German MK 108 footage - What did the effect on target look like and how much damage was done ?

[sevenless]

Since we have sidetracked the other thread a little with this interesting discussion (apologies for that), I think it would be the best to open a new thread to discuss, or share information, about the target effect of 30mm MK 108 fired by german fighter planes. So feel free to contribute. I think we all can learn something, and we might be able to make this sim even better.

 

We have identified three youtube flics so far, which might show that effect on target (still debatable what we really see):

 

1.) Film Nr. 9940, Look 7:17 - 9:17 sequence. Me 110 G2 (armament 2x 20mm and 2x 30mm) on B17 :

 

 

2.) Me 163 (armament 2xMK 108 30mm) attack on B17. Timestamp 40:38.

 

 

3.) Film Nr. 1141, Fw 190 A8  attack on B17, Timestamp 5:00:

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by sevenless

[CUJO_1970]

[sevenless]

Another likely candidate here:

 

Film Nr. 1194, FW190 A8 on B24 Liberator, Timestamp 9:40

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by sevenless

[OrLoK]

that pilot vs the lightning, did he have infinite ammo turned on?

[AndyJWest]

The problem with using guncam footage as a reference for gunfire damage is that the most spectacular footage tends to get selected. It shows what can happen, but tells you little about what usually does.

[sevenless]

21 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The problem with using guncam footage as a reference for gunfire damage is that the most spectacular footage tends to get selected. It shows what can happen, but tells you little about what usually does.

 

You certainly have a very valid point here. I think we all should keep in mind that at best we can get as close as a sensible approximation can get with available evidence and documentation. We have, however the possibility to supplement this with the pictures taken of the battered B17s and P47s which made it home to England.

Edited December 8, 2018 by sevenless

[AndyJWest]

25 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

You certainly have a very valid point here. I think we all should keep in mind that at best we can get as close as a sensible approximation can get with available evidence and documentation. We have, however the possibility to supplement this with the pictures taken of the battered B17s and P47s which made it home to England.

 

The pictures are also liable to be selective. Chosen because they look spectacular. Guncam footage of a few flakes of paint being knocked off an aircraft is less likely to be published, as are photos of the aircraft after it made it back to base. You can't 'approximate' damage from gunfire by looking at an atypical subset of results.

Edited December 8, 2018 by AndyJWest

[sevenless]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

The pictures are also liable to be selective. Chosen because they look spectacular. Guncam footage of a few flakes of paint being knocked off an aircraft is less likely to be published, as are photos of the aircraft after it made it back to base. You can't 'approximate' damage from gunfire by looking at an atypical subset of results.

 

I know of the possible limitations, but what else do you propose to get a valid approximation of the canon effect of the 30mm MK 108 on airframes?

[Panthera]

I don't seem to see any footage 30mm Mk108 fire anywhere? Only obvious 20mm MG151/20 fire.

 

15 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

The pictures are also liable to be selective. Chosen because they look spectacular. Guncam footage of a few flakes of paint being knocked off an aircraft is less likely to be published, as are photos of the aircraft after it made it back to base. You can't 'approximate' damage from gunfire by looking at an atypical subset of results.

 

That's why we should rely on the British & US test data, because a) we know what weapon was used and b) because esp. the former involves repeated firings to ensure any inconsistency is picked up.

 

The film clips used for propaganda purposes we can't be sure about, for instance it seems the clip of the attack on B-17 at 7:17 in the first post was also present in another set of clips, this time attributed to a Fw190A7:

https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=72

 

13 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I know of the possible limitations, but what else do you propose to get a valid approximation of the canon effect of the 30mm MK 108 on airframes?

 

The actual British trials?

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[AndyJWest]

10 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I know of the possible limitations, but what else do you propose to get a valid approximation of the canon effect of the 30mm MK 108 on airframes?

 

I'm not proposing anything here. I'm pointing out that your proposal isn't going to produce valid results.  In fact, I'm not entirely sure that it can produce any sort of numerical data at all. And without that, I can't see how it can be used to show that the current DM is in any way 'incorrect'.

