Durability of aircraft to MG (< 8mm) guns

[Flanker35M]

S!

As comparison the Finnish Fokker D.XXI pilots quickly noted that the .303cal guns were not enough to reliably kill a well armored bomber nor a fighter with good armor plate behind pilot. For example in many occasions the I-16 had been peppered by all 4 x .303cal but the plane puttered on as the rear armor behind pilot stopped the bullets. Same applied to Soviet bombers like DB-3 that had tough armoring in the fuselage, pilots had to aim very carefully to kill the engines so the plane fell. Fokker D.XXI had 2200rds of ammo and many times most of it was used. So you can imagine the joy when Brewsters with 4 x .50cal came and shredded the opposition compared to Fokkers. Bf109G-2 and G-6 later on brought the cannon into play and pilots all stated that the 20mm was more than enough to kill a fighter easily and bombers with short bursts.

Just adding some thoughts

[David603]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

And yet, 10 years after release, the only CFS with a more complex damage model is Rise of Flight, which has had some major bugs in that respect.

[Romanator21]

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.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

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.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by winny

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?

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by David603

And yet, 10 years after release, the only CFS with a more complex damage model is Rise of Flight, which has had some major bugs in that respect.

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

There is no way in hell this is true. Everyone who plays both games agree that the damage modeling is pretty much the biggest shortfall of both games since it's quite simplified.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

There is no way in hell this is true. Everyone who plays both games agree that the damage modeling is pretty much the biggest shortfall of both games since it's quite simplified.

I haven't played either DCS sim, but what I have heard and seen in trailers corresponds with what speculum jockey said.

[JG4_Helofly]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

I have to agree on the first part. And just to be fair: The Tommys will also whine about the 303 not beeing powerfull enough
We have seen it in the past. Many people are not satisfied with "only" disabling the ennemy. They want to see them explode or at least burn.

But of course, machine guns will be great for damaging the cooling system or other similar sensitive areas. You just have to hit the right places. And imo that's one advantage of the canon shell. Even if you just hit the wing for exemple, you might not damage internal sytems, but the structural damage will be much greater.
People with good shooting skills will probably prefere the canon. The others might favor the machine guns.

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think the above comments are the case