Wing durability/damage

[Roland_HUNter]

On 5/27/2025 at 5:21 PM, MDzmitry said:

@Roland_HUNter I guess this answers your question? 

Yes.
Already tested:
.50cal
Outer wingtip: ~30-44 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: ~70 hits

12.7 UB:
Outer wingtip: ~30-44 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: ~70 hits

 

13 mm:
Outer wingtip: ~30-44 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: ~70 hits

20mm MG151:
Outer wingtip: 3-4 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 6-13 hits

20 mm Hispano:
Outer wingtip: 2-3 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 15-16 hits

 

20 mm Shvak:
Outer wingtip: 3-5 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 14-18 hits

23mm gun “VYa-23”
Outer wingtip: 2-3 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 8 hits

 

30mm Mk-108:
Outer wingtip:1-2 hits
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 2-3 hits

37mm NS-37/Sh-37:
Outer wingtip: 1 hit
(Balkenkreuz)-Inner wing: 1-2 hits

 

[MDzmitry]

28 минут назад, Roland_HUNter сказал:

Yes.
Already tested

Is it now comparable with the damage dealt to Allied/Soviet fighters by 151s?

If memory serves, that discrepancy was the primary object of the dissatisfaction.

[CSW_Hot_Dog]

Fixed (increased) wing durability of Bf 109 fighter family;

Like really? So bassically, half of the cases to destroyed BF-109 with .50cal is gone... So now, Bf-109 will be even more "concrete" plane, absolutely overmodeled with possibility of >45° AoA without stalling into spin, without rock-hard stick over 400kph, hanging on prop and now undestroyable until PK with .50cal...

Thinking why luftwafe, RAF, USAAF and all other air forces even try to produce other planes, when 109 was bassicaly the best plane in the world... Why all just dont coppy it and produce only 109s🤔

 

I'm really looking forward to it.😠

Edited May 27 by CSW_Hot_Dog

[MDzmitry]

@CSW_Hot_Dog are you seriously claiming that .50cals tore wings off left and right in reality?

Watch some gun camera footage, most USAAF clips show German fighters being peppered until they either crash or bail out. Sometimes fires errupt.

The rare exceptions are cases like a clip of Fw 190 having its ammunition detonate and tear the port wing clean off.

[Hanu]

1 minute ago, MDzmitry said:

@CSW_Hot_Dog are you seriously claiming that .50cals tore wings off left and right in reality?

Watch some gun camera footage, most USAAF clips show German fighters being peppered until they either crash or bail out. Sometimes fires errupt.

The rare exceptions are cases like a clip of Fw 190 having its ammunition detonate and tear the port wing clean off.

 I don't think you could expect rational reply from him after that outburst, so might be better just to ignore it.

[MDzmitry]

2 минуты назад, Hanu сказал:

 I don't think you could expect rational reply from him after that outburst, so might be better just to ignore it.

Fair enough, someone's bound to get upset with any kind of change, good or bad

[Roland_HUNter]

37 minutes ago, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

Fixed (increased) wing durability of Bf 109 fighter family;

Like really? So bassically, half of the cases to destroyed BF-109 with .50cal is gone... So now, Bf-109 will be even more "concrete" plane, absolutely overmodeled with possibility of >45° AoA without stalling into spin, without rock-hard stick over 400kph, hanging on prop and now undestroyable until PK with .50cal...

Thinking why luftwafe, RAF, USAAF and all other air forces even try to produce other planes, when 109 was bassicaly the best plane in the world... Why all just dont coppy it and produce only 109s🤔

 

I'm really looking forward to it.😠

"Show me one gun camera video where a .50 caliber rips off a wing, other than the Fw 190 wing ammo explosion.

[Roland_HUNter]

55 minutes ago, MDzmitry said:

Is it now comparable with the damage dealt to Allied/Soviet fighters by 151s?

If memory serves, that discrepancy was the primary object of the dissatisfaction.

Yes.

[LukeFF]

3 minutes ago, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

Yes, i have never seen Mustang, Tempest or even Spitfire tore a wing without damage either IRL...