Edited December 8, 2018 by AndyJWest

[Panthera]

I guess this needs reposted:

 

Cleaned up version of report (Apparently translated from British to Russian and then back to British again, hence the weird wording sometimes):

 

British MK108 Trials

Fired projectiles:

 

HE - FZ

HE / T - FST

Incendiary (Inc.) - Incendiary

Shelling made from Mk 108

 

Attack against single-engine fighter

 

• Targets: Spitfire Mk11B, equipped with armor and controls, but without engines
• Shooting conditions: The wings were attacked directly from behind (direct astern), and the fuselage at an angle of rotation of 10 ° 

 

Details on test:

 

10 shots were fired (it is worth noting that the mortality of a single shot was evaluated in this and subsequent trials. In other words, damage from other shots are not taken into account when estimating the mortality of a shot).

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

2 shots on the fuselage and 1 shot on the wing immediately became deadly. Others would probably be lethal too. Due to the disturbing action of the explosion, coupled with serious structural and aerodynamic (stalling) damage, each of the shots can lead to the immediate destruction of the aircraft

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Better than any descriptions of damage say photos and frames of filming. The numbering is in accordance with the table.

 

1. HE / T

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Shooting: (already familiar to many):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

2. HE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

3. HE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Shooting:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

5. HE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

6. HE

50 small fragments struck the cabin. Several of them would have hurt the pilot.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

7. HE / T 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

8. Inc.

Entrance:

  Reveal hidden contents

Damage at the exit of the projectile:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

10. HE / T

Left view:

  Reveal hidden contents

Right view :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

Post war 30mm MK108 & ADEN cannon trials:

 

(only the results with 30mm Mk108 posted)

 

Similarly, when attacking the forehead from the lower hemisphere with a pitch angle of 20 ° 2 HE, the shots on the wings were lethal in terms of both structural and aerodynamic damage.

Details on setting goals:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Aiming point:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Conclusion:

Inc., HE and HE / T are effective in inflicting lethal damage when firing wing and fuselage single-engine Spitfire fighters. For the most part, this requires one hit.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Attack against a twin-engine medium bomber

 

• Targets: Blenheim IV , equipped with armor and controls, but without engines
• Shooting conditions: the wings were attacked directly behind, and the fuselage at an angle of rotation of 10 ° from this position.

 
11 shots were fired . Each of the 3 shots immediately destroyed the fuselage. 7 shots on the wings would probably be lethal, and the remaining 1 shotdid not cause damage, since the projectile did not detonate.

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Damage photos and film shots. The numbering is in accordance with the table:

 

11. HE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

12. HE / T

  Reveal hidden contents

 

13. HE / T 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

14. Inc.

The fuel tank was filled with water.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

15. Inc.

The fuel tank was filled with water.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

16. HE

  Reveal hidden contents

 

17. HE / T

  Reveal hidden contents

 

19. Inc.

The fuel tank was filled with water. Judging by the damage to the tank, the wing would have burned.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

21. HE

Left view:

  Reveal hidden contents

Right view :

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Shooting:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Conclusion:

Inc., HE, and HE / T are effective in inflicting lethal damage when firing on the wings and fuselage of Blenheim-type twin-engine medium bomber. For the most part, this requires one hit.

 

 

Sources :

• Trials of German 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, HWB and Macdonald, JA, Orfordness reseach station FT343, May 1945
• 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, HWB, Orfordness reseach station FT359, August 1946
• Trials of Aden 30mm, HWB and Smith, AE, Technical Note No. Arm.440 Orfordness reseach station FT377 , July 1950 ( given comparisons withGerman 30 mm )

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD]

11 minutes ago, sevenless said:

what else do you propose to get a valid approximation of the canon effect of the 30mm MK 108 on airframes?

 

Maybe the postwar US study that has already been linked on this forum several times?

[Panthera]

I did find this one clip of a Fw190A8 attacking a B-17 where there are two hits from what could be Mk108 gun fire:

https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=270

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[sevenless]

22 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

, I can't see how it can be used to show that the current DM is in any way 'incorrect'.

