Pilot kill after pilot kill. How do they do it??

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

So what you're saying is, your source gives no concrete info. The most you can infer from your quoted passage is that the tungsten-carbide rounds were less common than the standard hardened steel AP rounds.

Cool, thanks for editorializing it as a magic bullet.

Salute

You obviously didn't bother reading my entire set of posts, or perhaps you decided to ignore the content.

1. I have quoted a British test which used captured German ammunition loadouts, and which shows 1% penetration of pilot armour, and makes no mention of special tungsten rounds.

2. I have linked to Anthony Williams article on the Battle of Britain, which deals with the ammunition used by either side, and which makes no mention of Tungsten cored rounds.

3. I quoted from the Wiki article, which notes only at some point tungsten rounds were built, but also they were not common, and doesn't give a time frame.

4. I have pointed out the Germans implemented as quickly as possible, a policy of converting from 7.92 mm wing weapons to the 20 mm FF, why would this policy be in place if the 7.92mm was as effective as it seems to be in the game?

I think it is up to you actually to prove these rounds were in general use during the BoB, available in large quantities, and had the penetrative abilities which seem to be in effect in the game.

To suggest that a round which has the same propellant charge would have suddenly the capability to automatically penetrate the same armour which only 99% of the standard German AP rounds, with the same propellant could not, could seems to me to call for proof.

Right now you are arguing for their inclusion when it's clear their effectiveness runs contrary to all the available facts.

All you have done in your reply is to show you have nothing in way of substantive proof to argue for their inclusion in the game.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

You obviously didn't bother reading my entire set of posts, or perhaps you decided to ignore the content.

1. I have quoted a British test which used captured German ammunition loadouts, and which shows 1% penetration of pilot armour, and makes no mention of special tungsten rounds.

2. I have linked to Anthony Williams article on the Battle of Britain, which deals with the ammunition used by either side, and which makes no mention of Tungsten cored rounds.

3. I quoted from the Wiki article, which notes only at some point tungsten rounds were built, but also they were not common, and doesn't give a time frame.

4. I have pointed out the Germans implemented as quickly as possible, a policy of converting from 7.92 mm wing weapons to the 20 mm FF, why would this policy be in place if the 7.92mm was as effective as it seems to be in the game?

I think it is up to you actually to prove these rounds were in general use during the BoB, available in large quantities, and had the penetrative abilities which seem to be in effect in the game.

To suggest that a round which has the same propellant charge would have suddenly the capability to automatically penetrate the same armour which only 99% of the standard German AP rounds, with the same propellant could not, could seems to me to call for proof.

Right now you are arguing for their inclusion when it's clear their effectiveness runs contrary to all the available facts.

All you have done in your reply is to show you have nothing in way of substantive proof to argue for their inclusion in the game.

Uhh, I mean this in the politest of ways, but I think you're losing track of what the OP is about...and I'm not sure why the historical effectiveness and availability of the tungsten AP round is being brought to attention. I'm willing to bet money that the ballistics are far (FAR) from modeled correctly in-game. So comparing historical tests is not a valid comparison to in-game effects, IMO.

(In no way am I supporting Doggles narrow-minded, tl;dr-esque comment or taking his side, btw.)

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Here is a quote from an online source re. 7.92mm projectiles used by the Germans and the quantity manufactured:

Infanteriepatrone 7,9mm / Mauser 7.92x57 ammunition

This cartridge was used by the german Mauser Karabiner 98K, Gewehr 41, 43 and numerous other rifles as well as in aircraft, vehicle and infantry machine guns. As the german standard rifle cartridgeMauser 7,92x57 Infanteriepatrone it was called Infanteriepatrone 7,9mm ("infantry cartridge"), also known as the 7,9mm - Militärpatrone ("military cartridge") or as Mauser - Standardmunition 7,92x 57 (Mauser as the weapon company that introduced the ammo for its famous 98K rifle; 7.92mm is the calibre and 57mm the length of the casing (not the chamber as in the US); also, in germany a bore's caliber is measured from land to land). The total production of this cartridge during WW II was 10,475 million (that is over ten billion). Sometimes, esp. among angloamericans, it is also referred to as 8 mm Mauser.
The fired projectile of the Infanteriepatrone had a typical initial energy E0 of 3,700 Joule (sS - projectile of 12.8g at a V0 of 760m/s) but could reach initial energies of over 4,500 Joule (some V-Patronen) depending on the concrete ammunition type and firing weapon.

