Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2011, 05:55 AM
Romanator21 Romanator21 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 507
Default

Quote:
In the same tests the RAF fired British .303 incendaries and German 7.92mm incendiaries into the self sealing tanks of a Blenheim. Both caused a fire with about 1 in 10 of the rounds fired. The 'De Wides' were more effective, causing a fire with 1 in 5 shots.
Well, then about 10 shots have to hit the exact same spot then right?

I also wonder what constitutes a fire in those tests. Certainly not a roaring inferno? Could a small round 1/10 times always create a pillar of fire?

Maybe I missed it, but will CoD treat fire differently than IL-2? Currently it's fuel leak; grey smoke; black smoke; inferno. By the time it gets to the latter, you've got a few minutes, at best, to bail.

Maybe it should be something along the lines of: small leak, larger leak, largest leak; light grey smoke, heavy grey smoke; light black smoke, heavy black smoke; small fire, medium fire, blazing fire-ball of death, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-19-2011, 11:44 AM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanator21 View Post
Well, then about 10 shots have to hit the exact same spot then right?

I also wonder what constitutes a fire in those tests. Certainly not a roaring inferno? Could a small round 1/10 times always create a pillar of fire?

.
They were looking at how many rounds it took to actually set the whole fuel tank on fire.

I don't know if German fuel tanks were any better protected than Blenheim ones, so that could be a factor. Plus the tests were done on the ground so you don't get the effect of the airflow either putting out, or intensifying the flames.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-19-2011, 12:53 PM
JAMF JAMF is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
They were looking at how many rounds it took to actually set the whole fuel tank on fire.

I don't know if German fuel tanks were any better protected than Blenheim ones, so that could be a factor. Plus the tests were done on the ground so you don't get the effect of the airflow either putting out, or intensifying the flames.
And no aluminium skin to deflect some energy from the rounds, before hitting the tank?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2011, 02:32 PM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

When they first started to armour plate the MK1 Spitfire they placed a 3mm Duralumin sheet over the fuel tank in front of the cockpit to deflect rounds coming in from the front at shallow angles.

I think the second thing they did was place the armoured glass slab on the wind screen because thats where the deflected round ended up!

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2011, 08:50 PM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMF View Post
And no aluminium skin to deflect some energy from the rounds, before hitting the tank?
I dunno, were blenheims fabric covered? My Blenheim knowledge is practically zero...

And just to add to the DM argument.. CoD will have the most advanced DM around - end of. (It's probably the main reason we're not going to see 100+ bomber formations initially)

Last edited by winny; 02-19-2011 at 08:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-19-2011, 11:15 PM
GnigruH GnigruH is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 129
Default

Well, you seem to forget about a thing called convergence.
At optimum range all eight mgs would hit one spot, with high rof.
This really should be devastating IMO.

I heard in CoD they're boosting mgs and nerfing the cannons, compared to '46 ofc.

If it is true, the times when it was better to have one cannon on board, rather than eight mgs, are unfortunately over.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2011, 03:16 AM
speculum jockey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As for aluminum skins deflecting and dissipating energy from MG rounds, yes and no.

Aluminum is a very soft metal and bullets have little to not trouble penetrating multiple layers of it. Sure you can have a bullet impact at a very extreme angle or at the end of its effective range, but for the most part rounds keep on trucking. A guy I know went out to the bush to test out a new (new to him, but old) .30-30 rifle. This is pretty much the weakest .30 cal rifle out there. He accidentally (negligently) put a round through the side of his mini-van and it went clear out the other side. It went through the outer panel, through one of the support beam leading to the roof, through the plastic casing, through the entire second row passenger seat (metal frame, 4 feet of foam, and then through the other side's plastic casing, support frame, and outer panel.

Bullets do a lot of strange things, but against soft or thin metals they usually go straight through and only vary their trajectory slightly. Hence He-111's coming back intact, but with mostly dead crewmembers.

In your typical WWII airframe the only things that are going to stop them are armour plates, metal cylinders, the engine, or other hard metal fixtures that are not part of the actual airframe and shell.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2011, 07:38 PM
Former_Older Former_Older is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speculum jockey View Post
As for aluminum skins deflecting and dissipating energy from MG rounds, yes and no.

Aluminum is a very soft metal and bullets have little to not trouble penetrating multiple layers of it. Sure you can have a bullet impact at a very extreme angle or at the end of its effective range, but for the most part rounds keep on trucking. A guy I know went out to the bush to test out a new (new to him, but old) .30-30 rifle. This is pretty much the weakest .30 cal rifle out there. He accidentally (negligently) put a round through the side of his mini-van and it went clear out the other side. It went through the outer panel, through one of the support beam leading to the roof, through the plastic casing, through the entire second row passenger seat (metal frame, 4 feet of foam, and then through the other side's plastic casing, support frame, and outer panel.

Bullets do a lot of strange things, but against soft or thin metals they usually go straight through and only vary their trajectory slightly. Hence He-111's coming back intact, but with mostly dead crewmembers.

In your typical WWII airframe the only things that are going to stop them are armour plates, metal cylinders, the engine, or other hard metal fixtures that are not part of the actual airframe and shell.
I think you make a good point

A lot of people seem to not understand how much damage a rifle-caliber bullet can really do. Movies and TV are the basis for a lot of opinions I think.

The 'small' .303 and it's US .30 cousins could go through trees. At the Springfield Armory museum in Massachusetts, USA is a fascinating series of thick hardwood blocks that were shot with .30 and .308 caliber rifle rounds, from M1 and M14 rifles. Well over a foot of penetrating from either round. I recall the .308 as having a 19" penetration through solid hardwood

And that's a single shot, not a barrage of sustained automatic fire pummeling the hardwood block, just one single round.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2011, 09:56 AM
LukeFF's Avatar
LukeFF LukeFF is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Riverside, California, USA
Posts: 338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GnigruH View Post
I heard in CoD they're boosting mgs and nerfing the cannons, compared to '46 ofc.
What, from a friend of a friend of a friend?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2011, 03:25 PM
GnigruH GnigruH is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeFF View Post
What, from a friend of a friend of a friend?
Could be.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.