite present in FB. 

 

(Classic example: FW-190 vs La-7 in FB. If you have to ask, you’re new here.) 

 

* I am sympathetic to the argument that the P-47 should be demonstrably more rugged than some of its adversaries, though...just not comically so.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Go_Pre
Quad post

[Voidhunger]

I just tried multiple quick mission to test Mg151 on Kuban map 2x average Bf109g4 against average 4x IL21943 at 500m alt.

 

Its absolutely impossible to survive. My wingman is instakilled everytime in blazing fire and I tried different attacks from above, side, below and everytime my engine is shot to pieces or at least plane is leaking from every hole.

 

Its possible to shotdown first IL2 because is somewhat separated from the group but the three others....pfff

 

They buffed AI gunners?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Korowiov]

Could be, It feels like the AI is a bit better in certain circumstances.

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Yes - and a 29% chance of downing it after 5 minutes - ie 71% chance of surviving for more than five minutes. A variety of people have been claiming that one hit should usually be instantaneously lethal. They are contradicted by the expert opinion. 

 

Nope.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

2 hours ago, Mauf said:

Different strike angles and distance = much different outcomes. Modelling this probably requires a complete overhaul of the DM

 

Didnt the Patch notes say exactly that? That it is now possible to have different damage depending on the angle?

So it should be possible without a full

overhaul

Edited December 6, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Legioneod]

6 hours ago, CMBailey said:

This “it should take half an ammo load to get a kill”

In all honesty it doesn't take nearly as much ammo to get a kill.

If you just want to keep firing until the plane goes down in flames or pieces then sure, it'll take a while but the aircraft is usually long dead before that.

 

5 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

problem is that you hit P47 into tail section with some MK108 rounds and nothing happens.

Maybe in MP its hard to fly after those hits but in SP the AI continue to fight and its still dangerous.

I think that even one solid MK108 shot to the wing, rudder, elevator send you home without fighting anymore. thats the problem.

If you dont hit something important the Jug can fly and fight with 5 hits in the wing and 4 in the tail.

 

 

Usually in MP one shot is enough to seriously hamper your fighting ability. It was nearly impossible for me to fight my friend when he hit me with a Mk 108.

 

I think players just got too comfortable with aircraft getting destroyed into pieces instantly and now that they can't see this and get an easy kill they are angry.

Sometimes it's best to just damage the enemy and go look for another target, usually he'll go down eventually.

[Ehret]

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I think players just got too comfortable with aircraft getting destroyed into pieces instantly and now that they can't see this and get an easy kill they are angry.

Sometimes it's best to just damage the enemy and go look for another target, usually he'll go down eventually.

 

It's not about easy kills but securing your score. If you don't finish the target here and now then someone else will. Thus the obsession with catastrophic structural failures because the score will be awarded immediately if one happens.

 

Shouldn't be like that.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

It's not about easy kills but securing your score. If you don't finish the target here and now then someone else will. Thus the obsession with catastrophic structural failures because the score will be awarded immediately if one happens.

 

Shouldn't be like that.

 

Kill sharing is the answer to this imo, as long as you get hits on target then you get credit for the kill as well.

[MiloMorai]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

 

Kill sharing is the answer to this imo, as long as you get hits on target then you get credit for the kill as well.

 

I was just going to mention that. The RAF had three categories > destroyed, probably destroyed and damaged.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

 

I was just going to mention that. The RAF had three categories > destroyed, probably destroyed and damaged.

Yep, in the US they divided it between the pilots who claimed the kill (most of the time) So this is why you see some pilots with half a kill mark on their aircraft sometimes.

[HR_Zunzun]

Same here. Shared kill won´t avoid the greedy, shoulder shooter ones finishing your kill off but at least you won´t get frustrated that after all the effort you won´t get any credit.

4 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

I was just going to mention that. The RAF had three categories > destroyed, probably destroyed and damaged.

 

Another thing I would like happening is a server without the instant recognition of kill but that you have to claim them (via a webpage) at the end of your mission and when the campaign finished you confronted your claims vs the real thing.

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Same here. Shared kill won´t avoid the greedy, shoulder shooter ones finishing your kill off but at least you won´t get frustrated that after all the effort you won´t get any credit.

