FWs Durabillity

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I think that the .30/.303 cal/7.62 mm MG is way to effective in inflicting airframe damage in the game, and that the .50 cal/12.7 mm MG is somewhat too effective. The 20 & 30 mm cannons seem about right in terms of the damage they inflict.

soviet 12.7 is underpowered currently. For 20mm, some are good (Hispano, MG-151, some are vastly overpowered (ShVAK), some are a bit weak (certain japanese guns)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

soviet 12.7 is underpowered currently. For 20mm, some are good (Hispano, MG-151, some are vastly overpowered (ShVAK), some are a bit weak (certain japanese guns)

Presumably, they all use some sort of calculation for weight of fire, based on bullet mass, muzzle velocity & ballistic coefficient. While there might be other elements of how a bullet inflicts damage based on terminal ballistics (e.g., likelihood of tumbling or shattering on impact), that seems like the best way to do it.

My point wasn't that some heavy MG are comparatively over- or underpowered, its that I think there's a good argument to be made that ALL HMG are a bit overpowered in their ability to inflict airframe damage.

[RPS69]

When I posted about 190 wings having their ammo exploded, got curious and checked available guncams videos to see what was over there.

This one:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKbQqTeGcL4

look at 1:25, and 1:27

You could see a clear explosion on the wing. It just doesn't break, it exploded.

I find just one more with an exploding wing. All the other guncams were with smoking planes. IF there are someone over there that could post some more examples will be nice.

[KG26_Alpha]

That video, along with others, has been done to death in the past regarding FW wings exploding.

But would it mean all aircraft with wing ammo are classed the same damage wise.

Or just the Fw190 !!

03:10
04:18

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyeltf58BaU

[RPS69]

Funny, or those videos got some cut and paste, or I'm getting some deja vu on those broken wings.

They always break on the same place. It looks like some repetitive damage on an arcade game.

I will look for videos from the german guncams, but they look really worst than the american ones.

Also, the idea was to see .50's breaking wings.

My point, is that they may, if they hit the ammo rack.

[KG26_Alpha]

Gun cam is only a tiny portion of the actual fight.

We wont know the whole story about the kills we see.

Modelling the game from gun cam would not be a good idea.

[Furio]

We should not be surprised to see wings broke at a certain place. As tough as it can be, any wing has its weakest point, and it will fail there most of the time.

In these gun cam footage, we see wing breaking more or less at mid wingspan, where FW main spar has a bend to the rear, to make room for the landing gear, and where usually is installed an MGFF cannon with 60 rounds drum magazine, both having a significant mass. Outboard of mid span, then, there is the aileron with its bending moment.

Summing up all these factors, we can guess here we have wing’s weakest point, but, as KG said above, this means nothing. What matters is how much weak it is, when hit by machine gun or cannon fire.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Gun cam is only a tiny portion of the actual fight.

While gun camera films don't capture the approach and maneuver phases of the engagement, and fail to capture very high deflection shots, they still can be quite valuable.

They are a very good method of understanding how pilots historically made their attacks (notice the huge preponderance of low-deflection, close range shots?), and how the target planes respond when attacked (notice how very few late war German pilots don't immediately break when fired on?) which is valuable for AI programming.

For damage modeling, gun camera footage is a good method of getting the damage effects right.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

They always break on the same place. It looks like some repetitive damage on an arcade game.

This was exactly the point I was trying to make about the vulnerability of the 20 mm ammo magazine in the FW-190's wing.

This is confirmed not just by gun camera footage, but also by anecdotal evidence from a LW veteran who flew the FW-190 in combat.

If you look at a cutaway drawing of the FW-190A:

http://photobucket.com/images/fw%201...away%20drawing

You will notice that there is a drum-style 20mm ammo magazine just outboard of the the landing gear, right next to one of the wing spars.

Compare that to where the gun camera footage shows the wing breaking/exploding and there's a pretty good correlation.

Any plane which carries box or drum-style magazines filled with HE or APEX rounds, not just the FW-190, should be vulnerable to a "critical hit" which causes some or all of the remaining ammo to explode, but only if they are hit by an explosive round. Planes which carry belts of HE or APEX ammo should also be vulnerable, but only one bullet/shell should explode.

But, in terms of the .50 caliber effectiveness against airframes, IL2 makes it too easy to cause airframe damage.

For example, take a close look at the video cited above:

0:15 - 0:22 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, no parts fall off, not obvious damage. Likely result: damaged.
0:23 - 0:27 FW-190. As above. Likely result: damaged.
0:28 - 0:47 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank leakage, then engine damage (smoke), final shot shows flames & plane in slow rolling dive, CK
0:48 - 0:51 Bf-109. Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank/coolant leak, inverted spin but regains control. Likely result: damaged.
0:52 - 1:10 FW-190. No hits observed, but pilot bails out due to morale failure/poor tactical position, CK
1:11 - 1:23 FW-190. Hits observed on fuselage, further hits cause engine smoke or fuel/coolant leak, next frame shows fuel tank explosion, CK
1:24 - 1:29 FW-190. Hits observed on wing, ammo magazine blows up severing wing, CK
1:30- 1:33 FW-190, Hits observed on fuselage, fuel tank explosion, CK

Notice what's missing?

NO GREAT BIG HOLES IN THE AIRFRAME. NO AIRFRAME FAILURE (without secondary explosion). EVEN THE CONTROL SURFACES STAY PUT!

IMO, it should be just about impossible to make an airplane fall apart using .30 caliber guns, and very difficult to do so using .50 caliber guns. Heavy damage textures should be very difficult to trigger using .30 caliber guns and somewhat difficult using 0.50 calibers. This isn't just the FW-190, its just about all the planes in the game.

The exceptions are:

Any caliber weapon should be able to cause secondary explosions which can tear a plane apart.

Any caliber weapon should cause progressive airframe weakening which can cause airframe failure if the target plane subsequently attempts to fly at maximum speed (or overspeed) or attempts to pull high G maneuvers.

0.50 caliber guns might be able to break the airframe on a relatively small, lightly built aircraft, particularly one which isn't fully aerobatic (i.e., not stressed to cope with more than 3 g positive or -1 G negative).

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

NO GREAT BIG HOLES IN THE AIRFRAME. NO AIRFRAME FAILURE (without secondary explosion). EVEN THE CONTROL SURFACES STAY PUT!

IMO, it should be just about impossible to make an airplane fall apart using .30 caliber guns, and very difficult to do so using .50 caliber guns. Heavy damage textures should be very difficult to trigger using .30 caliber guns and somewhat difficult using 0.50 calibers. This isn't just the FW-190, its just about all the planes in the game.

The exceptions are:

Any caliber weapon should be able to cause secondary explosions which can tear a plane apart.

Any caliber weapon should cause progressive airframe weakening which can cause airframe failure if the target plane subsequently attempts to fly at maximum speed (or overspeed) or attempts to pull high G maneuvers.

0.50 caliber guns might be able to break the airframe on a relatively small, lightly built aircraft, particularly one which isn't fully aerobatic (i.e., not stressed to cope with more than 3 g positive or -1 G negative).

Totally in agreement.