[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.