 

 

Over the shoulder shooting happened in real life too. I asked about it during several interviews. Don Bryan said it often resulted in a “pull your head out of your ass!” or similar comment once back on the ground.

 

Pount is though, we all hate it but it’s just a fact of life. Even with our non-war, online level of adrenaline. Or maybe just being an ass-hat.  

[HR_Zunzun]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Over the shoulder shooting happened in real life too. I asked about it during several interviews. Don Bryan said it often resulted in a “pull your head out of your ass!” or similar comment once back on the ground.

 

Pount is though, we all hate it but it’s just a fact of life. Even with our non-war, online level of adrenaline. Or maybe just being an ass-hat.  

 

I supposed people is people regardless of circumstances but while they get a portion of the kill we must see how we don´t get any credit for the kill.

[Legioneod]

12 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Same here. Shared kill won´t avoid the greedy, shoulder shooter ones finishing your kill off but at least you won´t get frustrated that after all the effort you won´t get any credit.

 

Another thing I would like happening is a server without the instant recognition of kill but that you have to claim them (via a webpage) at the end of your mission and when the campaign finished you confronted your claims vs the real thing.

 

I'd like something similar but I want it to where you have to land back at base to claim the kill, this way people are more inclined to play realistically instead of wasting their life/aircraft.

[HR_Zunzun]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

 

I'd like something similar but I want it to where you have to land back at base to claim the kill, this way people are more inclined to play realistically instead of wasting their life/aircraft.

 

Yes, absolutely. And also that the game is not so focused on getting a kill but accomplishing objectives. But I supposed that this is mainly a server option and most of player doesn´t like this.

[Legioneod]

Just now, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Yes, absolutely. And also that the game is not so focused on getting a kill but accomplishing objectives. But I supposed that this is mainly a server option and most of player doesn´t like this.

I'd like it to be forced on all servers like the new kill system is, just my opinion though. It would certainly encourage more realistic flying imo.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Didnt the Patch notes say exactly that? That it is now possible to have different damage depending on the angle?

So it should be possible without a full

 overhaul

We don't know how long the devs have been working on it. Might of been in the works for quite a while before this release.

[peregrine7]

If the biggest issue of the patch is that it makes claiming kills slightly more nuanced/annoying then I'd say its a good patch! ?

[Panthera]

15 hours ago, unreasonable said:

You have ground testing where the hits were directed at specific points.  You do not have any basis on which to make statistical claims - yet you do.

 

I really don't see where it is I have made any claims similar to what the US OR calculation is trying to approximate. Also I don't understand why you keep ignoring the fact that I was specifically talking about hits to the wings, and not about the statistical chance of the aircraft going down to a single hit at a random spot anywhere on the airframe. Why is that?

 

With that said the British test in this case is objectively of more value (i.e. when talking hits to specific areas, such as the wings) as it puts theory into practice and actually demonstrates what the round would do when hitting specific areas on an aircraft - which is exactly what we were trying to figure out in order to compare it with ingame examples of hits to the same areas.  

 

Hence I cannot fathom how anyone can argue that a P-47 taking 9 hits of 30mm HE(M) and still is able to fly is realistic. Based on the evidence available I find it hard to even justify a P-47 taking more than one hit to the wing and keep flying, and I am certain it wouldn't handle 2 hits to the wing. The damage done in every single British test firing, irrespective of angle of impact is just too massive.  

 

12 hours ago, Mauf said:

@Panthera You need to be a bit more careful in how far you interpret the 30mm Mineshell video that you posted. Mineshells primarily inflict damage by pressure from the explosion (shrapnel from the casing was actually pretty minor in comparison as it was pretty lightweight due to the thin projectile mantle). It's actually required to have a closed compartment that contains the pressure and therefore suffers from the blastwave. What you see in the video is a perfect edge-on hit that has the projectile enter the wing and have it detonate in the still enclosed compartment with the blast directed practically right into the meat of the wing. That was a devastating hit and would as the reports state end in a catastrophic failure of the structure. By the Luftwaffe's own trials, they found that hits from the topdown of the wing were less devastating because the blast would exit the wing structure on the opposite site and therefore have less impact on the overall surrounding structure (it blows its load outside of the wing:). These hits were still crippling but would probably not lead to a wing loss right out of the gate (it would probably cause the wing to be much more susceptible to fatigue. A fighter after such a hit was in no more condition to fight for sure). 

