Yak-9T - incredible firepower (or maybe incredible tank's lack of armor?)

[Furio]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Please, read this:

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...hbusters4.html

.

I read several pages of this myth-buster. Overall, I strongly believe that over claiming was enormous, and not only in aircraft versus tank. However, this same myth-buster gives some suspect numbers and makes some unsubstantiated claims. This, for example: “In addition the RAF and USAF had given the Soviets critical air superiority for the first time (in 1944)”. No comments or details are given to this piece of “undisputable truth” that sounds to me as a simple nonsense, reducing the accountability of the whole analysis to the typical low level of web literature.

As off topic it may sounds, this discussion is probably pointing to the one of the most important point of any “realistic” simulation. If true combat effectiveness would be really implemented, we should expect our kills (of anything: tanks, aircraft, vehicles, ships, anything) to be reduced by a factor of probably ten. On the contrary, the probability to end our simulated career as KIA would be augmented by the same rate. Not very fun, I think…

[gaunt1]

As off topic it may sounds, this discussion is probably pointing to the one of the most important point of any “realistic” simulation. If true combat effectiveness would be really implemented, we should expect our kills (of anything: tanks, aircraft, vehicles, ships, anything) to be reduced by a factor of probably ten. On the contrary, the probability to end our simulated career as KIA would be augmented by the same rate. Not very fun, I think…

Yes, I completely agree. In fact, I also dont want it to be changed. (especially because I love to fly IL-2/10) I just pointed out on that in RL, things were different.

[Pershing]

Originally Posted by Furio

If true combat effectiveness would be really implemented, we should expect our kills (of anything: tanks, aircraft, vehicles, ships, anything) to be reduced by a factor of probably ten. On the contrary, the probability to end our simulated career as KIA would be augmented by the same rate. Not very fun, I think…

I think nobody wants "true combat effectiveness", but maybe DT should correct airguns/armor ratio to reduce power of AP rounds a little...
Sortie results shown in start post seem too unreal to me..

[gaunt1]

There were very few AP weapons to rely solely on kinetic energy in WW2.

Yes, very few. Just all existing british AP ammo starting from the Boys rifle to the 20pdr AT gun. They didnt use APHE at all. Americans also had these "shot" rounds for 57, 75 and 76mm guns. (although their use in combat was limited)

[JtD]

Yep, British practice was different. They went with solid AP shots in land warfare for most of the war. Not so in the air or at sea.

[swiss]

Just some basic knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_squash_head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity

[majorfailure]

1.A penetration is not necessarily a kill in real life. And that is more likely so when we have a smaller round (even 45mm is small in tank warfare) barely penetrating. That could be fixed by implementing a more complex or a randomised damage model.
2.Pilots in Il-2 are too good at shooting, and they don't have their life at stake. They can train as many hours shooting at as many tanks they want, and fly as daring maneuvres as they want. This is not fixable IMHO. (Just as an example: I can attack a German PzIII/IV AFV with a Beaufighter, shoot it up and get away with it most of the time, and that took me some hours training and a few virtual lifes and virtual Beaufigters - and I used up some virtual Panzers, too. And I have to fly a maneuvre that in real life would be rated somthing in between suicidal and dauntless.)

P. S.: Why is it that "soft" ground targets don't blow up with the first hit (penetration)? Do they soak up damage, till a certain amount is reached? And couldn't some similar model be applied to tanks, too?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pershing

I think nobody wants "true combat effectiveness", but maybe DT should correct airguns/armor ratio to reduce power of AP rounds a little...

Why not? For online campaigns which track things like number of AFV and ground vehicles available some people want historical realism for ground kills.

As I suggested before, why not just have an option for historically accurate AFV kills, at least against aircraft-mounted guns?

If you don't like it, just turn it off. That way, people who want the ability to shoot up dozens of tanks to emulate the purported feats of the IL2 at Kursk and the Typhoon and P-47 in Normandy will still be happy.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that rockets are overpowered, or that it's unrealistic for a single aircraft to shoot up dozens of soft ground vehicles. The only issue is that cannon-equipped aircraft are a too effective against medium and heavy tanks.

The simple solution would be to just double or triple "panzer ratings" for those vehicles against aircraft guns.

A better solution that would require a whole lot more work would be to provide hard targets such as ships and tanks with a "damage resistance" or "hardness" rating, where unless energy from a shot exceeded a certain threshold, there's no penetration.

After that, you'd have some sort of "hit point" mechanism for generalized damage, with either more detailed modeling for "critical hits" to engine, drivetrain, ammo or crew, or just a fixed percentage chance for a critical hit of some sort.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The simple solution would be to just double or triple "panzer ratings" for those vehicles against aircraft guns.

I think that would be unfair and lead to bogus results like unkillable light tanks or APCs...

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A better solution that would require a whole lot more work would be to provide hard targets such as ships and tanks with a "damage resistance" or "hardness" rating, where unless energy from a shot exceeded a certain threshold, there's no penetration.

I think that is what the game does? Even if it is just a simple comparison if the kinetic energy of a round is enought to penetrate the armor.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

After that, you'd have some sort of "hit point" mechanism for generalized damage, with either more detailed modeling for "critical hits" to engine, drivetrain, ammo or crew, or just a fixed percentage chance for a critical hit of some sort.

A complex damage model would need lots of work, I'd think -and may not even be worth the effort. A hit point model would be okay, but it would have the disadvantage to completely elliminate the chance for a catastrophic hit. If it is doable, I'd like to have a random chance model. This could be weapons based, and applied to tank vs. tank, too. Just as an example -numbers are guesswork and would need adjustment:
A .50 cal round that penetrates has a 0.05 chance to completly obliterate the target, and additional 0.2 chance to do significant damage(target stops moving/shooting/both). The other 0.75 chance it would do nothing of significance.
A 75mm projectile that penetrates then could destroy the target in 0.75 cases, do significant damage in 0.2 cases and do nothing in 0.05 cases.

This adresses the every penetrating hit a kill issue and allows damaged vehicles. Disadvantage is that there is no differenciation between shots that barely penetrate and those that do easily if both projectiles are fired by the same weapon. Solution would be to base random chance tables on remaining energy after penetration.

[gaunt1]

I think it would be more or less simple to do it, there should be a difficulty option:
1, arcade mode: no change, everything stays as is now.
2, realistic mode:
7.62 could destroy unarmored vehicles only
12.7mm effective up to APCs. All tanks, including light ones invulnerable
20mm, same as 12.7, but small chance against light tanks.
23mm, effective up to light tanks, small chance against medium. Heavies invulnerable.
30mm, effective up to medium tanks, heavies still invulnerable.
37-45mm, effective up to medium, small chance against heavies.
75mm, kills everything easily.