Possibly, but still a “burst” is likely little more than a second of fire
Better. But which information in these support your claim? Putting 1500 pages on someones deskt to convince him of a 12 word sentence you made as a claim is hardly a way to discuss. Or is it?
It is not my job to read every single source. It is your job to convince me why I should read yours and what information is in it. I will be honest I will not spend 12 hours to search for the two sentences supporting your claims. That is very much your job. You gave the links, now start citing your sources to make your arguments. I admit by demanding you watch 10mins of YT videos instead of giving timestamps I was also being lazy, but as 80% of the video is pictures with short explanaitions it can`t be that hard.
None the less I will now have something to read for the next months when taking a train.
2 Likes
I see, so you rather watch a 10 min video and belive everything some guys says than do some actual research on that topic.
You came here just to argue with others because you have nothing better to do.
How sad you are.
I read quite a lot of sources on other subject already. You once again ignore 99% of what I wrote and bitch around
If you want an argument CITE your sources. 1500 pages of documents are not an argument.
I will not be insulted by someone who wants to make someone else quit a discussion by demanding the most unreasonable think in history and sience. Telling me where sth is said that supports your claims is your job. If I have to go search for it you fail and proof only that you have a bad nature.
I think the point is…
How many rounds from a BF109 should it take to down a Spitfire?
How many should it take from a Spitfire to down a BF109?
I think it will be easiest to find information from the battle of britain, so these aircraft are good choices
1 round?
A Dozen?
50 rounds?
Usually these aircraft fired a 1-2 second burst and that burst was likely enough to severely damage a target, but more than likely, enough to down it entirely. If we consider the rate of fire on these weapon systems, then that is a lot of potential rounds fired within that burst window.
Spitfire MkIX:
2x 20mm Hispano Mk.II - ROF 600/Min
4x 7.7mm Browning Machine Gun - ROF 1000/Min
1 second burst is 20 rounds of 20mm and around 70-80 rounds of 303/7.7mm.
BF-109 G
1x MG 151/20mm ROF 700/min
2x MG 131/13mm 900/min
1 second burst is 12 rounds of 20mm and 30 rounds of 13mm.
I believe 1-2 seconds of fire from either aircraft with a fairly standard mix of HEI and other rounds would be more than enough to destroy most single engine fighters. Regardless of how much explosive filler was in each round. Though I doubt these were significant differences.
In my opinion, this is near enough what we have (within 10% I’d say), at least from the perspective of a MkIX Spitfire pilot. Some aircraft might be different, but I doubt they are massively different.
So the question is, if what we have now is not correct, why is it incorrect? and what should it be?
Please provide evidence for either why its not correct and what it should be instead and please be specific with what aircraft/gun you are talking about. Its hard to keep track in this thread sometimes.
There are certainly some issues with the damage model, no one is denying that, but those are seperate issues to real-shatter and I think some aircraft need tweaks to their damage models and not necesarily to their cannons. (though some might need minor adjustment, but on an individual basis) However whether we are talking about blowing an aircrafts wing off, or just destroying control surfaces, controls veins, etc. Then the results are the same. Just the kill is confirmed a lot sooner, and so less chance of killsteals
1 Like
Problem with you folks logic is that you are searching for pictures of damage done by 20mm HEF, but you’ll only find pictures of planes that survived the hits, not those which destroyed the airplane. So,whatever you find has a large amount of survivor bias attached.
Going for pictures is not the right approach. You’ll need actual test data.
2 Likes
Agreed, though if we find a picture of a spitfire with a dozen holes in it, we know it can survive at least that much. So far, we’ve found a picture of a spitfire with a single hole in it. Therefore, anymore than that, is probably enough to kill it. Not a perfect solution but finding that data is actually quite tricky. A lot of it doesnt seem to be digitised at least.
A lot of it sits behind 100+ euro paywalls and in museum archives… tried to get my hands on it long ago to no avail, and im not going to spend that amount of money just to prove a point on the internet)
Yeah, I found some documents that look perfect on the national archives, but it would require in-person visits. So, no, not doing that. I think we have to work off “theory” / reasonable expectations. and go from there.
Though we may be able to find testimonials, like the one from IWM, which was “but one hit with a cannon and down you go”. So there is some room for interpretation of “one hit”. But whether its a 1 second burst or literally 1 round, its not very much either way.
I don’t see them going out and finding a crashed airplane which is likely in 10 million pieces and investigating whether it was 1 hit or multiple hits, rather they would tell their pilots do NOT get hit, not even once, to put the fear of god into them to avoid getting hit at all.
How much damage shells should do can perfectly be evaluated by today’s material science, simulation models, and knowledge on explosives. There are experts in these fields and Gaijin could use them for consultation if they really wish to once and for all work this topic out
1 Like
Please not. We already had gajin “take experts models for calculations” and they ruined physics with it in ground RB pen
Yeah, definetly. I think more often than not, if you got hit with a cannon round and didnt crash, you were very lucky/skilled
Problem with current changes is that they are always in extremes… it seems its either all or nothing with no in between. But whatever, I still take having too high damage over no damage at all any day of the week, certainly now that it’s 16v16 and we have a 25 minute timer in the match. At the very least, if you fly well, you can have a good match impact even if you have a plane with a low ammo count which doesn’t have liberty to just “spray and pray” like, f.e., a 4B can do.
You mean for APCBC/AP/APHE, which is the only inaccurate round types left, which are also the rounds on most ground/armored target belts for aircraft.
APCR/HVAP was corrected in 2019.
APDS was corrected this year.
APFSDS was corrected before 2019.
And HE was most recently corrected in 2021.
Yeah, agreed on that, If i’ve gotten onto someones tail and gotten a firing solution. I dont want to have to spend the next minute putting rounds into them to kill them.
Fairly certain they just broke it in the last major updateto the point where apparently its now better to use solid shot AP
No all rounds to a degree.
I do not trust the APHE pens at all they conflict heavily with real world experiences but armour quality is certainly a big ? there as well
If AP`s pen is correct then APHE´s is wrong if APHE´s is correct AP´s is wrong as solid AP even without a cap will have more pen than the same calibre mass and speed APHE even with a cap
APCR pen might actually be in line
APDS is probably fine but it shatters to often and some (17pounder APDS is to low)
APFSDS I have not much experience with but people seem content with it
and HE as well as HESH are buggy especially HESH which can not decide if it is HESH or HE and usually chooses whatever is worse (eg HE on a Tiger II ufp and HESH when exploding 10cm away from an Hellcat)
And don`t get me started on the damage models, there is another threat where I) ranted about those open already
1 Like
Aircraft damage models are hard.
Like so hard no game to this date has anything much more accurate than DCS or WT, & WT has a better representation of damage done through visual effects.
And it’s largely because the CPUs required to run the games in their current state were made 7 years ago.
And the CPUs required to create more complicated damage models were released 2 years ago.
And you get diminishing returns VERY beyond the damage that’s simulated now.
We probably should have better damage zoning on aircraft tho.
Like fuselage split into quarters or eighths front to back.
& wings split into 4 root to tip sections.
That way if you lose say 2 wing root zones you don’t die.
Surprised we don’t have added zones yet since that shouldn’t be much more taxing than what we’re at currently.
Not aircraft the tank shells. Like how a shell behaves post penetration. I am not talking about aircraft and tank damage models.
And I agree aircraft should be more detailed. I mean tanks already are far more detailed in their models as well as the underlying damage model.
Bombers would especially benefit from that, though they should get even more zones and I think this is 75% of the issue now with real-shatter, the ammo is mostly right, but the damage models are too simple, so the damage effects are magnified.
1 Like