 

Well the British tested the effects of hits both at high and low angles, and as can clearly be seen the effects were devastating in both cases with the type of HE(M) shells they were using.

 

As for shrapnel damage:

"30mm HE hit close to the fuselage, the report notes that around 50 fragments from this wing strike entered the cockpit, some of which would have wounded the pilot."

 

Now in regards to the German testing you speak of, I don't know about it, but is it possible it was from a lot earlier? i.e. were they perhaps testing the early HE(M) shells with the less potent PETN filler? Also what detonator was that particular German testing with?  Remember the 30mm HE(M) came with two different detonators, 1) Duplex detonator blast on impact or the 2) Duplex delayed detonator (VC70) allowing for 10cm of further travel after initial penetration. 

 

The most devastating type used by the British was most likely the latest filled with HA41 (Hexagon) and fitted with the VC70 delayed detonator, making sure the blast had an enclosed space to work with. 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Panthera

[Mauf]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

I really don't see where it is I have made any claims similar to what the US OR calculation is trying to approximate. Also I don't understand why you keep ignoring the fact that I was specifically talking about hits to the wings, and not about the statistical chance of the aircraft going down to a single hit at a random spot anywhere on the airframe. Why is that?

 

With that said the British test in this case is objectively of more value (i.e. when talking hits to specific areas, such as the wings) as it puts theory into practice and actually demonstrates what the round would do when hitting specific areas on an aircraft - which is exactly what we were trying to figure out in order to compare it with ingame examples of hits to the same areas.  

 

Hence I cannot fathom how anyone can argue that a P-47 taking 9 hits of 30mm HE(M) and still is able to fly is realistic. Based on the evidence available I find it hard to even justify a P-47 taking more than one hit to the wing and keep flying, and I am certain it wouldn't handle 2 hits to the wing. The damage done in every single British test firing, irrespective of angle of impact is just too massive.  

 

 

Well the British tested the effects of hits both at high and low angles, and as can clearly be seen the effects were devastating in both cases with the type of HE(M) shells they were using.

 

As for shrapnel damage:

"30mm HE hit close to the fuselage, the report notes that around 50 fragments from this wing strike entered the cockpit, some of which would have wounded the pilot."

 

Now in regards to the German testing you speak of, I don't know about it, but is it possible it was from a lot earlier? i.e. were they perhaps testing the early HE(M) shells with the less potent PETN filler? Also what detonator was that particular German testing with?  Remember the 30mm HE(M) came with two different detonators, 1) Duplex detonator blast on impact or the 2) Duplex delayed detonator (VC70) allowing for 10cm of further travel after initial penetration. 

 

The most devastating type used by the British was most likely the latest filled with HA41 (Hexagon) and fitted with the VC70 delayed detonator, making sure the blast had an enclosed space to work with. 

 

 

That could be quite possible that better explosives and a better detonator increased the effect though I would guess that delaying the explosion further would reduce the effectiveness of topdown hits as the shell has even more chance to exit the wing opposite site of entry and explode outside. I don't have the link anymore sadly, still trying to find it again. They tested their weapons on He-111 wings, amongst other things. About the picture: Sure that's a top down hit or even steep angled? Looks like a flat angled hit, maybe 20-30 degrees from behind, into the wing which would still be harsh.

 

About the shrapnels: yes, and there are reports of pilots getting injured by these fragments. They were mostly not lethal nor crippling. Also take into account: The test in the picture was on the ground, standing still. Add 300 mph of travel and the associated winds to that and it'll probably be much less shrapnels reaching the cockpit. That's also a factor when it comes to penetration of the shell into the wing also.

 

Even a 30mm shell is not some magic eraser that obliterates structure as if it was glass in a certain radius. That's why reports say strange stuff like 54% chance of lethality after one hit and such. There are just so many factors affecting this, it's very hard if not impossible to get realistic behaviour modelled in a fashion that would be suitable for a game.

 

The reason I specifically addressed you is that those videos crop up every now and then with the usual "Ooooh, look at how boomy it is, surely it erases everything it touches out of existence" comments following it. You're more on the level headed side there, so hats off to that, but not every hit from a 30mm or even higher caliber was behaving like those hits shown in these british tests. They probably show the maximum potential of destructiveness and only a fool would argue against that. But I don't believe that every hit reached that potential and other reports support that assumption.

