Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

9 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and its ok for them to servive multiple hits from 37mm?

The results are somewhat surprising and not what I was expecting to happen. I would recommend that you set up a QM and set your second flight to say A-20s and then shoot at them with the 37 mm or use the P-39.

Edited December 11, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[TWC_Ace]

Im surprised devs are even aksing this. Now the DM is much more realistic according to everything we can read and see from that time.

Edited December 11, 2018 by blackram

[Livai]

8 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and its ok for them to servive multiple hits from 37mm?

 

for them and our Beta Tester? 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 minutes ago, Livai said:

for them and our Beta Tester? 

I cannot discuss Beta or testing information but you could go online with a friend and shoot at each other in level flight and record the results or set up a QM and do some current testing with  3.008

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 If German calculations based on combat showed 3-5 hits of MK108 were enough to down or critically damage a 4 engine bomber in reality and in game it takes over 5 rounds just to kill a fighter plane, like in that video above, something is way off. Same German tests concluded 1-2 hits were enough to kill a fighter. There are plenty of British tests and pictures on the subject where a single 30mm round cuts Spitfire fuselage and Blenheim fuselage in half. One single hit. And the video on Spitfire wing single shot cripples it so badly that if plane was in flight with the aerodynamic forces in play, it would snap off or make plane quite unflyable. In game planes are hit multiple times and still continue fighting and flying. So while the DM definitely has evolved it needs some tweaking.

[[110]xJammer]

After some discussion on discord I'd just like to give a comparison.

 

MK108 uses 80 grams of RDX explosive (someone said its HA 41 which is 80% RDX and 20% alu). This is equivalent to around 150 grams of TNT.

 

This here is a potato masher HE (not fragmentation) infantry grenade from WW2, pretty iconic image:

 

 

If this wiki can be trusted it uses 170g of TNT load.

 

 

So basically every 30mm hit is this hand grenade going off inside of the aircraft.

 

 

 

I really like the new damage model. It is definitely better than what we used to have. But it desperately needs correct FM damage (https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/41600-aerodynamic-damage-and-stallspin-characteristics/?tab=comments#comment-704784). And the large calibre ammunition appears to underperform pretty badly. 

[sevenless]

21 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Mg151/20 Mineshell has 18,7 g filler. Also splinters need to be factored in too. Its not just explosives.

 

corrected that above in my post and added Minengeschoss.

 

shell weight ratio (30mm/20mm Mine) = 3,47 times

HE filler weight ratio (30mm/20mm Mine) = 4,5 times

 

That leaves us with roughly 4 times the destructive power of the 20mm Minengeschoss. 2,5 times more effective is just too low.

[303_Kwiatek]

16 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 If German calculations based on combat showed 3-5 hits of MK108 were enough to down or critically damage a 4 engine bomber in reality and in game it takes over 5 rounds just to kill a fighter plane, like in that video above, something is way off. Same German tests concluded 1-2 hits were enough to kill a fighter. There are plenty of British tests and pictures on the subject where a single 30mm round cuts Spitfire fuselage and Blenheim fuselage in half. One single hit. And the video on Spitfire wing single shot cripples it so badly that if plane was in flight with the aerodynamic forces in play, it would snap off or make plane quite unflyable. In game planes are hit multiple times and still continue fighting and flying. So while the DM definitely has evolved it needs some tweaking.

 

Not only 30mm seemed to be weak but also all 20 mm cannons.  For me new DM step backward.   Before 3.08 weapons effectivess was more realistic then now expecially regarding cannons. Now there are many situtation when you hit a many rounds from 20 mm and target is still flying and fighting. Before it was very rare ( mostly LAgg3 and P-40 could survive these) now most fighters are too strong.

 

New DM could be ok but all cannons neeed to be more powerfull.

