Durability of aircraft to MG (< 8mm) guns

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IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.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

[fireship4]

Will bullets ricochet inside aircraft and do more damage?

[Biggs]

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IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.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

yep... and heres proof!! Everything in Purple is part of the damage model.



I dont have a pics of the 109 damage model but here are some other development pics that show plenty of internal modeling which will have a DM applied to it like in the spit pic...



the .303s will run into plenty of damageable stuff inside these planes

[Romanator21]

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

Its discussed here:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=18246

The reason was because the usual style of cross at the beginning of the war was the small type, as seen in the picture out near the wingtip, but after the combat experience of the Polish campaign, it was found to be a little too small to be easily recognised against the dark green colour scheme, hence the larger ones were introduced in the middle of the wing.

There are several instances of these markings, often on Heinkel 111s, but also observed in varying dimension and upper wing location on Dornier Do17Zs. Chris Goss's excellent publication Dornier 17 in Focus (Red Kite) shows, on page 51, two photos of Do17Zs. In the first, large oversized mid-wing crosses are evident, and in the other, they have been overpainted and replaced, in the same location, with extremely small crosses. These machines operated with KG2.

Additionally, both Ju87s and at least one Do18 flying boat are known to have carried over-sized markings on the wing upper surfaces, also located mid-wing.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

I intend to set my convergence to about 50m. With a closing speed of 100Kph this will give me at least one second of deadly fire before I ram the target.

Even though I don't condone intentional ramming I am, well, fairly bad at gunnery and my reactions aren't as fast as they used to be so I expect there will be a few collisions along the way

Cheers!

[winny]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

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.

[trademe900]

Originally Posted by Biggs

yep... and heres proof!! Everything in Purple is part of the damage model.



I dont have a pics of the 109 damage model but here are some other development pics that show plenty of internal modeling which will have a DM applied to it like in the spit pic...



the .303s will run into plenty of damageable stuff inside these planes

Sorry to dig up an old thread but this is very interesting- does anyone have any pics of the Do17z, Ju88 etc?

Also perhaps nice for a change to realize one of the truly cool features and capabilities of this simulator...

[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.