Between 80 and 90 % of all 7,9mm ammunition produced was of the 7,9 sS (sS for schweres Spitzgeschoss = "heavy pointed bullet") type; the complete cartridge weighed 27g, it was 80.6 mm long and contained 2.7g of gunpowder; the projectile weighed 12.8 g and was 35mm long. When fired from a MG34 or MG42 (as well as from the other rifles using the cartridge) it had a typical V0 of 755 m/s. The regular sS projectile had the following penetration performance: 85cm of dry pine wood at 100m, 65cm at 400m, 45cm at 800m and 10cm at 1,800m; 10mm of iron at 300m, 7mm at 550m; 5mm of steel at 100m; 3mm at 600m.

The second most used type was the SmK (Spitzgeschoss mit Kern = "pointed bullet with core") bullet that measured 37.2mm, weighed 11.5 g and contained a hardened steel core (about 8% of all produced 7.9mm rounds).

(my note, this is standard AP bullet)

Another type was the SmK L'spur (L'spur = Leuchtspur = "bright trace" = "tracer") bullet that was the previous type combined with a tracer that burned for 800 to 900 m (a little less numerous than the SmK).

The lS (leichtes Spitzgeschoss = "light pointed bullet") which had an aluminum core and therefore weighed only 5.5g which resulted in a higher speed of V0 = 925 m/s but of course also in a shortened total range (the bullet was used mainly in the air defense role; about 4-7% of the total production), the lS-L'Spur which with a length of 37.2mm and a weight of 6.1g was again the tracer version of the lS (less than 1% of total production).

A version produced mainly for use with the MG 17 as aircraft armament was the so-called V-Patrone which had an increased powder charge that increased the V0 by 15%. This ammunition type was available with the PmK projectile ("Phosphor mit Stahlkern" = "phosphor with steel core") or with the B ("Beobachtung" = "Observation") projectile contained a little phosphor and exploded upon impact, the latter ammunition type was also known as the B-Patrone and was used as an incendiary round; both types are not counted in the 7,9mm production

The final and most interesting (for our purposes) bullet type was the SmK(H). The H stood for Hartkern (hardened core), this was the armor piercing version of the 7,9mm Infanteriepatrone. The projectile had a length of only 28.2mm, weighed 12.5 g and contained a tungsten core that was 22.5 mm long. The propellant gunpowder of the shell was increased to 3.6 g. The bullet had a penetration power of almost 20mm of plain steel at a range of 500m (90° impact angle). However, production of this ammunition type ceased in March 1942 because of an acute shortage of tungsten; still, SmK(H) cartridges continued to be issued to the troops as late as February 1943. while it was still inproduction, this ammo type accounted for 1 to 2 % of the production of 7,9mm Infanteriepatronen.

You will note the source does not include SmK(H) in the list of ammunition designed for aircraft, it is noted as being issued to ground troops. And of course, it is 1-2% of production.

[ATAG_Colander]

I suggest a new thread is opened to discuss ammo load outs and ballistics for this one to stay in topic.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

I am going to correct myself, it appears the SMK (H) was used in aircraft, although again, it is clear it was a very rare round, it was not used in aircraft exclusively, was listed in being used by the Wermacht in a number of weapons, and the Wehrmacht was a much larger customer.

US Army Medical Corps did a survey of wounds and deaths due to enemy action, determining the source of the casualties, a rather gruesome survey, (don't click on the photo links unles you want to know the realities of what ordinance does to the human body) but exhaustive, it notes in 'Enemy Ordanance Material' in paragraph 54/Table 9 of the following link that some (non-standard) tungsten cored bullets were used in aircraft mounting the MG15:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...cs/default.htm

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

I am going to correct myself, it appears the SMK (H) was used in aircraft, although again, it is clear it was a very rare round.

