No research of this exists. At least not that i know of.
Even though my posted document looks at multiple hits, but those do not take cumulative damage into account. So between the hits the plane gets magically repaired.
The same changes to structural damage would happen to .50 cals too. The killing power of 20mm cannons is not being impacted in a massive way, its the way they do damage that is.
I don’t think a single 20mm FI-T will turn surfaces black like that. It’s likely that two rounds impacted at the same time. But of course they are spaced appart and one hit the wing tip and the other the flaps.
Of course it could also have been the RNG realShatter gods, since RS damage is entirely random.
Instead of a random sphere we know get a sphere with a few high damaging random fragments that can either deal lethal damage or just vanish into the air.
Something that should be brought up as well is that the mk-108 mineshell damage that is commonly touted as how it should function is in very specific circumstances, almost universally against the tails of decommissioned hurricanes and spitfires.
As many others have highlighted in this thread, these rounds would generate vastly different results against other nation’s aircraft due to their innate construction and their ability to get the mineshell to fuse improperly.
In this case, given random 30mm hits, even vastly far away from the wing root, can just shear off a wing of any aircraft, or dislodge the tail in it’s entirety in game, when they should not. This is not just a mineshell thing as well, the jump in damage in game is extremely large currently already.
Meanwhile, in the pacific, US aircraft sustained Japanese 30mm and 20mm fire far better than Japan could have ever imagined due to the construction of said aircraft. To that same end, aero cobras in Russian service were found to be exceptionally robust as well.
Frankly, armor and constructed material types of aircraft would be a better fix than tweaking the damage here.
This source isn’t saying what you think it is at all. It is saying that the chance of a structure kill with the 20mm M97 is 1.9%, and a pilot kill is 0.7%. Structure kills make up 0.019/0.06=32% of the kill probability.
The total percent change for a structural kill if an M97 HEI round hits the plane at this angle is still 1.9%, out of a total chance of 7%. Also the chance for it to be a pilot kill is 3% if the round hits this area. And that’s not even the main point of this post. The main point was that cannon damage is being done fundamentally wrong. Cannons like the shavak should not be blowing wings off. They should messing up the internals, whic is what we see in the data. 50% of the probability of an A kill comes from the pilot being killed.
Four 20mm FI rounds weigh less and deliver less explosve than a single 37mm M54 HE round.
But it’s save to say that the damage can be sever, depending on the area hit.
(Six 20mm FI weigh ~580g and deliver ~35,4g of explosives vs. a 607g M54 with 45g explosive + 6-7g in the fuze)
The 20mm FlaK 30/38 were obsolete even at the start of WW2 but mounting them in a quad mount resulted in just enough firepower to keep them effective.
Of course the 37mm was suppose to replace them and we know that a single 37mm has a high likelyhood of being fatal to a fighter due to blast and fragments.
I think what we shouldn’t forget that we are kinda used to WT simplified damage model.
Where a round contacts the plane and explodes makes little difference to WT compared to real life.
I looked it up in the document and structural kill also counts to loss of controls.
A few 20mm hits will not make a plane fall appart but might simply make it impossible for the pilot to keep flying.
Its also not required to kill the pilot. If a pilot is wounded, it would be the equivalent to a damaged engine. Meaning your performance is severaly reduced and it’s best to RTB immediatly.
I took that segment and put it directly into the post. It defines structural damage as “armor, armament, attack equipment, landing gear and hydraulic systems, supporting surfaces, surface controls, and personnel”.
i agree, mg151’s do no longer cause explosions. They rely on fire volume and ignition chances. Le funny when you just “hit” a zero with two mg151s and then the soviet plane lands a single click on you from 1km away and blows your plane in half. Not even four ANM3s do that.
unless you’re a rarity that plays far away from the server of origin, you’re going to go absolute pog with 50 cals and shvak and these other type of guns. I can’t deal any sort of damage with any gun other than shvak and mk103s because they are the hardest hitting in the entire game; followed by 50 cals which drastically give less damage when I use them. NR23 cannons are pitiful overall and while they do good damage all i get are simple critical hits or hits. The Lim 5P is unbearable pain against slatted sabres because they just refuse to stall out, and the lim5 works around stalling out people. Just the common spot where there is no russian bias because the BR starts being about who can kill the quickest without engaging. Sabres excel at that, then russians become meta again.
But now we go to the issue about gun placement. Some engineers are just like… wow, where did they even graduate you dawg, what’s that kind of weaponry placement dawg…
I personally don’t think the canons are doing too much damage but instead the damage models of the aircraft are too simplistic. Instead a hole being blown in a wing. It’s blowing off the wing.
So the damage model of the aircraft needs a massive increase in fidelity. In much of the same way that tanks have gotten this update and helis are planned to get in September.
That way the damage could be better modeled and more localised.
the aircraft are still modeled in sections, and each sections have “health”, so in other words war thunder’s damage model is world of warplanes but modular.