 

Just to make that cristal clear. My intention is not to show if the DM is correct or incorrect. My intention is to learn what data can be gathered on the topic to have a ressource that everyone might be able to draw conclusions from. But as you already have mentioned that you have nothing constructive to contribute I thank you very much for your concerns.

 

32 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

The actual British trials?

 

Thanks for posting them here. Very valuable data.

 

10 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I did find this one clip of a Fw190A8 attacking a B-17 where there are two hits from what could be Mk108 gun fire:

https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=270

 

Which timestamp please?

 

18 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Maybe the postwar US study that has already been linked on this forum several times?

 

Thanks. Didn´t know that one.

Edited December 8, 2018 by sevenless

[Panthera]

7 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Thanks for posting them here. Very valuable data.

 

No problem, like I said earlier I think we should rely on these + the US data as we know these focus on the typical damage to be expected by this weapon.

 

The problem with the gun camera footage is we don't know what weapon is doing the shooting, and apparently the same clip was sometimes appears twice with a different caption, making it even harder to assess.

 

Sadly the main LW gun camera archive was destroyed at the end of the war in a bombing raid on Dresden, hence why we only have a few propoganda reels available.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

The problem with the gun camera footage is we don't know what weapon is doing the shooting, and apparently the same clip was sometimes appears twice with a different caption, making it even harder to assess.

 

That is correct. Because of that it is best to identify the clip by its original "Film Nr." as I did above where possible.

[Panthera]

Just now, sevenless said:

 

That is correct. Because of that it is best to identify the clip by its original "Film Nr." as I did above where possible.

 

Well even then it is sketchy seeing as they are all from propoganda film reels. Sadly most of the originals didn't survive the war.

[sevenless]

35 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I don't seem to see any footage 30mm Mk108 fire anywhere? Only obvious 20mm MG151/20 fire.

 

That is and most certainly will forever indeed be debatable. Only possibility is to have an educated guess. By example it might be unlikely for a 30mm armed Fw190 or Me110 to use only 20mm or 13mm guns when aproaching a B17 for 20 or 90 seconds from sixoclock. But it is a guess, nothing more nothing less.

[Panthera]

11 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Which timestamp please?

 

I linked it to start at the time stamp of 4:30 min. I can indentify two hits which looks very much like damage done by Mk108 fire on each wing. Looks catastrophic.

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well even then it is sketchy seeing as they are all from propoganda film reels. Sadly most of the originals didn't survive the war.

 

Agreed, we need to have that in mind. On the other hand, if you, by example, find no Michael Bay like huge explosions on these films, one might rightfully conclude that those weren´t there back then.

[unreasonable]

Having read the British report Panthera posted again, I am still of the view that it is showing the optimum results for the 30mm shell. The shots at the wing were all fired into the meat of the wing -  "six inches aft of the leading edge". You can see that the detonation happened in the middle of the wing in each case. An almost certain kill , no doubt.

 

But what if the shells had been aimed six inches forwards of the trailing edge?  The wing is much thinner there, some of the shells could pass through and explode outside the wing altogether. Perhaps the rear edge of the wing would have a bite taken out, but that might not be a kill. The UK tests are not showing the effects of random hits over the whole aspect of the plane from the firing angle.  So I think we should be very cautious in concluding that hits from mineshells should have close to 100% instant lethality. 

[Panthera]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

That is and most certainly will forever indeed be debatable. Only possibility is to have an educated guess. By example it might be unlikely for a 30mm armed Fw190 or Me110 to use only 20mm or 13mm guns when aproaching a B17 for 20 or 90 seconds from sixoclock. But it is a guess, nothing more nothing less.

 

Well thing is they weren't always carrying that armament, and once more we have no clue if it was actually a 110 or 190 doing the shooting as it is footage from propoganda reels where the same footage was often reused with different captions.