 

During Y-29 ride, only 2!!! German pilots were caprured... Rest was set on fire in the air or even explode (talking about more than 40 other planes)... This is somehow also not exactly working in the game, hm...

 

You know how this works 🙂 - if you think something is wrong, post a track file for the team to evaluate. That's the only thing that is going to persuade them to look at it further. 

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, MDzmitry said:

@CSW_Hot_Dog are you seriously claiming that .50cals tore wings off left and right in reality?

Watch some gun camera footage, most USAAF clips show German fighters being peppered until they either crash or bail out. Sometimes fires errupt.

The rare exceptions are cases like a clip of Fw 190 having its ammunition detonate and tear the port wing clean off.

 

I posted a number of examples of actual gun camera film of 109s having their wings torn off by .50s in the "109 Glass Wing" thread.  There are also numerous cases where pilots describe this sort of thing in after action reports.  It absolutely happened in the real world, and we have objective proof of it.

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

 

Head you tested it before?   If so, was it the same or easier to rip wings off with the 37mm before? 

 

I always loved the Yak-9T for it's ability to one shot a 109 in the wing to remove it. 

Yes the 37mm is the same. 1-2 hits to rip wings off.

[Roland_HUNter]

9 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

 

I posted a number of examples of actual gun camera film of 109s having their wings torn off by .50s in the "109 Glass Wing" thread.  There are also numerous cases where pilots describe this sort of thing in after action reports.  It absolutely happened in the real world, and we have objective proof of it.

I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but your distortion of facts, hypocrisy, and disregard for what others say is outrageous.

 

In the glass wing section you mentioned, the aerial footage clearly shows the 109 losing its wingtip easily – and this is exactly how it behaves in the game as well.

 

If you had read my report earlier in this topic, you would have seen that the wingtip breaks off after 30–80 hits from a .50 caliber weapon, and with RNG, it can happen in fewer than 30 – or even after just 2–3 hits from a 20mm cannon.

Do you not consider that to be a weak wing structure?

 

I should add that the developers haven't improved the strength of the wingtip – it's just as weak as it was before. If you had read my test above and compared it with the data in the glass wing topic, you would know this.

In the glass wing topic, the wingtip would break off after just 15–20 hits. Now it's between 30 and 60. With the 4 to 8 .50 caliber machine guns located in the wing, taking off the wingtip only requires 1–2 bursts.

 

 

And let's not forget that before the patch, you could literally cut the 109's wing in half with just 50–60 hits — but that wasn’t a problem, was it?

Moreover, the glass wing topic contains a detailed breakdown of the 109's wing strength, which clearly doesn’t suggest that it should break apart so easily. Gun camera footage also supports this.

 

In the topics you brought up:

here:

or here:

It can be seen that, just like in the game, the 109 easily lost its wingtip after multiple hits. In some videos, the oxygen tanks located in the wing exploded, or due to other causes, an explosion resulted in the aircraft losing a larger portion of the wing root.

 

From the reports linked in the second source, it's not clear whether the wing broke in the middle or if it was just the wingtip that came off.

 

To be thorough, I’ll run a new test tonight specifically focusing on the wing’s durability against .50 caliber fire – just for your sake

[MDzmitry]

Regarding the 109 wing topic, there's an old classic website (now archived, the original page shows error 403) wwiiaircraftperformance.

And there's a page with Spit IX / Bf 109G comparison, which is in this case relevant thanks to having a ton of combat reports. Sure it's not .50cals, but I don't think people will mind reading on what damage 2 20mm cannons usually did to single-engined fighters.

 

I'll be honest, I'm too tired and lazy to look through all of them at the moment, but in all reports of engagements with 109s the most common damage is to cooling systems, the engine itself or fuel tanks. Sometimes pilots are killed first, surprisingly often alongside the fuel tank catching fire or exploding. Poor buggers.

The e/a usually ends up having its engine stop or a fire erupt, not losing its wings or tail or whatever else. Quite often it also dives into the ground, unable to recover.

