Friday 2010-11-19 Dev. update and Discussion

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by major_setback

Badly beaten:

Thanks Setback, another cracking shot I've never seen before. Just shows how ineffective hitting the rear fuselage can prove to be.

I wonder how easy it was to set the wing tanks ablaze in the He 111? I recently read a wartime report somewhere (could have been posted here) stating that something like 1 in 10 .303 incendiary rounds would ignite a self sealing fuel tank. I'd always believed previously that an HE round was required to open a hole up in the tank and expose the fuel to the air to allow ignition. Maybe the tanks took a few minutes to seal allowing some fuel to be exposed to the incendiary effects?

Interesting stuff.

Looks like the He-111 has painted damage on its wings.
Hopefully this will not be in final because painted damage is from the last century and you've already shown that "real" damage is possible.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Hecke

Looks like the He-111 has painted damage on its wings.
Hopefully this will not be in final

How tf do you know if it's a texture overlay or indeed calculate?
You may not like the apearance, no problem with that.

but this:

because painted damage is from the last century and you've already shown that "real" damage is possible.

...is the fastest way to turn this thread into another flame war.
last century": What do you know about PC in the last century?
You were 6.
Also, the comparison is sooooo not needed!
You can dislike it, no prob - but you dont have to unload additional ordnance just to make sure we know you really dont like it.

And last but not least: Honestly I don't know if its possible at all.
Just think of two shoot up B29 plus a few P47, all of them can take a crapload of damage.
Then there are another 30 or so online players, all with less to none damage at all.
I have serious doubts even top-end pc could handle all this without turning it into a slideshow.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Thanks Setback, another cracking shot I've never seen before. Just shows how ineffective hitting the rear fuselage can prove to be.

I wonder how easy it was to set the wing tanks ablaze in the He 111? I recently read a wartime report somewhere (could have been posted here) stating that something like 1 in 10 .303 incendiary rounds would ignite a self sealing fuel tank. I'd always believed previously that an HE round was required to open a hole up in the tank and expose the fuel to the air to allow ignition. Maybe the tanks took a few minutes to seal allowing some fuel to be exposed to the incendiary effects?

Interesting stuff.

Shots like these really go to show the necessity of shooting at convergence when your using low penetration rounds like the .303.

Although it is obvious that enough systems were damaged to bring the plane down, 700 rounds is about 29% of a spitfires 2400 round loadout (I think its 300 rounds per gun in the Mk1A)

With my average hit% at about *cough*5%*cough* it would take me a lot of trips to bring down a single bomber.

Cheers!

[Romanator21]

Fantastic update. Tells us all kinds of stuff.

That pic of the distant aircraft leaving contrails... Twin engines, narrow fuselage, broad wings with pointed tips and straight, twin tail. Are those Hampdens?

They are Fiat Br.20s mate. It's hard to tell in this attachment (see original post instead) but these planes have a yellow stripe around the fuselage, and the rudders are not at the stabilizer tips, but towards the middle, I think (leftmost aircraft).





The resemblance is too close...

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Thanks Setback, another cracking shot I've never seen before. Just shows how ineffective hitting the rear fuselage can prove to be.

I wonder how easy it was to set the wing tanks ablaze in the He 111? I recently read a wartime report somewhere (could have been posted here) stating that something like 1 in 10 .303 incendiary rounds would ignite a self sealing fuel tank. I'd always believed previously that an HE round was required to open a hole up in the tank and expose the fuel to the air to allow ignition. Maybe the tanks took a few minutes to seal allowing some fuel to be exposed to the incendiary effects?

Interesting stuff.

The RAF did some tests in 1940 to see why they were failing to down bombers.

The problem was that the small bullets fired by the RAF's MGs could not carry enough incendiary or explosive to guarantee success, and also had insufficient penetration to defeat armour reliably.

Ground tests carried out by the British, firing at an old Bristol Blenheim from 180 m to the rear with various British and German guns and ammunition, revealed that the .303 incendiary B Mk VI bullets would set light to a Blenheim wing tank with only one hit in five; during the Battle only one or two of the eight guns were normally loaded with this ammunition. Other .303 and 7.92 mm incendiaries were only half as effective.

Both German and British armour-piercing rounds could penetrate up to 12 mm of armour plate if fired directly at it from 180 m, most of the bullets were deflected or tumbled by first passing through the fuselage skin or structure. As a consequence, only a quarter to a third of the bullets reached the Blenheim's 4 mm-thick armour plate at all, and very few penetrated it.

There are loads of reports of German bombers comming home with over 200 bullet holes. The 8 x .303 were more effective against fighters.