Jump to content
AnPetrovich

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

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

289 members have voted

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

    • Befoe 3.008
      65
    • After 3.008
      224


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, xJammer said:

 

 

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.

I amended my post a bit to make it more clear and less picky. Point still stands: There's more at play when it comes to the application in the DM than just raw potential. It's clear to me after rereading that the site doesn't try to answer this at all, it's just looking at raw potential.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to change my vote? 

Edited by L3Pl4K

Share this post


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

I amended my post a bit to make it more clear and less picky. Point still stands: There's more at play when it comes to the application in the DM than just raw potential.

 

Absolutely. Just remember its not all in the negative for larger calibres. You can argue that you need larger explosive mass for it to be able to exceed the yield/tensile strength of the material to cause permanent damage.

 

Edit ---- At the end of the day we can argue all we want with numbers and statistics, but IMO what matters most are recorded field tests and to somewhat lesser extent collected statistics on all sides of the war. Basically I'd like to see a tail blow up like a firecracker when I hit it with 30mm and not just mildly inconvenience the rear gunner on PE2.

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


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

 

Absolutely. Just remember its not all in the negative for larger calibres. You can argue that you need larger explosive mass for it to be able to exceed the yield/tensile strength of the material to cause permanent damage.

 

Absolutely. The 30mm hitting right should do in game what the Spitfire trial video shows in the testing. The problem is (at least that's how I understand the different dev comments about it all) we're still dealing with dice rolling in the DM. Now it's a loaded dice depending on the angle of the hit but it's still a dice. And a mk108 shooting at a wing going 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 on you on the RNGesus just ends up feeling wrong while in real life, a shell hitting a wing spar simply hit the damn wing spar.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

Absolutely. The 30mm hitting right should do in game what the Spitfire trial video shows in the testing. The problem is (at least that's how I understand the different dev comments about it all) we're still dealing with dice rolling in the DM. Now it's a loaded dice depending on the angle of the hit but it's still a dice. And a mk108 shooting at a wing going 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 on you on the RNGesus just ends up feeling wrong while in real life, a shell hitting a wing spar simply hit the damn wing spar.

 

 

I'm well aware that the current DM models HE as a fragmentation round rather than proper HE. Its a pretty poor way to do it, but thats what we are stuck with until devs bless us with a better model. Anyway we are going off-topic here as this specific point has been discussed a lot before. And even considering the RNGesus 30mm still deals too little damage for what it is. I hope to get more time at the end of the week and run more tests specifically against similar areas to what was shown in the cited field tests (on top of the already performed tests by other guys here )

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xJammer said:

 

 

I'm well aware that the current DM models HE as a fragmentation round rather than proper HE. Its a pretty poor way to do it, but thats what we are stuck with until devs bless us with a better model. Anyway we are going off-topic here as this specific point has been discussed a lot before. And even considering the RNGesus 30mm still deals too little damage for what it is. I hope to get more time at the end of the week and run more tests specifically against similar areas to what was shown in the cited field tests (on top of the already performed tests by other guys here )

 

I would love to know to what degree RNG is actually used in the DM. Depending on where it's applied, it could go a long way to explain some of the results we're seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage model over all is better but the larger calibre rounds damage like 20mm/23mm/30mm/37mm need a better treatment, especially the 30mm for the MK 108.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a flight on TAW with 1 pilot in a Yak-1 unload all and a Pe-2 unloading all into a He-111 H-6, the kill shot - with 80% of the damage was from parking the Pe-2 directly at it's 12 o'clock and letting the tail gunner smash the glass. 

 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=42629&name=LeLv76_Oke

 

I don't know how accurate TAW stats are, but it does seem that planes - ALL, not just some - are a bit too tough.  I can see a single Yak-1 emptying out on a 111 and getting no definitive kill, but 2 Yaks or, in this case, a Yak + a Pe-2 barely taking one down seems a bit excessive. 

 

The extra toughness does give the player more time to marvel at the damage decals his plane has collected and limp home - which is nice, but it seems a bit off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mauf said:

I amended my post a bit to make it more clear and less picky. Point still stands: There's more at play when it comes to the application in the DM than just raw potential. It's clear to me after rereading that the site doesn't try to answer this at all, it's just looking at raw potential.