Edited December 11, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[CountZero]

21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The results are somewhat surprising and not what I was expecting to happen. I would recommend that you set up a QM and set your second flight to say A-20s and then shoot at them with the 37 mm or use the P-39.

i could only see vvs 37 and see that its underperforming on visual efects of damage like 30mm, but like 30mm doing internal damage on 1st o 2nd hit that would eliminate single engine fighters from fight. I dont have P-39 so i hope some one will see how effective is that 37mm vs 109s 190s now. As if its expected now in 3.008 that after 1-2 30mm enemy fighters should fall apart, same should be exected from 37mm guns vs axis fighters.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

As someone who spend most time in a Pe-2:

 

It's now a bit tougher than I would have expected.  Which model is more accurate (B3.008 or A3.008) I'm not really qualified to say.

 

I think it's an excellent job that when my pilot or crew are injured it is a lot more likely that the cockpit will get all smashed up as well.  Before 3.008, it seemed that the crew could be killed and the pilot near-death but the cockpit and canopy glass would remain pristine.  Now, even individual gauges on the dash panel can be destroyed and others left undamaged.  Good work on that!  S! 

 

I don't know if it's always been and I'm just noticing because of the update, or if it's been improved with the update, but I'm really liking the current damage decals.  Nothing like looking at one of the still 100% (left/right) engines and seeing just how close you came to having a 0% engine!     

[Legioneod]

New DM is superior hands down. Definitely an improvement compared to the previous model. I understand that there may be some "problems" with the Mk 108 but personally I've had no trouble using them to take out fighters with a few hits. I think the main problem is players are used to instant kills and gratification.

 

I'm not saying theres nothing wrong with the Mk 108 but I don't think it's as serious as some players claim. especially when I've used it with little trouble.

[wonders9]

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 If German calculations based on combat showed 3-5 hits of MK108 were enough to down or critically damage a 4 engine bomber in reality and in game it takes over 5 rounds just to kill a fighter plane, like in that video above, something is way off. Same German tests concluded 1-2 hits were enough to kill a fighter. There are plenty of British tests and pictures on the subject where a single 30mm round cuts Spitfire fuselage and Blenheim fuselage in half. One single hit. And the video on Spitfire wing single shot cripples it so badly that if plane was in flight with the aerodynamic forces in play, it would snap off or make plane quite unflyable. In game planes are hit multiple times and still continue fighting and flying. So while the DM definitely has evolved it needs some tweaking.

 

+1

 

The 3.008 DM is the alpha or beta version of an improved model.

  

Edited December 12, 2018 by wonders9

[ITAF_Rani]

9 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

i feel even more safer in lagg23 seing this  

did you test maybe vvs and p-39 37mm vs 109s or 190s, or only problem is 30mm vs allied airplanes in 3.008

Sure stalinwood is mk 108 proof....comoooon !!!!

 

Guys you say  it is normal hit 4-5  of mk 108 to destroy a Fighter ?. what are you  talking about? Are you kidding?

Look for the 1000 time this video pls

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by ITAF_Rani

[Legioneod]

29 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Sure stalinwood is mk 108 proof....comoooon !!!!

 

Guys you say  it is normal hit 4-5  of mk 108 to destroy a Fighter ?. what are you  talking about? Are you kidding?

Look for the 1000 time this video pls

 

 One video oe one test doesn't prove anything. Should a yak or lagg be able to stand up to more than 1-2 hits to the wing? No, of course not but that doesn't mean other aircraft can't. It's completely plausible that a P-47 or Spitfire could survive more than one hit to the wing area.

 

It can't be a one hit kill every single time, there is always the possibility of surviving.

 

I agree if shouldn't take 10 rounds to take down a fighter (it doesn't, it really only takes 1-3 rounds at most to get a kill though not necessarily an instant kill)

[ITAF_Rani]

I love the sim and the Devs are  doing a great job.

Also I like the new patch, but about the Mk 108 effectiveness have some doubts . Of course can be case and case but hitting with Mk 108 from short distance like 6 clock must be devastating for an enemy fighter

Edited December 12, 2018 by ITAF_Rani

[6FG_Big_Al]

Personally I love the new DM of 3.008.

For me it doesn't feel like the big calibers (like the MK 108 etc.) are weaker. Thanks for the continuous work on IL-2. Hopefully there will be more soon

[6./ZG26_Custard]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It's completely plausible that a P-47 or Spitfire could survive more than one hit to the wing area.