 

10 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Didnt the Patch notes say exactly that? That it is now possible to have different damage depending on the angle?

So it should be possible without a full

overhaul

 

Yes, and as people reported, the model seems to have improved which is great. Still I don't think it's a proper simulation of explosives and their effects on the compartments of a plane. That's the reason why Mineshells are still modelled as big fragmentation rounds to simulate the blast wave effect to a degree to work within a component damage model (at least as far as I know). The problem is: How far do you take the modelling effort and what is still reasonable within a game engine from a workload perspective, not to mention the additional modelling/research work necessary for each plane.

[Garven]

9 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Yep, in the US they divided it between the pilots who claimed the kill (most of the time) So this is why you see some pilots with half a kill mark on their aircraft sometimes.

Speaking of shared kills: https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=28281&name=DancinJanson

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, Mauf said:

 

 

The reason I specifically addressed you is that those videos crop up every now and then with the usual "Ooooh, look at how boomy it is, surely it erases everything it touches out of existence" comments following it. You're more on the level headed side there, so hats off to that, but not every hit from a 30mm or even higher caliber was behaving like those hits shown in these british tests. They probably show the maximum potential of destructiveness and only a fool would argue against that. But I don't believe that every hit reached that potential and other reports support that assumption.

 

 

Exactly - which is the point I have been trying to get over.   The US OR people were not idiots: they ran tests too, but they understood that to get an idea of the average effects of a munition in wartime conditions it is not enough just to look at the worst case. They give a probability of a 3cm A kill (from the specific angle) at  ~29% vs the P-47 : we should take that as a starting benchmark for lethality when doing testing because we really do not have anything better.

 

BTW I am currently testing the 3.7cm Flak36 against the P-47 in 3.008.  I need to develop a larger sample before posting full results but I can already state with confidence that the ability of the P-47 to survive one hit without becoming an A kill is less than 50%   What we really need is someone who can mod the 3.7mm Flak to fire 3cm mineshells....   

[Panthera]

5 hours ago, Mauf said:

That could be quite possible that better explosives and a better detonator increased the effect though I would guess that delaying the explosion further would reduce the effectiveness of topdown hits as the shell has even more chance to exit the wing opposite site of entry and explode outside. I don't have the link anymore sadly, still trying to find it again. They tested their weapons on He-111 wings, amongst other things. About the picture: Sure that's a top down hit or even steep angled? Looks like a flat angled hit, maybe 20-30 degrees from behind, into the wing which would still be harsh.

 

AFAIK the tests were conducted level with the aircraft at directly 6'o'clock (obviously to simulate a typical attack angle) for the wing strikes, and directly 90 deg from the side for the fuselage strikes. 

 

Here is a picture were you can see an entry hole in the right aileron of another spitfire:

 

 

The reason I am suspecting the German tests you speak of as having been with the early type of Minengeschoss is that the type of damage you describe indicates either a weaker filler or perhaps more likely detonators that are too slow (since you describe the hole on the backside being larger), and had this latter problem also been present with the later shells then it would've manifested itself straight away in the British tests vs the rear fuselage of the Spitfire & Blenheim. Yet here there was no appriciable difference between the entry & exit point, the shell simply ripped the fuselages apart.

 

Quote

Also take into account: The test in the picture was on the ground, standing still. Add 300 mph of travel and the associated winds to that and it'll probably be much less shrapnels reaching the cockpit. That's also a factor when it comes to penetration of the shell into the wing also.

 

Noted, but then take into account that by the same token these lack of forces will make any damage done on the impact area less severe, i.e. many parts that stayed together when hit on the ground would've been ripped off by wind pressure or failed due to the stress loads put on them supporting the aircraft in flight.

 

Therefore the results of the ground tests are if anything conservative when it comes to the expected damage a hit to a similar location during flight would've looked like.