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

 

I linked it to start at the time stamp of 4:30 min. I can indentify two hits which looks very much like damage done by Mk108 fire on each wing. Looks catastrophic.

 

Thanks, I see. That is the same as the flick above in the first post. 

 

3.) Film Nr. 1141, Fw 190 A8  attack on B17, Timestamp 5:00:

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I don't know why they are posted here almost as a fact, but the 190 and 110 shots don't seem like 108 at all, they are normal 20mm and don't belong in that channel, they are just misleading people.

 

I have more sources on 108. It took on average 3-4 shots to kill a B-17 and 20-25 20mm Minengeschoss. The source is a book stached at my parents, i'll post it as soon as i visit them the next time.

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

I have more sources on 108. It took on average 3-4 shots to kill a B-17 and 20-25 20mm Minengeschoss. The source is a book stached at my parents, i'll post it as soon as i visit them the next time.

 

That´s great. Looking forward to that.

[Panthera]

7 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

I don't know why they are posted here almost as a fact, but the 190 and 110 shots don't seem like 108 at all, they are normal 20mm and don't belong in that channel, they are just misleading people.

 

I have more sources on 108. It took on average 3-4 shots to kill a B-17 and 20-25 20mm Minengeschoss. The source is a book stached at my parents, i'll post it as soon as i visit them the next time.

 

I agree that there doesn't seem to be much if any shots of Mk108 fire in the films showed, most of it is obvious 20mm or 13mm fire. Although I did manage to pick out one clip which might be Mk108 fire, as the damage done here seems consistent with what we've seen in actual testing.

 

And yes the LW itself did reach an average of 3-4 hits to down a B-17 or B-24 based on their very own gun camera footage of this weapon.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[sevenless]

26 minutes ago, Panthera said:

And yes the LW itself did reach an average of 3-4 hits to down a B-17 or B-24 based on their very own gun camera footage of this weapon.

 

It would be great if we could get a hold on that footage. As for the footage linked in this thread above by me, as already stated, there are uncertainties as if there is indeed 30mm on the footage, or if it is 20mm or 13mm. If somebody could offer something more convincing, feel free to bring it up and post it here, so that everyone can make up his mind and compare the footages.

Edited December 8, 2018 by sevenless

[Panthera]

22 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Having read the British report Panthera posted again, I am still of the view that it is showing the optimum results for the 30mm shell. The shots at the wing were all fired into the meat of the wing -  "six inches aft of the leading edge". You can see that the detonation happened in the middle of the wing in each case. An almost certain kill , no doubt.

 

But what if the shells had been aimed six inches forwards of the trailing edge?  The wing is much thinner there, some of the shells could pass through and explode outside the wing altogether. Perhaps the rear edge of the wing would have a bite taken out, but that might not be a kill. The UK tests are not showing the effects of random hits over the whole aspect of the plane from the firing angle.  So I think we should be very cautious in concluding that hits from mineshells should have close to 100% instant lethality. 

 

There are also examples of the rounds in the test hitting at extreme angles high up on the wing and detonating on impact, the damage remained lethal:

 

 

All in all the British test really was quite conclusive as to the average damage to be expected. They only experienced a single dud out of all rounds fired.

 

12 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

It would be great if we could get a hold on that footage. As for the footage linked in this thread above by me, as already stated, there are uncertainties as if there is indeed 30mm on the footage, or if it is 20mm or 13mm. If somebody could offer something more convoncing, feel free to bring it up and post it here, so that everyone can make up his mind and compare the footages.

 

It was pretty much all destroyed in Dresden in 1945 where the LW's gun camera archive burned to the ground.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, Panthera said:

It was pretty much all destroyed in Dresden in 1945 where the LW's gun camera archive burned to the ground.

 

Ah I see. Too bad.

[Panthera]

Just now, sevenless said:

 

Ah I see. Too bad.

 

Yeah it was very unlucky too as the LW thought it was safe by placing it inside a church, thinking the Allies would try to avoid the landmark. Unfortunately strategic bombing aint particularly accurate ☹️

[sevenless]

28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The UK tests are not showing the effects of random hits over the whole aspect of the plane from the firing angle.  So I think we should be very cautious in concluding that hits from mineshells should have close to 100% instant lethality. 