 

P.S. - After a bit more reading, only mentions of structural damage are typical phrases like "saw bits coming off", in 1 case (F/Sgt. K. Bache of 331 (N) Squadron, 7 March 1943) there's a mention of serious damage to the tail unit: "a large piece broke off his tail unit and he went straight into the sea".
P.P.S. - The first mention of a wing being shot off (and that's half a wing): look for the report by Maj. K. Birksted of 331 (N) Squadron, 7 March 1943.

[357th_KW]

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I'm sorry if this sounds personal, but your distortion of facts, hypocrisy, and disregard for what others say is outrageous.

 

In the glass wing section you mentioned, the aerial footage clearly shows the 109 losing its wingtip easily – and this is exactly how it behaves in the game as well.

 

If you had read my report earlier in this topic, you would have seen that the wingtip breaks off after 30–80 hits from a .50 caliber weapon, and with RNG, it can happen in fewer than 30 – or even after just 2–3 hits from a 20mm cannon.

Do you not consider that to be a weak wing structure?

 

I should add that the developers haven't improved the strength of the wingtip – it's just as weak as it was before. If you had read my test above and compared it with the data in the glass wing topic, you would know this.

In the glass wing topic, the wingtip would break off after just 15–20 hits. Now it's between 30 and 60. With the 4 to 8 .50 caliber machine guns located in the wing, taking off the wingtip only requires 1–2 bursts.

 

 

And let's not forget that before the patch, you could literally cut the 109's wing in half with just 50–60 hits — but that wasn’t a problem, was it?

Moreover, the glass wing topic contains a detailed breakdown of the 109's wing strength, which clearly doesn’t suggest that it should break apart so easily. Gun camera footage also supports this.

 

In the topics you brought up:

here:

or here:

It can be seen that, just like in the game, the 109 easily lost its wingtip after multiple hits. In some videos, the oxygen tanks located in the wing exploded, or due to other causes, an explosion resulted in the aircraft losing a larger portion of the wing root.

 

From the reports linked in the second source, it's not clear whether the wing broke in the middle or if it was just the wingtip that came off.

 

To be thorough, I’ll run a new test tonight specifically focusing on the wing’s durability against .50 caliber fire – just for your sake

 

Clearly English isn't your first language - my reply was made to someone stating that you don't see wings getting cut off in gun camera footage.  That is an objectively false statement, given that there are a half dozen examples posted in that 109 glass wing thread.  Likewise there are dozens of examples in pilot AAR's both from USAAF and British sources describing the same thing, again with links posted to many of them in that thread.

 

Unfortunately, we have no good way of judging how many hits were required for this to happen - but it clearly happened in a number of cases and so it shouldn't be an impossible outcome in the game.  60-80 hits required on the wingtip, assuming the numbers you posted above are correct, is absurdly high - that will essentially never happen during gameplay unless it's against a static target in a test scenario.  Even 30-60 seems clearly higher then what we see in the gun camera videos.

 

This aircraft clearly didn't take 60-80 hits to it's left wing tip.  The same with this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.  In some of these cases I could believe that we're seeing 10 or more strikes, but an awful lot of these look pretty close to 1 strike. 

 

I'm curious to hear what you find in further testing. 

[Roland_HUNter]

35 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

 

Clearly English isn't your first language - my reply was made to someone stating that you don't see wings getting cut off in gun camera footage.  That is an objectively false statement, given that there are a half dozen examples posted in that 109 glass wing thread.  Likewise there are dozens of examples in pilot AAR's both from USAAF and British sources describing the same thing, again with links posted to many of them in that thread.

 

Unfortunately, we have no good way of judging how many hits were required for this to happen - but it clearly happened in a number of cases and so it shouldn't be an impossible outcome in the game.  60-80 hits required on the wingtip, assuming the numbers you posted above are correct, is absurdly high - that will essentially never happen during gameplay unless it's against a static target in a test scenario.  Even 30-60 seems clearly higher then what we see in the gun camera videos.

