I was referring to the game. But yes, even none penetrating hits can in theory kill in real life.

That would replace a fairly decent armor model with on that is totally bogus.
There may be a few exceptions, but currently the IL-2 armor model is that what couldn't be penetrated IRL cannot be killed in IL-2 (Okay, in real life projectiles could shatter on impact, bounce off, etc -but that would be too complex IHMO).

The problems start what happens after a AFV gets hit with a penetrating hit -it is always a kill, while in real life depending on hit zone and remaining projectile energy it may very well have not been lethal or do damage at all. So while in real life it is usually necessary to hit a tank many times with small projectiles until some serious effects are achieved, in IL-2 one penetrating hit is all it takes.

That is where the changes need to be made -NOT EVERY PENETRATING PROJECTILE KILLS.

Uhhh - no.
What makes you think that is the case?

Again: You can disable an AFV without penetrating it by damaging the engine(protected only by light armor) or the tracks.
Anything that goes into the crew compartment means sudden, painful death for most of the crew - and that is the only goal of armor piercing ammunition: To kill the crew.

A SMALL round penetrating will not have a large spalling effect -especially if we talk about rounds, that lost most of their energy for penetrating, which will be the case for most aircraft fired rounds. And a SMALL round, that lost lots of energy is not going to bounce around inside the tank a lot.

Yes, but you need LARGE rounds for that (~75mm+ -and then even HE rounds can destroy tanks), a .50cal is not going to cause spalling. And tracks, I doubt that even large rounds could damage most tank tracks - if not by fluke hits at the connecting bolt heads.

Bounce?
It's not about bouncing.
I've seen a a t54 where a flechette went right through it, entering the turret on one side, leaving the hull on the other side just above the tracks.
Leaving just two tiny holes the diameter of a thumb, yet the crew would have 0 chance of survival.
Any penetrator will tear off metal from the exit hole. Those are tiny fragments, with razor sharp edges, at very high speed.
And the best: They are super hot, able to ignite the hydraulics in your tank.



answered above.


I never claimed a .50 can cause spalling(although it will go right through an m113 btw, lol), or disable tracks.
:confused:

You are talking about high energy kinetic penetrators, which has not much to do with rounds fired by aircraft IMHO -the speed and the missile weight are far from anything a wwII aircraft sports. And a round that went right through a T-54 will have had a huge energy surplus after penetrating, and if I am corrcet also partially fragmented and ignited -and that should have killed crew and/or inginted charges. I seroiusly doubt that usual aircraft rounds wil have similar effects -if I am correct in the assumption that neither DU nor tungsten carbide found widespread use (though the Ju87G used WC rounds), and the smaller the calibre, the less spalling should occur.
But we are talking about effects aircraft bullets can do to tanks, not tank vs. tank gunnery. Tank vs. tank is a different issue IMHO, because of the much greater bullet velocities and masses involved. And if we talk tank vs. tank, then you are right that a penetration should in most cases fatal to the hit AFV -and that even non penetrating hits can do serious damage.

Not sure I understand what you want.
Anything smaller than 20mm cannot penetrate tanks, 37mm can, and the latter is everything but small caliber.

Btw: iirec Rudel mentioned setting some T34 on fire with 20mm guns, but only because of the tanks external fuel tank.

Japanese tanks can be killed by bullets as small as .50cal.
And what I want is some armor model that takes bullet size (or better remaining bullet energy after penetration-then for APHE the additlional chemical energy could be used, too) into account. So that not every penetrating hit is a kill.
Hmm, T-34 did use diesel fuel, that does not burn instanteneusly, must have been a lucky hit.

An idea that crossed my mind too, then again phosphorus can light pretty much everything.
Feel free to download your very own copy of "stuka pilot".

On most armored vehicles 7.62 mm or similar rounds does nothing, except for AP rounds against very light mild steel armor at close ranges. In a few cases, though, you might get spalling against slightly heavier armor, which might injure crewmen or damage very delicate components. Spalling is unlikely to do any damage to the drive train, engine block or gun, however.

Practically, shooting small caliber bullets at AFV does three things:

1) It allows you to aim your heavier guns. You shoot first with light caliber guns, observe where your bullets fall, then shoot with your heavier weapons - assuming they have roughly the same trajectory or you correct accordingly.

2) It forces AFV to remain "buttoned up" limiting the crew's visibility from inside the vehicle and preventing them from manning top-mounted AAA MG.

3) The rattle of bullets might "rattle" the crew. Inexperienced tank crews might retreat or maneuver defensively, on the assumption that all those bullets are just a precursor to something much worse. In some cases this is a valid assumption, since MG were sometimes used as ranging weapons for AT guns. This result could be built into a "mobility kill" option that makes tanks move defensively.