It completely acceptable that both aircraft could survive 1 or even 2 hits from a 30 mm round given a variable of conditions (angle etc) but fighter aircraft surviving 6 to 8  30 mm hits without structural failure really doesn't seem plausible.  You can definitely  get one shot kills with the MK 108 if you hit the aircraft say in the engine, or kill the pilot. Flying straight and level or turning to allow friends to take shots at you for a few hours provides interesting results.

 

Edit: I really like the new damage model but personally the 30 mm just don't seem to have the punch they should have.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Guys you say  it is normal hit 4-5  of mk 108 to destroy a Fighter ?. what are you  talking about? Are you kidding?

 

4-5 hits for the BOMBER, as the Luftwaffe saying goes. 1 max 2 hits for a fighter, which is corroborated by the british tests.

[Ribbon]

16 hours ago, Matt said:

Damage by AP is better now, damage by HE needs to be stronger overall, especially blast damage. So i don't vote for either.

 

Also incendiary rounds need to be added.

This^^^

[SAS_Storebror]

2 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

about the Mk 108 effectiveness have some doubts . Of course can be case and case but hitting with Mk 108 from short distance like 6 clock must be devastating for an enemy fighter

I'm tempted to say that at the distance shown in @77.CountZero's video, the shots (and the debris caused by them) should almost be lethal to the chasing 109 as well.

Which leads me to my next thought... If the devs would turn the 108 into the 1-shot-wonder demanded by so many people here, will you also want to suffer the collateral damage to your plane when you shoot from straight six, or is ammo effectivity something that should only apply to your victims?

 

Mike

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I'm tempted to say that at the distance shown in @77.CountZero's video, the shots (and the debris caused by them) should almost be lethal to the chasing 109 as well.

Which leads me to my next thought... If the devs would turn the 108 into the 1-shot-wonder demanded by so many people here, will you also want to suffer the collateral damage to your plane when you shoot from straight six, or is ammo effectivity something that should only apply to your victims?

 

Mike

Outrageous!!! Everyone knows the Mk 108 would disintegrate any aircraft, so there would be no possible way for flying debris to damage you.?

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

9 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

will you also want to suffer the collateral damage to your plane when you shoot from straight six, or is ammo effectivity something that should only apply to your victims?

Absolutely both.

The same should apply in this video and the 109 should be toast from collateral damage.

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Absolutely both.

The same should apply in this video and the 109 should be toast from collateral damage.

 

 

 

Kind of insane imo, in reality that would produce a lot of debris, that 109 would be in pretty rough shape (at least the prop/engine would imo)

[LLv34_Untamo]

18 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

...will you also want to suffer the collateral damage to your plane when you shoot from straight six...

 

Of course! I still fly old IL-2, and in this SEOW campaign we are having currently, flew with my Ki-84 Ic a bit too close to a Corsair, fired my 30mm wing cannons (not making any comparisons to Mk108 here) at it, and got hit by shrapnel and got a fuel leak on my aircraft. I recognize this as totally my own fault. Similar to dropping a bomb too low with too short fuse. Pilot error.
 

 

[Aap]

33 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Kind of insane imo, in reality that would produce a lot of debris, that 109 would be in pretty rough shape

 

I think what is even more noteworthy, in reality so big part of that P47 would turn into debris that if the first hit was not making it unflyable, the second should at least seal the deal. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

33 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Kind of insane imo, in reality that would produce a lot of debris, that 109 would be in pretty rough shape (at least the prop/engine would imo

Both aircraft in a real situation would most likely have suffered catastrophic failure after one or two hits. You can receive damage from control surfaces,  that are shot off and striking your prop taking out you engine etc due to collateral damage in the current build.

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Sure stalinwood is mk 108 proof....comoooon !!!!

 

Guys you say  it is normal hit 4-5  of mk 108 to destroy a Fighter ?. what are you  talking about? Are you kidding?

Look for the 1000 time this video pls

 

 

So 37mm shooting at axis fighters should not brake them in 1-2 shoot, and 30mm shooting at allied fighters should brake them in 1-2 shoot, or your only see problems for one side with high cal guns in 3.008 ? Reading most complains about new DM people make it sound like only problem is 30mm HE and nothing els, but i guess that stalinwood coment tels me all i need to know ...

