Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 10-23-2012, 01:44 AM
AbortedMan AbortedMan is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
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.)
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.