US Army Medical Corps did a survey of wounds and deaths due to enemy action, determining the source of the casualties, a rather gruesome survey, (don't click on the photo links unles you want to know the realities of what ordinance does to the human body) but exhaustive, it notes in 'Enemy Ordanance Material' in paragraph 54/Table 9 of the following link that some (non-standard) tungsten cored bullets were used in aircraft mounting the MG15:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...cs/default.htm

Buzzsaw the unstoppable...thread derailed.

/thread

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Buzzsaw the unstoppable...thread derailed.

/thread

Salute AbortedMan

With respect, I did reply to your comments earlier, and suggested you bring forward some proof regarding hacking.

The fact that this issue of the Tungsten round has come forward during the discussion is obviously relevant to the number of Pilot Kills you (and I) have noticed.

An MG round which penetrates right through the armoured seatback is going to make it a lot easier to make these insta-kills.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute AbortedMan

With respect, I did reply to your comments earlier, and suggested you bring forward some proof regarding hacking.

The fact that this issue of the Tungsten round has come forward during the discussion is obviously relevant to the number of Pilot Kills you (and I) have noticed.

An MG round which penetrates right through the armoured seatback is going to make it a lot easier to make these insta-kills.

Of course, and due respect reciprocated...I just didn't see the relevance of bringing ballistics vs anatomical studies and records of the written recollections of availability of ordnance into a discussion regarding someone possibly editing game files to insta-kill players.

The ordnance is available in game en masse, unlimited, therefore its logistics is a non-issue. The effects of the the player's "body" is boolean, it either kills you or it doesn't, there's no wounding going on here, that's the issue I believe the OP was talking about.

In any case, there's nothing that can be done here about it except bait the trolls for their squeamishly giggly offerings of "L2Play, noob" as seen in posts previous.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Another source showing the SmK (H) used by the Wehrmacht in its Infantry weapons and obviously was the biggest user of this ammo.

US Army Military History document, see page 188 for details of bullet:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12980915/26/a-Introduction

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

1. I have quoted a British test which used captured German ammunition loadouts, and which shows 1% penetration of pilot armour, and makes no mention of special tungsten rounds.

You're stretching your specific evidence to cover all cases. It shows 1% penetration when angled 60 degrees to the line of fire.

2. I have linked to Anthony Williams article on the Battle of Britain, which deals with the ammunition used by either side, and which makes no mention of Tungsten cored rounds.

Well, we know that they existed, so if this source doesn't cover them then we'll just ignore it, I guess.

3. I quoted from the Wiki article, which notes only at some point tungsten rounds were built, but also they were not common, and doesn't give a time frame.

Okay, so they're uncommon. It doesn't give a time frame. I don't understand how this means they should be removed.

4. I have pointed out the Germans implemented as quickly as possible, a policy of converting from 7.92 mm wing weapons to the 20 mm FF, why would this policy be in place if the 7.92mm was as effective as it seems to be in the game?

You're framing the question to suit your pre-conceived notions. The Germans developed large-calibre cannons so that they could destroy heavy bombers more easily and rapidly. By contrast, the USAF decided to stick with lighter machine guns (50 cal, etc) because they were effective enough against fighters. If machine guns weren't good enough then the USAF would have adapted.

I think it is up to you actually to prove these rounds were in general use during the BoB, available in large quantities, and had the penetrative abilities which seem to be in effect in the game.

And I think it's up to you to prove that they weren't. Your evidence has been reviewed, and found lacking.

To suggest that a round which has the same propellant charge would have suddenly the capability to automatically penetrate the same armour which only 99% of the standard German AP rounds, with the same propellant could not, could seems to me to call for proof.

As previously noted, depends entirely on the angle. Furthermore, nobody in this thread has presented proof that the pilots in question are doing it from dead astern. Plenty of spitfire pilots will haul back on the stick at slightest provocation, often presenting a planform-view shot, with easy line-of-sight to the canopy which was not armored.

Right now you are arguing for their inclusion when it's clear their effectiveness runs contrary to all the available facts.

Facts which have been overstated/misconstrued.

Anyways, if you want to continue this side-topic you should start a new thread as someone else suggested.