Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles
So what you're saying is, your source gives no concrete info. The most you can infer from your quoted passage is that the tungsten-carbide rounds were less common than the standard hardened steel AP rounds.
Cool, thanks for editorializing it as a magic bullet.  |
Salute
You obviously didn't bother reading my entire set of posts, or perhaps you decided to ignore the content.
1. I have quoted a British test which used captured German ammunition loadouts, and which shows 1% penetration of pilot armour, and makes no mention of special tungsten rounds.
2. I have linked to Anthony Williams article on the Battle of Britain, which deals with the ammunition used by either side, and which makes no mention of Tungsten cored rounds.
3. I quoted from the Wiki article, which notes only at some point tungsten rounds were built, but also they were not common, and doesn't give a time frame.
4. I have pointed out the Germans implemented as quickly as possible, a policy of converting from 7.92 mm wing weapons to the 20 mm FF, why would this policy be in place if the 7.92mm was as effective as it seems to be in the game?
I think it is up to you actually to prove these rounds were in general use during the BoB, available in large quantities, and had the penetrative abilities which seem to be in effect in the game.
To suggest that a round which has the same propellant charge would have suddenly the capability to automatically penetrate the same armour which only 99% of the standard German AP rounds, with the same propellant could not, could seems to me to call for proof.
Right now you are arguing for their inclusion when it's clear their effectiveness runs contrary to all the available facts.
All you have done in your reply is to show you have nothing in way of substantive proof to argue for their inclusion in the game.