At this point it's an exercise in curiosity. I'm certainly not angry wiith IL2 for all that I criticize it!

I recognize that some things are impossible in the game, and that other things just aren't a big enough deal that DT needs to fix them.

In any case, DT, or modders, can pick and choose which DM errors they wish to fix.

The results are in. Attached is a tab-separated text file which shows the results of point-blank twin .50 caliber MG fire against all the planes in the game. It can easily be turned back into a proper table in the word processor or spreadsheet of your choice.

In addition to lots of stuff that really can't be fixed, like the way that IL2 models wing damage and breakage, there are many things which can be fixed, including outright "hook" problems and DM omissions.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1442263874

All of what I mentioned in my previous posts still stands. But, I'll add that many of the Japanese aircraft have really odd DM choices. For example, in terms of survivability, the Ki-43 series is far tougher than the A6M series, even though they were planes of comparable mass and size. The Ki-21 series also seems to be quite durable - possibly moreso than the G4M series. Arguably, the Japanese Navy aircraft should be made more durable.

In any case, it's clear that DM modeling is technically quite tricky and that there's no really good formula for doing it.

Thank you, Pursuivant, an excellent job!

I don’t think that our game is “flawed”. In my opinion it is (relatively) simple, but this simplicity allow us to have an unequalled planeset, today covering almost all major combat types and a lot of minor ones.

My feeling is that many of the inconsistencies tend to level out each other. For example, I never noticed that B239 wings are unbreakable, because it is relatively easy to break up its fuselage.

But the real value of your experiment is for us all. Now we have a lot of facts to read and ponder about, a reality check for all the claims about “porked” or “uber” planes.

Thanks again.

If you fly historical air battles you dont have to worry about 0.50 caliber bullets but for lots of 20mms and some 13mm calliber (i think they are more powerfull but not tested).

So to minimize your results maybe you should test only vs Axis planes.
You will save time and strength!:) :)

Many thanks for your work. The table is impressive.

Just two notes:
I-153 was indeed very vulnerable plane. According to German reports, it used to get fire quickly if hit by MG from the side.

Regarding "unfair advantage" of late USAAF fighters... Well, if P-38 does have any advantage it is annuled by ridiculous fragility of horisontal stabilisers and tail beams.

I don't share your point of view.
Some Italian fighters have .50s as their only weapon. And they ARE vulnerable to .50s fire.

I also tested the effect of .50's on 190's, and even if they won't break their wings, it will become so unwieldy, that even an alive AI won't be capable of controlling it. That won't happen on a P51. Not with the same amount of fire.

Valid points, but one step at a time.

Future tests will determine vulnerability to side and rear attacks, as well as vulnerability to .30 caliber & 20 mm fire.

But, I'm limited by the selection of flexible guns mounted in flyable aircraft. Pe-8 for SHVAK, G4M for Type 99/Oerlikon FF 20 mm.

If anyone can recommend a flyable aircraft with twin .30/.303 caliber or 7.62mm flexible guns in a rear turret, I'd be grateful.

I chose .50 caliber as the mid-point in terms of weight of fire, and because the original focus of my test was determining if the FW-190's wing could be broken & its engine set on fire using that caliber of gun.

I might be making a mistake, but I also think that IL2 has "damage thresholds" required to damage certain aircraft parts. I'm guessing that the "damage threshold" classes are .30/.303 caliber & 7.62 mm, .50 caliber/12.7/13 mm, 20 mm & 30 mm. But, they might also be as simple as MG vs. cannon.

In any case, I'm assuming that any plane part which can be broken with .50 caliber/12.7 mm can be broken with rifle caliber MG, and that any part that can't be broken using .50 caliber/12.7mm can be broken using 20mm fire. I'm probably wrong, but further testing will tell.

That assumption appears to be wrong. Riffle caliber may detach control surfaces on planes on which is enabled, but it won't cut wings.

You can't take out a whole aileron on any fighter, but you can do it on a Bf110, and many bombers. On those planes, rifle caliber will have the same effect.

Pick a TB3. Lots of gun firing on many directions, and all rifle caliber.
You can also use a Bf110, or a Stuka.

The MG81, is a very fast shooter, and the MG81Z is the same thing, with double fire.

Italian .50 SAFAT is not anywhere near other HMGs, low RoF, low muzzle energy - still concentrated burst can make plane parts break, it is possible to shoot off a Hurricanes tail or wing, but usually you get unspectacular kills - fuel tank/pilot/controls/control surfaces/engine dead.

Please test UB HMG against planes you thought invulnerable against .50 cal. If I am not totally mistaken, you can break Fw190/F4U/F4F wings with it.