 

This aircraft clearly didn't take 60-80 hits to it's left wing tip.  The same with this one or this one or this one or this one or this one.  In some of these cases I could believe that we're seeing 10 or more strikes, but an awful lot of these look pretty close to 1 strike. 

 

I'm curious to hear what you find in further testing. 

All I can really say is that in the videos, all we see is a number of bright hits (AP-I?) followed—after who knows how many invisible hits—by the wingtip breaking off.

Because of this, there are several possibilities:

Are we really only seeing 1–2 hits?
If so, then the game must have a damage model that's more durable than reality. As I mentioned above, even a single hit from an MK108 isn’t always enough in-game, whereas in reality, one hit often was.

If that's the case, then in this instance the game is fair. It was incredibly unfair until recently that certain Allied planes could keep fighting after an absurd number of hits, while a 109 would go down after just 2–3.

I'm fine with planes breaking apart quickly, but then that should be true for every aircraft.

However, I don't believe this kind of rapid disintegration is entirely realistic:

1. In multiple gun camera footages, you can see that some planes could take several 20mm hits and still stay intact.

2. As mentioned in the British reports linked earlier by @MDzmitry, there are also cases where even after multiple 20mm hits, the wing didn’t get torn off (exceptions being cases with FW190 ammo explosions, larger 109 blasts, or the infamous wingtip being hit).

So what’s the truth, really?

In any case, I apologize for misunderstanding your reply, and I appreciate the respectful way you’ve communicated.

[Roland_HUNter]

Tests for .50 cal.
Wing tip loss: 30–44 hits with RNG, or fewer than 30 if not hit exclusively from behind.
Wing root loss: 70 hits or fewer with RNG, and not only from behind.

30 sec wing root loss:
https://limewire.com/d/o6v7Q#j76Ey7idPM

 

Test wing losses:
https://limewire.com/d/43sBQ#ZHfApYAI6g

[MDzmitry]

2 минуты назад, Roland_HUNter сказал:

Tests for .50 cal.
Wing tip loss: 30–44 hits with RNG, or fewer than 30 if not hit exclusively from behind.
Wing root loss: 70 hits or fewer with RNG, and not only from behind.

Do we know the Browning's rate of fire in the game? Having it multiplied by 3-4 (with consideration for non-ideal firing solution when only one wing's guns hit or half of the shots fired miss) could give us an approximate time required to score significant enough damage.

[Roland_HUNter]

8 minutes ago, MDzmitry said:

Do we know the Browning's rate of fire in the game? Having it multiplied by 3-4 (with consideration for non-ideal firing solution when only one wing's guns hit or half of the shots fired miss) could give us an approximate time required to score significant enough damage.

850-857 rounds/min (AN/M2) in game.

[MDzmitry]

Then what we have is (I took the quantity multiplier of 3,5 to not bother choosing between a Mustang and a Thunderbolt) 49-50 hits per second, that is non-ideal solution. Or 2 seconds of firing P-39's 2 nose-mounted .50cals.

 

Enough to tear the tip off, and closer to approx. 2 seconds to cause significant enough damage at the wing root. 

 

But that's just theoretical.

[Roland_HUNter]

12.7-13mm numbers updated.

[FTC_Pablodzim]

The truth is that this game has absolutely absurd damage model for low caliber guns. Try to fly hurricane with 14 .303 and kill anything without pk. 4000 rounds usually not enough. I think the biggest problem is lack of other type of dmg than wing off. Low callibre guns that score multiple hits should not absolutely destroy enemy aircraft but should damage criticall systems instead. And that is the clue of an problem. You can fire on 190 or 109 with 8/ .50 calls hit them consistantly and if you dont pk they will try to force overshoot while getting shot because they suffer next to none consequences for doing that. Often one or 2 hits from cannon make you a cripple in a fight but .303 or .50 just does next to nothing. I would love to see devs actually look into it and develop cable snaps/ hydrolic systems failure, gun jamms due to damage,electricall issues and so on. This is a type of damage that makes it fun and meaningfull. Sorry for my english, typing is not my thing.