 

I agree on that. We don´t see the random factor here and somehow have "best case" laboratory conditions.

[Ouky1991]

I hope the mk 108 gets fixed asap. The K-4 is unplayable at this point. I don't get it, we had great damage model for years. Why try to imrove something that already works? Who asked for this? It makes me sad that devs invested so much work and time for this.

 

I've tried to take down p-47 with cannon only, shot the middle of the wing 4 times and all it did was a couple of tiny holes. Had to shoot engine to bring it down. Please fix this.

[Panthera]

5 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I agree on that. We don´t see the random factor here and somehow have "best case" laboratory conditions.

 

I really don't understand this, as really if anything the results should be conservative considering they are against an aircraft sitting still on the ground and not being subject to the stresses present during flight. 

 

Furthermore the "best case" theory just doesn't apply anymore when the firings are repeated several times with different aiming points and against different targets. 

 

To me it seems the people who claim these tests are "best case" scenario are simply unwilling to accept the results because they wouldn't like to see such damage present ingame. That's my opinion.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

43 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Maybe the postwar US study that has already been linked on this forum several times?

 

That report seems to annoy people for some reason.... 

Basically it gives far lower single shot kill probabilities than some people find plausible. I find the report entirely plausible: it certainly gives somewhat lower single shot probabilities for a 37mm HE shell vs the P-47 than I am experiencing in game testing. 

3 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I really don't understand this, as really if anything the results should be conservative considering they are against an aircraft sitting still on the ground and not being subject to the stresses present during flight. 

 

Furthermore the "best case" theory just doesn't apply anymore when the firings are repeated several times with different aiming points and against different targets. 

 

To me it seems the people who claim these tests are "best case" scenario are simply unwilling to accept the results because they wouldn't like to see such damage present ingame. That's my opinion.

 

It is explicitly stated  in the report you posted: the wing shots were along the wing, but all at a set distance in from the trailing edge. They are not a random distribution of hits.

[Panthera]

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

It is explicitly stated  in the report you posted: the wing shots were along the wing, but all at a set distance in from the trailing edge. They are not a random distribution of hits.

 

No unreasonable, that's from the post war 1950's 30mm MK108 & ADEN trial where shots were fired from the front only. You've missed the fact that it's not just one report in that post. (You could've spotted that in the source list placed at the bottom)

 

You really are making all the wrong conclusions at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Btw the picture posted earlier by CUJO demonstrates well how the forces present during flight just makes everything worse:

There is clear evidence of a hit just behind the inboard engine, with the internal structure there having suffered obvious damage, however a very large piece of surface skin a good distance away from the impact point has been peeled off by the wind pressure in flight, uncovering internal structure clearly untouched. 

 

From a different angle:

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[II./JG77_Manu*]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

That report seems to annoy people for some reason.... 

Basically it gives far lower single shot kill probabilities than some people find plausible. I find the report entirely plausible: it certainly gives somewhat lower single shot probabilities for a 37mm HE shell vs the P-47 than I am experiencing in game testing. 

 

You mean the report that states, that it's almost 50:50 that the first MK108 hit will kill a P47? So basically, almost every second attack on P47s should result in the Mk108 killing it with the first hit. That's not at all what we see in game right now, not by a long distance. That's not even the case for a lot less rugged aircraft like the Yak or the Spit

Edited December 8, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*

[sevenless]

10 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I really don't understand this, as really if anything the results should be conservative considering they are against an aircraft sitting still on the ground and not being subject to the stresses present during flight. 

 

Furthermore the "best case" theory just doesn't apply anymore when the firings are repeated several times with different aiming points and against different targets. 

 

To me it seems the people who claim these tests are "best case" scenario are simply unwilling to accept the results because they wouldn't like to see such damage present ingame. That's my opinion.

