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

[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.

[JtD]

Look guys, the way it is, if a projectile doesn't penetrate, it doesn't kill. You can spray all the 7.62 into even a lightly armoured tank, and nothing will happen.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by JtD

Look guys, the way it is, if a projectile doesn't penetrate, it doesn't kill. You can spray all the 7.62 into even a lightly armoured tank, and nothing will happen.

Yep, but please teach the AI not to waste light ammo on armoured targets. I have lost many AI mates due to return fire when their bombs were gone and they pathetically continued their attack with LMGs...

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by JtD

Look guys, the way it is, if a projectile doesn't penetrate, it doesn't kill. You can spray all the 7.62 into even a lightly armoured tank, and nothing will happen.

I disagree, decent non-penetrating hits can cause spalling of the inside surfaces of the armour.
7.62 is unlikely to "kill" a tank.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

I disagree, decent non-penetrating hits can cause spalling of the inside surfaces of the armour.
7.62 is unlikely to "kill" a tank.

I disagree about spalling with 7.62mm on heavy tanks, it should do, as it apparently currently does, nothing.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

I disagree about spalling with 7.62mm on heavy tanks, it should do, as it apparently currently does, nothing.

I didn't say that 7.62 would cause spalling.
But a projectile does not need to penetrate the armour to "kill" the tank.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

I disagree about spalling with 7.62mm on heavy tanks, it should do, as it apparently currently does, nothing.

It does nothing.
Other than entertain the crew inside with rain-like sound.
(proven, a relative of mine was a panther driver)

[mark_009_vn]

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.

Penetration are already modeled in the sim ever since 4.07 actually. For example, the NS-37 is ineffective against the frontal armor of most tanks, and 50 cals can kill open top vehicles if you fire at the correct angle. Fun fact, I've one managed to kill Pz-VIs with the 23mm cannon from the IL-2, you'll need a 90 degrees dive and open fire at the deck to do so...

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.

Ships have detailed damage modelling that ground vehicles don't, it is very much possible to disable a turret in a battleship with a 500lb bomb. Unfortunately the damage modelling on ships are still fairly primitive (I've never seen a ship looses power before, and it's HP is too little, unlike planes with nearly unlimited HP), but the system is there.

It is possible to extend the DM of ships to ground vehicle as well, things like realistically modeled engine compartments, ammo stores, crews are a walk in a park to make, it's just that it'll require extensive research about the specifications of every single vehicles made for IL2.

On another note, even aircrafts used hit-points .Try putting a glider on take-off against a sea of LMGs, after about 10 minutes the glider will eventually blow up...