+1.

German penetration table for the commonplace 7,92mm SmK v round, at different ranges and angles, striking the armor plate directly (cont. lines) or indirectly (hitting a 3mm thick dural plate at 20 degrees 1,5 meters before the the armor plate).

For reference, the armor thickness on the Spitfire noted. I believe the Hurricane had the same thicknesses.

Apparanatly a lot was dependent on wheter the bullet hit anything before it struck armor plate. If not, it could go through it rather easily. I am not sure if the Spit had 3 mm thick dural plating on the fuselage (it seems unlikely to me, given that the 'deflector plate' cowling over the tank was only 3.5mm thick and it was considered to be a reinforced part to deflect bullets) but 20 degrees angle of impact and 1.5 meters of spacing does seem practical.

You're stretching your specific evidence to cover all cases. It shows 1% penetration when angled 60 degrees to the line of fire.

Well, we know that they existed, so if this source doesn't cover them then we'll just ignore it, I guess.

Okay, so they're uncommon. It doesn't give a time frame. I don't understand how this means they should be removed.

You're framing the question to suit your pre-conceived notions. The Germans developed large-calibre cannons so that they could destroy heavy bombers more easily and rapidly. By contrast, the USAF decided to stick with lighter machine guns (50 cal, etc) because they were effective enough against fighters. If machine guns weren't good enough then the USAF would have adapted.

And I think it's up to you to prove that they weren't. Your evidence has been reviewed, and found lacking.

As previously noted, depends entirely on the angle. Furthermore, nobody in this thread has presented proof that the pilots in question are doing it from dead astern. Plenty of spitfire pilots will haul back on the stick at slightest provocation, often presenting a planform-view shot, with easy line-of-sight to the canopy which was not armored.

Facts which have been overstated/misconstrued.

Anyways, if you want to continue this side-topic you should start a new thread as someone else suggested.

I'll interpret that as you choosing option #2.

I applaud you for choosing not to continue smearing the names of good pilots simply because they are better than you, as it would seem some participants in this thread are content to do, despite not having a shred of evidence.

I personally find the "he killed me, he must be cheating" attitude to be just as pathetic as cheating itself.

Gawd..were not trying to remove ammo now are we?

blimey

S!

Ze-Jamz..you said it out loud. Just wait for the Purist Battalion and their funny sidekicks to march in and demand it ;) :D On a more serious note can't the servers restrict loadouts like in IL-2 1946? Would solve these fantasy beltings etc.

I recall asking this to be added as a server side options and was imediatly jumped on :( looks like I was correct after all.

P.S. I use a (for the most part) historical belt in my aircraft :P

Salute

1. The SmK (H) Tungsten round is clearly causing an ahistorical imbalance, since it makes the E-1's weapons more effective than the E-3's and E-4's, not accurate representation of the real situation.
2. The round was in very short supply, its not even listed in the game as part of the standard E-1 loadout, unlike the Dewilde Inciendary round in the Spitfires and Hurricanes or the M-Geschoss in the E-4.
3. We don't have an accurate determination of exactly how good this round was.

I am not raising an issue about the M-Geschoss, that was clearly part of the battle, and an real indicator of which direction the Luftwaffe was taking its air to air weapons program in 1940, ie. towards 20mm weapons.

I'd be happy to see a server with historical beltings, including restricting the British to limited numbers of DeWilde rounds.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Please quote a source that states the round was "in very short supply".

Go back and read my posts.