 

5 hours ago, Mauf said:

The reason I specifically addressed you is that those videos crop up every now and then with the usual "Ooooh, look at how boomy it is, surely it erases everything it touches out of existence" comments following it. You're more on the level headed side there, so hats off to that, but not every hit from a 30mm or even higher caliber was behaving like those hits shown in these british tests. They probably show the maximum potential of destructiveness and only a fool would argue against that. But I don't believe that every hit reached that potential and other reports support that assumption.

 

Well then I think I need to make clear that I at no point was of the opinion that a single hit by the 30mm HE(M) shells at any random select spot would've been a "sure kill". I've never been of that opinion and do not doubt that an aircraft such as the P-47 could potentially survive 2 or perhaps even 3 hits provided they were spaced out enough. But 2 hits to the wings I don't believe any fighter would survive 99% of the time, esp. when you consider that the average for a bomber was 3-4 randomly placed hits - the latter supposedly being from German statistics based on gun camera footage.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Panthera

[CountZero]

unreasonable, I think its important to check this HE efectivnest with player inside airplane that is geting shoot at.

Yesterday i spend 1h on berloga 1v1with tm8 to see if its worth to switch to AP ammo in lagg3 after the update, and what we can see is that if HE hits close to cockpit area it usealy damages engine wonds pilot or some fuel or radiators depending on airplane type, but guy who shoots dont see mutch damage on outside, to him enemy airplane looks like its in top shape after hit, but guy on reciving end could see that hes not gona last long even if enemy stop after that first hits.

 

So in end we saw HE is still better then AP on lagg 23, as even though you see only fuel leak on 109, you deal to him a lot damage internaly depending where you hit, and ap didnt have thouse benefits. Same was when we did k4 vs 47, 30mm hit you, and you get internal damages, but from outside you would think hes still in top shape with some small wholes, but in true he aint gona last long  

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[Lusekofte]

In what I read about latest patch , dm now take angle of projectile into account. Has anyone tested this yet?

[Panthera]

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Exactly - which is the point I have been trying to get over.   The US OR people were not idiots: they ran tests too, but they understood that to get an idea of the average effects of a munition in wartime conditions it is not enough just to look at the worst case. They give a probability of a 3cm A kill (from the specific angle) at  ~29% vs the P-47 : we should take that as a starting benchmark for lethality when doing testing because we really do not have anything better.

 

BTW I am currently testing the 3.7cm Flak36 against the P-47 in 3.008.  I need to develop a larger sample before posting full results but I can already state with confidence that the ability of the P-47 to survive one hit without becoming an A kill is less than 50%   What we really need is someone who can mod the 3.7mm Flak to fire 3cm mineshells....   

 

I don't believe the US OR people were idiots at all, their analysis just can't be used to argue against demonstrated damage to a specific area. Their analysis was all about the probability of a single hit downing the aircraft irrespective of placement, it did not take into account the cumulative effect of several hits or perhaps more importantly the damage likely to be worse under flying conditions - as these naturally couldn't be tested.

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

unreasonable, I think its important to check this HE efectivnest with player inside airplane that is geting shoot at. ...

 

That would be doable for tests with a single aircraft which I am currently running so I will give it a try, although using a player plane sometimes makes testing more of a pain.  What I am doing at the moment is using AA guns to shoot at an AI plane flying on a fixed path towards a waypoint. After each hit I can see if the plane has any damage, while paused if necessary, using the camera to take a good look at the plane close up from any angle I want. The only thing I cannot check using this method is if the pilot has taken hits to his body (ie red mist effects) but is still able to control the aircraft.

 

I will post the test mission shortly: probably in a new thread, as this one already has many issues under discussion. 

 

 

 

 

[CountZero]

Just now, unreasonable said:

 

That would be doable for tests with a single aircraft which I am currently running so I will give it a try, although using a player plane sometimes makes testing more of a pain.  What I am doing at the moment is using AA guns to shoot at an AI plane flying on a fixed path towards a waypoint. After each hit I can see if the plane has any damage, while paused if necessary, using the camera to take a good look at the plane close up from any angle I want. The only thing I cannot check using this method is if the pilot has taken hits to his body (ie red mist effects) but is still able to control the aircraft.

 

I will post the test mission shortly: probably in a new thread, as this one already has many issues under discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

Your also not detecting what damage hit did to engine of airplane, as i noticed sometimes when engine is damaged and will be gone in 5-10min after hit, there is no visable sign from outside that enemy airplane have engine damaged. What for me as a attacker looked like a just leaking fuel from one wing, was reported to me by Rip that he has his engine damaged and fuel tank damaged and canopey damaged and airplane wonts to drift and drop to side where i hit him in wing root. 