 

It is worth pointing out that Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel Gustin are two of the leading researchers when it comes to ww2 aircraft ammunition. Do the values take everything into account? obviously not, that would be impossible. Does it give us a better understanding of how different ammunition types compare to each other? definitely. It certainly should raise questions as to why the Hispano 20mm for example is so much better than every other comparable canon shell (as far as the old DM goes but i assume that this hasn't changed). 

 

Whenever someone comes up with something to try to validate the current ammunition values in the game, some people say that you can't use the "evidence" because there are too many factors are unconsidered, even when you bring up papers/books from actual researchers. If you follow through on that, you either think that the devs of IL2 have some incredible sources that the scientific community is not aware of and they somehow found a way to consider every factor available or you have to admit that the values are basically decided on a very subjective basis. 

 

Going with the more likely option 2, what is better? going with "objective" values/calculations even though they can't show the whole picture but give a clear indication or going with values decided on subjective basis?

Edited by Operation_Ivy
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

It is worth pointing out that Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel Gustin are two of the leading researchers when it comes to ww2 aircraft ammunition. Do the values take everything into account? obviously not, that would be impossible. Does it give us a better understanding of how different ammunition types compare to each other? definitely. It certainly should raise questions as to why the Hispano 20mm for example is so much better than every other comparable canon shell (as far as the old DM goes but i assume that this hasn't changed). 

 

Whenever someone comes up with something to try to validate the current ammunition values in the game, some people say that you can't use the "evidence" because there are too many factors are unconsidered, even when you bring up papers/books from actual researchers. If you follow through on that, you either think that the devs of IL2 have some incredible sources that the scientific community is not aware of and they somehow found a way to consider every factor available or you have to admit that the values are basically decided on a very subjective basis. 

 

Going with the more likely option 2, what is better? going with "objective" values/calculations even though they can't show the whole picture but give a clear indication or going with values decided on subjective basis?

 

The Williams/Gustin index is a way to come up with an overall ranking and score for the weapon systems as a whole, including factors such as hit probability, rate of fire and weapon weight, as well as destructiveness per hit.  

 

People might read the the table titled "cartridge destructiveness" as an index of the destructive power of a single hit. It is not. They use momentum instead of KE to come up with an index number for the impact effect, the reasons given being relevant to hit probability, which is an entirely different issue, and because they falsely claim that KE is less relevant for an HE shell. Their "cartridge destructiveness" index is unusable in principle in looking at the destruction per hit: actually your attempt was much better. 

 

They should have used KE as in the Janosek paper, which is much, much better in laying out the steps of the calculations explicitly and justifying why certain short cut assumption are made. The key assumption in both cases being that the average contribution from HE is ten times the HE % of weight.  This is an assumption, not a finding, but we can live with it.

 

The other point Janosek discusses is that the actual effect of a single shot will vary immensely around this average figure: this is as true for HE as it is for AP.   

 

The usable evidence we have so far comes in the form of the reports on German, UK and US test firings, with the best documentation in the US report. That gives the closest to "objective" calculations on the probability of kills from hits from various shells, the German and UK firings showing, IMHO, the most effective hits. There is plenty to go on there without bothering about Williams' and Gustin's confused treatment. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ITAF_Rani said:

Was there same update/fix this night?

 

Nope. The vid is with 3.008 as released on 5th december.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sevenless said:

The vid is with 3.008 as released on 5th december.

It's interesting to note that the video was posted today. Have to see if there are any further developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

After a flight on TAW with 1 pilot in a Yak-1 unload all and a Pe-2 unloading all into a He-111 H-6, the kill shot - with 80% of the damage was from parking the Pe-2 directly at it's 12 o'clock and letting the tail gunner smash the glass. 

 

http://taw-server.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=42629&name=LeLv76_Oke

 

I don't know how accurate TAW stats are, but it does seem that planes - ALL, not just some - are a bit too tough.  I can see a single Yak-1 emptying out on a 111 and getting no definitive kill, but 2 Yaks or, in this case, a Yak + a Pe-2 barely taking one down seems a bit excessive. 