12 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

All I can really say is that in the videos, all we see is a number of bright hits (AP-I?) followed—after who knows how many invisible hits—by the wingtip breaking off.

Because of this, there are several possibilities:

Are we really only seeing 1–2 hits?
If so, then the game must have a damage model that's more durable than reality. As I mentioned above, even a single hit from an MK108 isn’t always enough in-game, whereas in reality, one hit often was.

If that's the case, then in this instance the game is fair. It was incredibly unfair until recently that certain Allied planes could keep fighting after an absurd number of hits, while a 109 would go down after just 2–3.

I'm fine with planes breaking apart quickly, but then that should be true for every aircraft.

However, I don't believe this kind of rapid disintegration is entirely realistic:

1. In multiple gun camera footages, you can see that some planes could take several 20mm hits and still stay intact.

2. As mentioned in the British reports linked earlier by @MDzmitry, there are also cases where even after multiple 20mm hits, the wing didn’t get torn off (exceptions being cases with FW190 ammo explosions, larger 109 blasts, or the infamous wingtip being hit).

So what’s the truth, really?

In any case, I apologize for misunderstanding your reply, and I appreciate the respectful way you’ve communicated.

 

Edited May 29 by FTC_Pablodzim

[MDzmitry]

19 минут назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

I think the biggest problem is lack of other type of dmg than wing off.

Sorry, but are we playing the same game? I'm only flying offline currently, but most of my victories for the time being are engine fires, control loss (at least it looks like it: I hit an enemy, he enters a dive and never recovers) or pilot kills.

26 минут назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

I would love to see devs actually look into it and develop cable snaps

Already present, mentioned at 21:05 in the video below: 

Скрытый текст

https://youtu.be/NrqXaLlOeFc?si=tUUiZBqh1N7g-Vxy

 

26 минут назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

gun jamms due to damage

Already present, happened to me after getting a 20mm round into my starboard Hispano.

 

[FTC_Pablodzim]

First situation you describe is 1000 % Pk not a controll loss.... Fires are in my experience rare, they happen but rarely. The only cable snap i experienced was from 20 mm gun an it was elevator. And only in spit mkv. Never seen a 109 loose tail controlls without them being phisically shot off. 3rd as you described hit from 20 mm cannon. Generally in this game 20mm and above does stuff while .303 and .50 usually do next to nothing. i fly only online and maybe its a latency thing but i have quite good internet connection. As i said try .303 s and you will see how bad it is. I have close to 1000h in game and this it my POV. Also sorry just noticed offline and online dmg models are completly different. I mean they behave differently. Its way easier to kill in offline mode.

 

Edited May 29 by FTC_Pablodzim

[MDzmitry]

This is starting to turn into an "mgs bad" topic instead of wing ruggedness.

I'm of the opinion that .303s are (rightly so) rather weak, as they proved to be in real life. Mostly capable of doing some damage if shooting an unarmoured target or from an extremely close distance.

.50cals, while they pack more punch in comparison, are not exactly the best at severing controls or hindering the aerodynamics. For that people need more fragmentation and actual HE effect. MGs can primarily mess up cooling systems, engines/tanks and occasionally pilots.

 

I'll add one more source for leisure reading, again from aircraftperformance. 

That is P-51 pilots' combat reports, plenty of material to look through.

While these are just claims, they provide quite a good description of firing distances, angles and zones hit. Important to note is that in many cases pilots bailed out or tried to belly land even without suffering severe kinds of damage, perhaps because nobody wants to die. Another reason for crashes I noticed is loss of control in an attempt to perform too sharp a turn. 

Edited May 29 by MDzmitry

[FTC_Pablodzim]

39 minutes ago, MDzmitry said:

This is starting to turn into an "mgs bad" topic instead of wing ruggedness.

I'm of the opinion that .303s are (rightly so) rather weak, as they proved to be in real life. Mostly capable of doing some damage if shooting an unarmoured target or from an extremely close distance.