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I don't believe the US OR people were idiots at all, their analysis just can't be used to argue against demonstrated damage to a specific area. Their analysis was all about the probability of a single hit downing the aircraft irrespective of placement, it did not take into account the cumulative effect of several hits or perhaps more importantly the damage likely to be worse under flying conditions - as these naturally couldn't be tested.

 

No - it gave different probabilities for downing the aircraft for hits to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure, as well as an overall number. As in the table. 

 

It is true that they assumed independence of cumulative results: that is probably a good estimate for a multi engine bomber, where random hits would usually be reasonably well spaced out, less so for a fighter, where I agree that, for instance, two hits on one wing should be worse than a hit on each wing. 

 

As for the study ignoring the idea that damage would be worsened under flying conditions: this makes no sense.  The OR people were assessing the probability of being downed in 5 minutes or 30 minutes, given the observed (and assumed) test damage. The whole point of the study was to assess the effectiveness of guns under combat conditions: of course that means that the researchers took into account the likely longer term effects of the damage.  They looked at test results and then used their knowledge and experience to categorize the target as A kill, B kill or RTB.  

1 minute ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

Your also not detecting what damage hit did to engine of airplane, as i noticed sometimes when engine is damaged and will be gone in 5-10min after hit, there is no visable sign from outside that enemy airplane have engine damaged. What for me as a attacker looked like a just leaking fuel from one wing, was reported to me by Rip that he has his engine damaged and fuel tank damaged and canopey damaged and airplane wonts to drift and drop to side where i hit him in wing root. 

 

 That might happen very rarely; but TBH I am just going to ignore it as noise in the results, since I simply do not have the time or inclination to fly a plane for 5-10 minutes after every hit on the off chance that the engine is damaged without any visible sign.   If the AI can control the plane and head towards the waypoint without losing altitude then for me he is not an A kill.

 

B kills (OK for 5 minutes but go down inside 30 minutes) are harder to assess: again I am certainly not going to do it in real time! What is possible is just to record if the plane is leaking green, black or white stuff; that is at least objective and I think fairly indicative of a B kill. 

 

If you want to build up a good size sample while testing you have to make some simplifications otherwise it would become a full time job!

[Bremspropeller]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

As for the study ignoring the idea that damage would be worsened under flying conditions: this makes no sense.  The OR people were assessing the probability of being downed in 5 minutes or 30 minutes, given the observed (and assumed) test damage. The whole point of the study was to assess the effectiveness of guns under combat conditions: of course that means that the researchers took into account the likely longer term effects of the damage.  They looked at test results and then used their knowledge and experience to categorize the target as A kill, B kill or RTB. 

 

The test does not go into detail far enough to be conclusive on whether they assessed systems damage in any detail or not. There is no analysis or even discussion of structural damage in flicted in several different spot across the specimens. Everything is held in general terms and the statistical data is not broken down to the reader.

They also do not point out any assessment of structural loads under flying condtions compared to tested conditions.

 

The fact that they used a different engine to assess engine damage shows that they were not interested in the actual survivability of the airplanes, but rather a general idea of how effective each ammo used was.

 

Again: On should not read stuff into the report that isn't there.

[Panthera]

@unreasonable I don't read it as the probability of a kill with hits to the engine, I read it as the probability of a kill being due to a hit causing damage to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure. There's a difference, seeing as even a hit to the wing could kill the pilot straight away with a stray piece of shrapnel.

 

Either way the main point I wanted to address was that you claimed that the US OR analysis didn't agree with my comment about hits to the wings, which just isn't the case as the US OR analysis at no point addresses the likelihood of surviving hits to the wings, it doesn't even address the effects of more than one hit anywhere. Intead the analysis deal solely with the whole aircraft at once, and then calculating the likelihood of a single hit "kill" being due to a structure, engine, fuel tank or pilot failure.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Panthera

[Ehret]

Do you wonder what was the reason the MK-108' shell was like it was? The cannon was Advanced primer ignition (API) blowback thus:

Quote

in APIB guns high rate of fire and high muzzle velocity tend to be mutually exclusive.