 

The extra toughness does give the player more time to marvel at the damage decals his plane has collected and limp home - which is nice, but it seems a bit off. 

 

 

Wow. Surprising how the front 20mm gunner was not able to bring you down while you were parking your pe2 ahead of him! HE111 gunners really are terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand it is nice that they react to the community like this but I think it is clear that the problems run deeper than just the 30mm. While the Mk 108 gets a lot of attention I feel like the 20mm is of bigger concern actually

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

On one hand it is nice that they react to the community like this but I think it is clear that the problems run deeper than just the 30mm. While the Mk 108 gets a lot of attention I feel like the 20mm is of bigger concern actually

 

20mm HE have much less effective splash damage radius so 20mm HE impact will do this leaks, damages and holes in much more narrow radius.

If talk about ability to break the wing (which is not the main issue of damage) than you need around:

At least 3..4 20mm HE hits to Yak/109 wing to break it

At least 6..7 20mm HE hits to IL2/P47 wing to break it.

But it is in level flight. In case of high G-load it is required 25..30% less damage to airframe to break the wing. So if you have heavy impacts on your wings but they're still attached - it is beter to not pull the stick to bring your plane home in one piece.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

On one hand it is nice that they react to the community like this but I think it is clear that the problems run deeper than just the 30mm. While the Mk 108 gets a lot of attention I feel like the 20mm is of bigger concern actually

It's the usual posterchild effect. Let's hope it doesn't turn into "Just the squeaky wheel". New DM is definitely a step in the right direction but not the end of the journey. 

1 minute ago, Han said:

 

20mm HE have much less effective splash damage radius so 20mm HE impact will do this leaks, damages and holes in much more narrow radius.

If talk about ability to break the wing (which is not the main issue of damage) than you need around:

At least 3..4 20mm HE hits to Yak/109 wing to break it

At least 6..7 20mm HE hits to IL2/P47 wing to break it.

But it is in level flight. In case of high G-load it is required 25..30% less damage to airframe to break the wing. So if you have heavy impacts on your wings but they're still attached - it is beter to not pull the stick to bring your plane home in one piece.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I think much of the issue stems from limitations of tthe visible damage. People are bamboozled by the big holes and parts flying around in the RL footage while in game, they only see potholes.

 

Could you elaborate on how damage influences aerodynamics performance in the game? I from first hand experience know that a spit hit by 30mm is turning into a floaty mess even though the visual model doesn't show it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mauf said:

Thanks for the feedback. I think much of the issue stems from limitations of tthe visible damage. People are bamboozled by the big holes and parts flying around in the RL footage while in game, they only see potholes.

 

Could you elaborate on how damage influences aerodynamics performance in the game? I from first hand experience know that a spit hit by 30mm is turning into a floaty mess even though the visual model doesn't show it.

 

You right, some planes have incorrect visual damage setting while systems and structure damage settings are correct. To be fixed.

 

When you see big holes - many lift is lost on this part and many drag is added. Plus shaking.

So when one of your wing is in heavy holes, and other is clear - it will be hard to keep plane in high-G because plane will have heavy tendency to roll and yaw to the side of damaged wing.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

 

LaGG-3, La-5 and Spitfire are missed.🤔

...as for Pe-2.

 

Official tests are more than welcome, ty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Han said:

 

You right, some planes have incorrect visual damage setting while systems and structure damage settings are correct. To be fixed.

That s is good to know...hope we can see soon new stencils/visual damage effects in the next future.

Many thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

Wow. Surprising how the front 20mm gunner was not able to bring you down while you were parking your pe2 ahead of him! HE111 gunners really are terrible.

 

I'm sorry I'm not well versed in He-111s.  Is the nose gunner a 20mm?   Anyway, I'm here because I DO believe the DM is a step in the right direction, but it still needs a good bit of tweaking.  I'm not qualified to say what's accurate or not, but it does look (to me) like most of the planes are too durable now - even if they are legendary for taking a beating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all the pictures I could find of Johnson's P47. 

 

It does not look like she was hit 20 times by 20mm. Anyone else has more pictures? ?