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

4-5 hits for the BOMBER, as the Luftwaffe saying goes. 1 max 2 hits for a fighter, which is corroborated by the british tests.

 

But not by the US tests.  B-25 is twin engined: you can expect the B-17 to be somewhat tougher.  

 

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

But not by the US tests.  B-25 is twin engined: you can expect the B-17 to be somewhat tougher.  

 

 

That´s why I said "as the Luftwaffe saying goes". I have not seen any evidence of a ko´ed B17 by 4 hits either.

 

Edit: Just looking at the tables and checking if I understand them correctly:

 

Overall Propability P-47: 

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 28,8%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 42,4%

 

Overall Propability B-25 (all fuel cells full):

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 10,1%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 16,1%

 

anecdotal multipliers "as the Luftwaffe saying goes"

 

Overall Propability P-47: 

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 28,8%; x 2 Hits = 57,6%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 42,4%; x 2 Hits = 84,8%

 

Overall Propability B-25 (all fuel cells full):

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 10,1%; x 4 Hits = 40,4%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 16,1%; x 4 Hits = 64,4%

 

Are we there yet (even in the ballpark) with ingame results?

Edited December 12, 2018 by sevenless
edited for hypothetic calculation

[Danziger]

As someone that flies earlier planes and uses smaller calibre guns, I can definitely say I like this step forward in damage modeling. I used to be able to run up behind a 111 or Ju88 formation in my MiG and just hose them all down. Now the German gunners have become pretty lethal. The smaller caliber guns may not disintegrate your plane straight away but they will inflict some initially minor that turns into frustratingly major damage later on. Now I choose a single bomber as a victim from far away and make a quick pass and get out. I still have no problem setting engines on fire. 

 

I have noticed that I can take a ton of non-catastrophic damage (no engine failure but wings like swiss cheese) and still fly completely normal. 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

In my he111, I can still rip the entire tailfin straight off by shooting a few bursts at the very top centimeter of it with the defensive 13mm MG

I can also still cleanly saw the whole rear fuselage in half just by aiming at the base of the tailfin and firing continuously until the gun overheats 

Visual damage model by shooting at the tail fin root with the dorsal MG still goes all the way up to the cockpit, engine nacelles and inner section of the wings.

 

I've had even on some rare occasions while doing such testings damaged the aileron trim rod...

 

So, as far as the new damage model goes, I don't see any difference in what really bugged me in the previous version, at least for the planes that I'm interested in.

Edited December 12, 2018 by F/JG300_Gruber

[216th_Jordan]

It's really interesting to see that the Russian poll is much more shifted than ours. Wonder why that is..

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

That´s why I said "as the Luftwaffe saying goes". I have not seen any evidence of a ko´ed B17 by 4 hits either.

 

Edit: Just looking at the tables and checking if I understand them correctly:

 

Overall Propability P-47: 

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 28,8%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 42,4%

 

Overall Propability B-25 (all fuel cells full):

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 10,1%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 16,1%

 

anecdotal multipliers "as the Luftwaffe saying goes"

 

Overall Propability P-47: 

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 28,8%; x 2 Hits = 57,6%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 42,4%; x 2 Hits = 84,8%

 

Overall Propability B-25 (all fuel cells full):

- A-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 10,1%; x 4 Hits = 40,4%

- B-Kill after ONE 30mm MK 108 hit = 16,1%; x 4 Hits = 64,4%

 

Are we there yet (even in the ballpark) with ingame results?

 

Yes, that is what the table says for one hit - from that angle.  But the second section is not how you calculate cumulative probabilities.

 

Say for a one hit probability of 0.288 - then the probability of surviving one hit is 1 - 0.288 = 0.712 

 

If the hits have independent effects (not entirely true but establishes one limit) the the probability of surviving 2 hits = 0.712 * 0.712 = 0.507, so the probability of being downed on hit one or two is 1 - 0.507 =  0.493 and so on: 3 hits survival is 0.507 * 0.712 = 0.361: so even after three hits about a third of the planes are not downed.  You can trust me on this or consult a statistic textbook.  