.50cals, while they pack more punch in comparison, are not exactly the best at severing controls or hindering the aerodynamics. For that people need more fragmentation and actual HE effect. MGs can primarily mess up cooling systems, engines/tanks and occasionally pilots.

 

I'll add one more source for leisure reading, again from aircraftperformance. 

That is P-51 pilots' combat reports, plenty of material to look through.

While these are just claims, they provide quite a good description of firing distances, angles and zones hit. Important to note is that in many cases pilots bailed out or tried to belly land even without suffering severe kinds of damage, perhaps because nobody wants to die. Another reason for crashes I noticed is loss of control in an attempt to perform too sharp a turn. 

This is turning into this because these are te most affected guns by it! You fly offline i dont shame that but from my experience online dmg is redused at least 2 times if not more. So if you think .303s are weak against AI believe me or test it yourself online they are useless. And topic is about dmg model and dmg model of li2 box is one of the most broken ones on the market. IF you think that 14 browning machineguns would do no damage fired into a 109 Fighter plane im lost for words... its a tiny aircraft that has everything tightly packed yet you claim that pilot would not feel any diference if hes getting hit by this. look what one of these guns especially .50call does to a target on the ground and tell me that plane would be fine after getting hit by it.

[FTC_Pablodzim]

Please perform the same test online.... You might find that comparing player to AI dmg model will behave differently. I am down to test it and play the target for science really. I like this game but something needs to be done about this.

17 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Tests for .50 cal.
Wing tip loss: 30–44 hits with RNG, or fewer than 30 if not hit exclusively from behind.
Wing root loss: 70 hits or fewer with RNG, and not only from behind.

30 sec wing root loss:
https://limewire.com/d/o6v7Q#j76Ey7idPM

 

Test wing losses:
https://limewire.com/d/43sBQ#ZHfApYAI6g

[Aurora_Stealth]

3 hours ago, FTC_Pablodzim said:

This is turning into this because these are te most affected guns by it! You fly offline i dont shame that but from my experience online dmg is redused at least 2 times if not more. So if you think .303s are weak against AI believe me or test it yourself online they are useless. And topic is about dmg model and dmg model of li2 box is one of the most broken ones on the market. IF you think that 14 browning machineguns would do no damage fired into a 109 Fighter plane im lost for words... its a tiny aircraft that has everything tightly packed yet you claim that pilot would not feel any diference if hes getting hit by this. look what one of these guns especially .50call does to a target on the ground and tell me that plane would be fine after getting hit by it.

 

AFAIK, there is no difference between the way damage is calculated offline and online; server latency and packet loss are things that can occur online which can affect the player but that isn't the game engine that is the problem; its the connection between host and server. High skill AI flown aircraft may be able to respond or recover to damage better than players in certain situations, but the same damage model applies. That is one of the reasons why AI takes a lot of resources up in this game engine because it applies the same standards and limitations as those for players... which also affects the number of AI this game can process simultaneously at a reasonable performance (i.e. 100+ bomber raids you don't tend to see because of processing required).

 

What is different online, is the lack of certain detailed decals or 'visual' demarcation (i.e. bullet hole marks) on the aircraft's surfaces that you'll see much clearer and in more detail in single player or in a replay; which I believe is fundamentally to reduce data and visual imaging being processed in real-time for each bullet online - however functionally the damage calculated against the target should be the same.

 

Its worth highlighting that you can shoot as much as you like with as many machine guns as you like (even concentrated at a small aircraft) - but if you are outside of effective range (roughly speaking with a .303 its within 200m effective range, and with a .50 calibre its about 350 - 400m) many bullets may not even penetrate much beyond the outer skin; outside of that range they will likely deflect, ricochet or be absorbed within the skin or supporting structure - especially if the target is moving and especially if the surface you are hitting is curved or angled in any way (which is most fuselages & wings). Most of the ace's emphasised you have to get uncomfortably close to your opponent to get a decisive result or you have to be an exceptional deflection shooter which is a rare skill. Cannons tend to have greater effective range with greater punching power - the bullets velocity and penetrating power reduces over distance, but an explosive charge of say a 20mm cannon can do very similar aerodynamic damage regardless of range provided you're accurate enough.