 

Sniping B-17s from afar was out of question often because of escort fighters; there wasn't enough time for such thing. What time was left it was for brief close approach - high cycling rate was mandatory to deal any significant damage. Heavy fighters like 110 which could mount more and heavier guns were too vulnerable. Only single engine interceptors like the 109 had a chance. That's why the APIB mechanism was used: it's light and had a lower recoil (so can be mount in a small frame) and offered high cycling rate for 30mm. But the compromise is apparent - it couldn't generate any significant momentum/KE (like the NS-37 which has more J in KE than in 40g of explosive); going full HE was only, and only choice left with an APIB gun and the LW combat circumstances.

 

The 20mm Hispano is a delayed-blow-back mechanism. The MG-151/20 is recoil-based; loaded with mixed belt because ballistics are decent. The 101/103 are recoil combined with gas for the 103.

[unreasonable]

8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The test does not go into detail far enough to be conclusive on whether they assessed systems damage in any detail or not. There is no analysis or even discussion of structural damage in flicted in several different spot across the specimens. Everything is held in general terms and the statistical data is not broken down to the reader.

They also do not point out any assessment of structural loads under flying condtions compared to tested conditions.

 

The fact that they used a different engine to assess engine damage shows that they were not interested in the actual survivability of the airplanes, but rather a general idea of how effective each ammo used was.

 

Again: On should not read stuff into the report that isn't there.

 

Again: what you are doing is refusing to read in the report what is explicitly stated there: the very title is " Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness". The fact that they used a different engine to assess engine damage shows that the available resources were limited: that is all.

 

If they were only doing a general report into comparative damage output they just needed to do a ranking of MV, weight of shot, HE effects, RoF etc like the various other comparative studies that have been done.  This study is not limited to that issue.  The introduction discusses whether test results can help see if structural changes in future aircraft will alter vulnerability.   

 

Read Part 1: Basis for Assessments of Damage. They give detail of how the damage in test firing is recorded and assessed. In great detail.  Not only are probabilities given for the damage types by gun, but the confidence limits are given. (And BTW these do take into account compound damage in the assessment - see page 9 of the report).

 

BTW - "Nope" is not an argument. 

 

 

 

 

[Panthera]

@unreasonable Ok, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what the US OR analysis really is telling us, at least partly. 

 

But I trust we can agree that a P-47 surviving 9 hits by 30mm HE(M) shells isn't remotely realistic? I mean even if we go by the US OR probability analysis and add up "single hit" effects (i.e. no cumulative dmg effect), then a P-47 reaches the A category with 84% probability after just 3 hits. Ingame the P-47 can take 3 hits to the SAME area and still fly.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

49 minutes ago, Panthera said:

@unreasonable I don't read it as the probability of a kill with hits to the engine, I read it as the probability of a kill being due to a hit causing damage to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure. There's a difference, seeing as even a hit to the wing could kill the pilot straight away with a stray piece of shrapnel.

 

Either way the main point I wanted to address was that you claimed that the US OR analysis didn't agree with my comment about hits to the wings, which just isn't the case as the US OR analysis at no point addresses the likelihood of surviving hits to the wings, it doesn't even address the effects of more than one hit anywhere. Intead the analysis deal solely with the whole aircraft at once, and then calculating the likelihood of a single hit "kill" being due to a structure, engine, fuel tank or pilot failure.

 

 

No: look at the table. The line for the 3cm B kill (which includes A) reads

 

Engine       0.065

Structure   0.333

Pilot          0.040

Fuel tank  0.038

Overall       0.424   

 

The components add to 0.476 - greater than the overall probability: this shows that the possibility of hits affecting more than one component was taken into account.

 

If it was showing the probability of a kill being due to hits in engine, structure, pilot or fuel tank, then it would follow that there is a probability of a kill being due to a hit on some other component  of 0.576

 

Perhaps you can tell us where the majority of hits that cause kills are if they are not on engine, structure, pilot or fuel tank? 

 

Separately in the report there are several charts and graphs showing the Single shot probability of damage by weapon type and plane with no subdivision into engine, etc. These would make no sense if  your interpretation is correct.

Edited December 7, 2018 by unreasonable