 

The larger the target and the smaller the effect of each shot the more closely the assumption that the hits have independent effects will hold. Later hits may have an increasing probability of causing a kill if they strike an already damaged area,  and it would be possible to make some heroic assumptions to calculate the revised probability distribution for larger shells and smaller targets, but given the overall uncertainty I see little point. 

 

The pictures of devastating damage posted (again and again) are not the only contemporary evidence. The GAF probably derived it's estimates of how many shots were required from examining downed planes where these were in a suitable state.  So what they could see had a selection bias: they could not see the planes that managed to RTB after being hit. So while I think it is entirely possible that the average number of 3cm hits on the downed bombers they could examine was say 3-4, there is no way AFAIK of telling from that what proportion of bombers that took 3-4 hits were downed. You have to be able to count all the hits to tell that, and they could not do it.    The US OR study, in contrast, had people estimate the results from tests and use a variety of assumptions and calculations.  IMHO it is a much better source.   

 

 

[Aap]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

But not by the US tests.  B-25 is twin engined: you can expect the B-17 to be somewhat tougher. 

 

Interesting test reports, even though they don't really tell how many rounds in average it would take to down a plane.

What is the difference between "A" and "B" kills in this report?

[unreasonable]

A is crashed or out of control within five minutes of being hit. B is fails to RTB, base being two hours away. B includes A.

 

Note that not even the "A" is the insta-kill people crave.

 

Read/download here.  https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

 

[JaffaCake]

It is an interesting consideration that while indeed we are not aware of how many 3-5 hit B17s made it home, what we are aware of is that the number of B17 downed with more than 3-5 hits would be fewer. I am not in the position to run proper stats on this, but I'm convinced that we could compute a relation between the estimate of the side that only considers shot down planes and a side that only considers live aircraft RTB with damage.

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

It is an interesting consideration that while indeed we are not aware of how many 3-5 hit B17s made it home, what we are aware of is that the number of B17 downed with more than 3-5 hits would be fewer. I am not in the position to run proper stats on this, but I'm convinced that we could compute a relation between the estimate of the side that only considers shot down planes and a side that only considers live aircraft RTB with damage.

 

Maybe - but: what the survivor side knows is not only the number of planes RTB with 1 hit, 2 hits etc but also the total number of planes hit out of X sorties: being all the hit survivors + the lost planes.  The Germans could not know that.  So the Wald type analysis in reverse would not, I suspect, work, but I admit this is beyond my pay-grade. 

 

 

[sevenless]

I found this online. Interesting read and maybe helpfull for the devs?

 

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

 

© Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel Gustin (with acknowledgements to Henning Ruch)

 Revised August 2013

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[Mauf]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

I found this online. Interesting read and maybe helpfull for the devs?

 

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

 

© Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel Gustin (with acknowledgements to Henning Ruch)

 Revised August 2013

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

That's cute and all... you could call this the equivalent of the Spitfire 30mm video. All things at optimal conditions. For our discussion here, it's not really a factor. Nobody here says a 30mm shell should be less powerful than a 20mm or a .50 cal. What is being discussed is how efficient these shells were at turning their potential into damage and there are a lot of factors at play that influence this.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Mauf

[[110]xJammer]

4 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

That's cute and all... his rebuttal later on the site pretty much puts it to rest though. 

The way of calculating the chemical destructiveness is too crude

And it is. He's assuming 100% efficiency of the charge and doesn't bother with any locality effects at all. So in a sense: he's just looking at stuff if it were 100% efficient in applying the damage and there, the higher calibers always come out on top (I would still love to see those references for why he puts the x10 multiplier on the chemical load as well. Sounds like sekrit soviet dokument, dah?).

 

 

 

Honestly though, red herrings like "Locality effects" doesn't get much more vague than that. Yes the cited work is crude, but in combination with the field tests and multiple pictures people have shown, its pretty clear that current high calibre damage is underestimated. I'm not even bringing up 20mms here as that is another topic on its own.