 

Food for thought anyway.

Edited May 29 by Aurora_Stealth

[MDzmitry]

1 час назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

but from my experience online dmg is redused at least 2 times if not more.

To claim so you need to collect and provide data, otherwise it's no better than a hearsay.

1 час назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

And topic is about dmg model and dmg model of li2 box is one of the most broken ones on the market.

Quite the opposite, there's plenty of projects with far worse damage model, from one-tapping 20mm's to tungsten-throwing .30cals.

1 час назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

IF you think that 14 browning machineguns would do no damage fired into a 109 Fighter plane im lost for words...

Good that you highlight the "IF", because I don't think so. If you mind re-reading my message, I claim that machineguns naturally require much more time to cause the same level of damage to an aircraft due to lacking kinetic and absent chemical energy in comparison with cannons.

1 час назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

its a tiny aircraft that has everything tightly packed yet you claim that pilot would not feel any diference if hes getting hit by this.

Please don't put words into my mouth, from all you say I "claim" I can only agree that a pilot will likely survive being shot at from straight 6 thanks to fuel tank and armour plating.

1 час назад, FTC_Pablodzim сказал:

look what one of these guns especially .50call does to a target on the ground and tell me that plane would be fine after getting hit by it.

A metal plate is much smaller in comparison with a fighter, even Bf 109 having more than 16m^2 of wing surface.

Apart from that here's a research on the RAF's use of machineguns:
 

Скрытый текст

 

There was also a video circulating on this forum comparing .30cal AP, .50cal API and a 20mm round (HE?) on a parody of a wing. First 2 left holes of varying sizes, the latter blew the entire structure to pieces. There's your comparison.

[[CPT]Crunch]

20 hours ago, MDzmitry said:

Then what we have is (I took the quantity multiplier of 3,5 to not bother choosing between a Mustang and a Thunderbolt) 49-50 hits per second, that is non-ideal solution. Or 2 seconds of firing P-39's 2 nose-mounted .50cals.

Keep in mind rate of fire is not the same in a P-39 because its guns are synchronized and firing through the propeller arc, and sync is accounted for in game.  So they can't be compared according to time on the trigger.  Even a P-39 compared to a P-39 will vary dependent on actual power settings.

[MDzmitry]

9 минут назад, [CPT]Crunch сказал:

Keep in mind rate of fire is not the same in a P-39 because its guns are synchronized and firing through the propeller arc, and sync is accounted for in game.  So they can't be compared according to time on the trigger.  Even a P-39 compared to a P-39 will vary dependent on actual power settings.

Let's be honest though, if a P-39 ends up only using its 2 remaining Brownings then something might've gone quite wrong. Same with any "mixed" plane's machineguns, they're hardly ever capable of dealing enough harm to down a healthy enemy.

[357th_KW]

Here's an example recorded yesterday in 6.001 - the relevant part of the recording starts at roughly the 4:00 mark.  This was done on a MP server (I'm playing on the same box, so there is essentially zero latency) against an AI 109G-6/AS.  The pilot was wounded immediately, so I was able to just chase him and peck away at the same wing.  At least 5 concentrated bursts from 6 x .50 strike the left wing/wing tip area before the spar finally cracks.  Then more hits from 2 x .50 to the same area produce no additional damage, and then AI eventually flew back to base and landed.

 

Contrast this with the historical film I posted here: 

 

Edited May 29 by 357th_KW

[MDzmitry]

@357th_KW no access to the file, could you fix it so that you don't need to confirm each person's entry?

[357th_KW]

12 minutes ago, MDzmitry said:

@357th_KW no access to the file, could you fix it so that you don't need to confirm each person's entry?

 

Sorry about that - should be fixed now.

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, FTC_Pablodzim said:

Also sorry just noticed offline and online dmg models are completly different. I mean they behave differently. Its way easier to kill in offline mode. I mean they behave differently. Its way easier to kill in offline mode.

 

The damage model is no different in offline vs online. 