 

I gladly elaborate on my statement. I agree with @unreasonable that this firing trial does show "best case" settings and no random factor. As for the random factor: Would there be one, there would be problems to interpret the results. However I would have liked to see what might happen if hits were scored at the edge of the wing or on the engine. However...

 

As for the results of the trial, as far as I have understood them, I agree with the conclusion that in most cases "at least one" hit would be lethal to the testplanes, so to my understanding that are two direct hits maximum and the plane in question is dead. Other planes than Spitfire or Blenheim, which might have been build structurally more sturdy, might have required two hits or more (my guess max 3). Nevertheless the structural damage inflicted by such a round surely would knock out every single seater latest after the 2nd direct hit. In case of twin-engined planes 2-3 hits might have been necessary dependant on where they hit.

[Legioneod]

27 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That report seems to annoy people for some reason.... 

Basically it gives far lower single shot kill probabilities than some people find plausible. I find the report entirely plausible: it certainly gives somewhat lower single shot probabilities for a 37mm HE shell vs the P-47 than I am experiencing in game testing. 

 

It is explicitly stated  in the report you posted: the wing shots were along the wing, but all at a set distance in from the trailing edge. They are not a random distribution of hits.

 

Probably because people want a meme cannon that kills everything in one hit. Fact is the Mk 108 in game is still plenty lethal it's just that players don't have the visual cues that they'd usually have.

 

Took me 1 shot to damage a P-47 severly and two more shots to take him out of the fight completely, I've also kill them with a single Mk 108 round. Players need to learn to aim, or at least aim for vital areas of the aircraft instead of the wing.

 

One hit to the cockpit and the pilot is dead, or one hit to the engine and it will die very soon. You can do a single pass on any aircraft and as long as you get good hits the plane will go down eventually a majority of the time.

 

Players are too accustomed to seeing instant kills when in reality instant kills weren't always the case, sometimes the aircraft did not go down until much later.

 

It's best to make a good pass and move on to the next target.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Legioneod

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I gladly elaborate on my statement. I agree with @unreasonable that this firing trial does show "best case" settings and no random factor. As for the random factor: Would there be one, there would be problems to interpret the results. However I would have liked to see what might happen if hits were scored at the edge of the wing or on the engine. However...

 

They did achieve hits on the edges too in the tests, actual glancing hits where the round detonated on top of the skin. I posted two pictures of this abit further up on this page.

 

Hits further down simply punched through despite the angle (you can see the entry point in the aileron on this wing tip hit):

 

[unreasonable]

25 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

That's from the post war 30mm MK108 & ADEN trial where shots were fired from the front only. It's not just one report in that post unreasonable.

 

You really are making all the wrong conclusions at this point.

 

 

The only conclusion I am making is that there is a difference between the average number of hits required to down a plane, taking into account all the shells that do not end up in the optimum position, and the best case hits.

 

15 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

You mean the report that states, that it's almost 50:50 that the first MK108 hit will kill a P47? So basically, almost every second attack on P47s should result in the Mk108 killing it with the first hit. That's not at all what we see in game right now, not by a long distance. That's not even the case for a lot less rugged aircraft like the Yak or the Spit

 

It is not 50:50 - the one shot probability for a B kill is ~42%  A "B kill" means that the plane will not RTB, going down within half an hour. It includes "A kills" in which a plane is expected to go down in 5 minutes. The one shot probability for that is given as ~29%

 

In game people expect to see kill results in a lot less than five minutes, so I think people should be taking the 29% number as a starting point for the P-47. 

 

As for what is happening in the game with the Mk108 now I have no idea. I have no opinion on whether it is modeled correctly, have not tested it myself, and have not seen any systematic testing done by anyone else. My interest at this point is in establishing a sensible basis from which to compare game results. 

 

What I have started testing is the P-47's ability to survive hits from 3.7mm Flak 36, which I will post when I have done enough runs to be happy with the average.  So far it looks as though it will be an A kill about 60% of the time after one hit, and surviving two is fairly rare.

Edited December 8, 2018 by unreasonable