 

Hard to find MG fire damage too.

halfpint4.jpg.460b073bc178740f35edb61673d38605.jpghalfpint3.jpg.bf058562b092c12584262a210150f7f1.jpghalfpint2.jpg.d396d3c3e5f10a7fece755acb8b0b4fd.jpghalfpint1.jpg.5d3afc6d8e879401ca0836ab15369fa2.jpg

Talking about bombers now I believe the damage of multiple systems is the most common way to bring the "heavies" down. It is far more realistic than losing wings on a single pass of a fighter.

 

Fires are more rare too. I had only one engine fire but it was a cannon burst from below exactly on my left engine, demonstrating the accuracy of new DM. No more fuel tank fires happening all the time due to new fuel tank modeling.

 

The downside is that I am not sure if we can extinguish fires diving anymore.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

So partially the weird DM issues are due the generic and inaccurate visual ques we get when hitting a plane with any weapon. But on the other hand when you read what was damaged when the ammo hit the plane makes it even more funny. Like the hand grenade aka 30mm HE exploding inside a wing does no damage in there but everything else within meters is wrecked. To put it like "one round hits wingtip, pilot and engine gets thrashed"...but wingtip stays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Like the hand grenade aka 30mm HE exploding inside a wing does no damage in there but everything else within meters is wrecked. To put it like "one round hits wingtip, pilot and engine gets thrashed"...but wingtip stays.

 

I think this is basically the issue of not modelling MG. They just increase the "shrapnel damage" for HE to model the MG, but that´s a very questionable approach to say the least.

This effect is even magnified by the new DM, where an abundance of MG hits cause the same or even less structural damage when compared to the allied 20mm ammo - as this (updated for the new FM) test, done by Ivy shows.

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had more time to spend with this, so far just in QMB against AI, but I have not noticed any substantial nerfing of weapons.

 

Flying 109s, it is as easy to bring down A-20s with 30mm as before, usually on the first pass.

 

The 20 mm cannon on Yak-1/La-5 seems as effective as before, a short well aimed burst is usually enough to bring down a 109 or 190.

 

with the new progressive damage model, it actually seems easier to shoot down the AI in SP. One hit, which looks like a fuel leak or water moisture can quickly become engine failure and the AI seems to bail out of damaged AC earlier than before.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


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

 

I think this is basically the issue of not modelling MG. They just increase the "shrapnel damage" for HE to model the MG, but that´s a very questionable approach to say the least.

This effect is even magnified by the new DM, where an abundance of MG hits cause the same or even less structural damage when compared to the allied 20mm ammo - as this (updated for the new FM) test, done by Ivy shows.

 

First of all, because my Bug report got locked for some unknown reason right after i updated it, i have to say that the new DM is way better than the old one. It shows a much more diverse damage pattern. Fuel tanks in the wings are now actual weak points and can get set ablaze quite often.

 

I also like to emphasize again that the updated test is not comparable to the old one, because in the updated version i counted until the aircraft was destroyed (including engine damage etc.) while in the old version i was counting until the wing fell off.

 

Concerning the Minengeschoss, the only difference aside from different values i could see in the ingame files is that the initial velocity of the fragments of the Minengeschoss are 1000 m/s fast instead of the standart 800 m/s. As far as i was able to test, a very minor difference.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Concerning the Minengeschoss, the only difference aside from different values i could see in the ingame files is that the initial velocity of the fragments of the Minengeschoss are 1000 m/s fast instead of the standart 800 m/s. As far as i was able to test, a very minor difference. 

 

Considering kinetic energy is E = 1/2 * m * v^2, the increase in kinetic energy is actually 56% which is A LOT.

AFAIK this was increase to simulate the higher destructiveness of the Mineshell without having a different HE explosion model.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Considering kinetic energy is E = 1/2 * m * v^2, the increase in kinetic energy is actually 56% which is A LOT.

AFAIK this was increase to simulate the higher destructiveness of the Mineshell without having a different HE explosion model.