 

And again, I remind all here that if you think something is wrong with an aspect of the damage modeling, please upload a track file. Pointing to anecdotes or comments like "it's easy enough to see", etc., isn't going to get a potential issue looked at.

[MDzmitry]

58 минут назад, LukeFF сказал:

And again, I remind all here that if you think something is wrong with an aspect of the damage modeling, please upload a track file.

There's one track file above, an interesting case indeed.

But honestly I'm not sure if it's a 109 issue or .50cals being a whack. Could be checked by testing same P-51 against 190/Spit/La/Yak/P-51/P-39.

 

If I were to suggest anything, I'd honestly just give fuel tanks a % chance of fire on kinetic hits. I know they can already explode from HE, but since incendiary effect isn't modelled it could be side-stepped by giving the fuel tanks such an option.

Скрытый текст

To support this idea: basically every round we have in the game is also supposed to have Incendiary effect: 

- API for ShVAK,

- API/APHE for MG151, 

- SAPI for Hispano

- APIs for 7,62, 7,92, .303s and all high-caliber MGs

- All HE shells (except for 1/2 of early ShVAK shells and not represented early French Hispano rounds) had incendiary mixture in them.

 

At this point why bother modelling incendiary damage and not just slap a fire chance on fuel tanks from aforementioned "Kinetic-type" rounds?

 

Because while I've been digging through combat reports I've noticed a significant discrepancy between cases of fuel tank fires in real life and in Il-2. A much more noticeable difference than in cases of wing snaps.

Edited May 29 by MDzmitry

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

Here's an example recorded yesterday in 6.001 - the relevant part of the recording starts at roughly the 4:00 mark.  This was done on a MP server (I'm playing on the same box, so there is essentially zero latency) against an AI 109G-6/AS.  The pilot was wounded immediately, so I was able to just chase him and peck away at the same wing.  At least 5 concentrated bursts from 6 x .50 strike the left wing/wing tip area before the spar finally cracks.  Then more hits from 2 x .50 to the same area produce no additional damage, and then AI eventually flew back to base and landed.

 

Contrast this with the historical film I posted here: 

 

I watched your video up to 3:33.

At the start, you hit the tail of the 109, then the right wings about 2–3 times, followed by a few more hits on the right wing itself. After that, you shredded the fuselage and got an instant PK. So... what's the issue?

With the second target, I saw you aiming at the left wing. After 20–30 hits near the wingtip, at 5:05 the tip visibly bent. It didn’t get ripped off, so it didn’t break completely — but it was clearly wrecked. A player would've lost that wing easily during a 2–3G maneuver.

As you know, the game treats the inner and outer wings as separate parts — same goes for the flaps and radiators. And often, the flap or radiator absorbs part of the damage.

[354thFG_Leifr]

On 5/29/2025 at 5:22 PM, LukeFF said:

 

The damage model is no different in offline vs online. 

 

And again, I remind all here that if you think something is wrong with an aspect of the damage modeling, please upload a track file. Pointing to anecdotes or comments like "it's easy enough to see", etc., isn't going to get a potential issue looked at.

 

I'm sure this is true, and I see no reason why they would be purposefully different between offline and online. However, you only have to fly a short period of time in a busy server, in a busy local airspace, to observe DM shenanigans that are otherwise different to offline play - seems to be more an issue of network robustness than anything else. 

[MDzmitry]

Not sure if it will ever work or help, but I made a suggestion regarding fuel tank fires.

I really think that fuel tank fires are underrepresented as hell.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 hours ago, MDzmitry said:

Not sure if it will ever work or help, but I made a suggestion regarding fuel tank fires.

I really think that fuel tank fires are underrepresented as hell.

For sure in FC there was something off, I made a test mission and my observation was that only Camel fuel tank can be set on fire, other plans only engine fire and engine fire is to easy to extinguish (gas and mixture to lower position). 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Not only the fuel tank fires but when is the last time you've seen a FW-190 oil cooler light off on the nose cowl ring, that used to be real common, now its extinct.