 

There is a big difference in IL2 when it comes to should do a lot more and actually does a lot more damage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/11/2018 at 6:45 PM, Jason_Williams said:

The Mk. 108 is already 2.5 times more powerful then the 20mm and we increased its splash damage in the last update so control rods and other parts get damaged. Sometimes I think your guy's perception of our product is bit off and after using our previous settings for a long time new changes throw you guys off causing renewed interest in subjects you were accustomed to looking for perceived issues. 

 

Jason 

 

Hello Jason & Han,

 

If the Mk108's 30mm HE(M) shells  are only 2.5 times more powerful than the 20mm shell then that's where the problem lies.

 

In reality the 30mm HE(M) shells caused damage many times as serious as that of a single 20mm HE hit, something which becomes quite apparent when you compare the damage done by either to the same aircraft:

 

20mm HE hit to the fuselage of a Spitfire:

attachment.php?attachmentid=7304&d=13914

 

30mm HE(M) hit to the fuselage of a Spitfire:

Qnk5Bgq.jpg

 

I'm sure you will agree that the above doesn't constitute a difference factor of 2.5, and that it would take quite a lot of 20mm HE hits to the same location to cause similar damage to what a single 30mm HE(M) inflicted?

 

If so you must see from where our gripe with the current DM originates; The blast damage of large caliber high capacity HE shells quite simply isn't near significant enough ingame as compared with reality.

 

 

Full British trials for reference:

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 10:47 AM, unreasonable said:

 

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

 

P-47 kill probabilities.JPG

B-25 kill probabilities.JPG

 

What tests though? The above are probability calculations. As far as I can tell the US didn't do any actual tests where they shot at a bomber to conclude how many hits it would on average take to cause lethal damage. They fired some shots against engines to judge their destructiveness against these, but that was it, everything else was approximated. Furthermore the probability calculations don't take into account the cumulative effect of several hits, let alone the effect of several hits to the same structural part such as the wings. It's all about trying to figure out the probability of a single isolated hit in a random location downing the aircraft.

 

As a result actual real life testing & conclusions drawn from operational footage tells a far more dramatic story, the British concluding that on average it would take just 1 hit to immediately down a fighter or light twin engined bomber, whilst the German conclusion based on gun camera footage was 3-4 hits on average to down a heavy bomber.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

What tests though? The above are probability calculations. As far as I can tell the US didn't do any actual tests where they shot at a bomber to conclude how many hits it would on average take to cause lethal damage. They fired some shots against engines to judge their destructiveness against these, but that was it, everything else was approximated. Furthermore the probability calculations don't take into account the cumulative effect of several hits, let alone the effect of several hits to the same structural part such as the wings. It's all about trying to figure out the probability of a single isolated hit in a random location downing the aircraft.

 

As a result actual real life testing & conclusions drawn from operational footage tells a far more dramatic story, the British concluding that on average it would take just 1 hit to immediately down a fighter or light twin engined bomber, whilst the German conclusion based on gun camera footage was 3-4 hits on average to down a heavy bomber.

 

 

 

Just continuing to repeat these talking points will not make them true. 

 

1) When you say " As far as I can tell the US didn't do any actual tests where they shot at a bomber" that is because you either have not read the report, or as in the case of the probabilities table, you do not understand what you are reading. Many tests vs structures were made.

 

2) It is true that there is also analysis and estimation being done: by people who know what they are talking about. 

 

3) The UK tests are more dramatic: because they show the results of solid hits in optimal areas, not a random distribution of hits, on more lightly constructed aircraft.

 

4) As for this German conclusion, so far I have not seen any source documenting how this number was estimated. Using crashed aircraft or planes clearly being downed on gun camera is a faulty method, since it ignores all the planes that did not crash after "3-4" hits.  

 

 

 

 

US test firings.JPG

Test firings by calibre.JPG

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

1) When you say " As far as I can tell the US didn't do any actual tests where they shot at a bomber" that is because you either have not read the report, or as in the case of the probabilities table, you do not understand what you are reading. Many tests vs structures were made.

 

Ok, fair enough. But the important bit still stands; i.e. the cumulative effect of several hits to the same aircraft wasn't assessed, it was all about the probability of a single hit to shoot down a B-25 or P-47 in two possible ways (A or B). Not even lethality based on hit location is addressed, it's all averages based on 47 shots taken from 500 yards away. There's a great amount of detail simply missing, which makes it really hard to draw any conclusions from the analysis other than at 500 yards the probably that a single random hit by a Mk108 would prevent a B-25 from returning was calculated to be between 11-16 percent. (42 percent for the P-47)

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

3) The UK tests are more dramatic: because they show the results of solid hits in optimal areas, not a random distribution of hits, on more lightly constructed aircraft.

 

There sure were a lot of optimal areas then, like for example the entire wing area, which oddly enough is one of the problem areas ingame. 

 

As for what you mean by "solid hits", you're going to have to clarify because the British tested the rounds at up to 80+ deg impact angles, and the damage was catastrophic regardless.

 

Finally is the Spitfire more lightly constructed than a P-47? Most surely yes, but it's no more lightly constructed than most other fighters of the period, incl. the Yak & La-5.

Furthermore I'd argue that the P-47's wings aren't going to be significantly tougher than those of a Blenheim bomber, so if it on average took just one hit to the wing of a Blenheim to cause it to crash, then I'd wager it wouldn't take much more against a P-47 either. The US OR report sheds no light on this at all sadly, as nowhere does it list the location of hits obtained, which makes it all the more problematic as a source compared to the very tangible evidence provided by the British tests.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


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

) As for this German conclusion, so far I have not seen any source documenting how this number was estimated. Using crashed aircraft or planes clearly being downed on gun camera is a faulty method, since it ignores all the planes that did not crash after "3-4" hits.  

 

The aircraft that did not go down were ofcourse counted as well, and that as not shot down by the observed number of hits, that's how averages work after all, as a summary of all the results, which includes the failures. In other words if footage of a B-17 saw it take five hits and fly on (no confirmation of loss or anything), then said 5 hits for no result would obviously just pull the average higher, and if another film saw just two hits send a B-17 down in a ball of fire than that would pull it the opposite direction. In short the 3-4 average would be the number of hits seen bring down a bomber most frequently, but it didn't guarantee that this would always be the case. It was a probability measure based on recorded shootings.

 

By comparison LW analysis of gun camera film reached an average of 20 hits with 20mm cannon required to down a B-17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

The aircraft that did not go down were ofcourse counted as well, and that as not shot down by the observed number of hits, that's how averages work after all, as a summary of all the results, which includes the failures. In other words if footage of a B-17 saw it take five hits and fly on (no confirmation of loss or anything), then said 5 hits for no result would obviously just pull the average higher, and if another film saw just two hits send a B-17 down in a ball of fire than that would pull it the opposite direction. In short the 3-4 average would be the number of hits seen bring down a bomber most frequently, but it didn't guarantee that this would always be the case. It was a probability measure based on recorded shootings.

 

By comparison LW analysis of gun camera film reached an average of 20 hits with 20mm cannon required to down a B-17.

 

Please produce the report that documents this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage model seems to be all over the place, the 20mm Shvak seems weak on the the mig and the 12.7mm (both Russian and US) is also quite weak and doesn't seem to make any significant damage.

On the other hand low caliber machineguns seem to be much stronger now.

Thats just my own impression after flying a bit.

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Please produce the report that documents this.

 

If I had it I would, Franz Stigler talks about it in one of his interviews. The average percentage of hits pr. rounds fired was also assessed, claimed to be 2% by Stigler. 

 

Now these statistics & averages were obviously also from by people who knew what they were talking about. So assuming they didnt count unsuccesful attacks seems abit far fetched, esp. since it would make the analysis completely useless.

1 hour ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

The damage model seems to be all over the place, the 20mm Shvak seems weak on the the mig and the 12.7mm (both Russian and US) is also quite weak and doesn't seem to make any significant damage.

On the other hand low caliber machineguns seem to be much stronger now.

Thats just my own impression after flying a bit.

 

Agreed, took the La-5 out last night and was pretty underwhelmed with the damage its SvhaK armament does. Only exception was a pilot kill from directly 6 o clock, so atleast the AP rounds work as intended. 

 

That said some of it was probably down to the relatively low rof. 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...