Pilot kill after pilot kill. How do they do it??

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Ataros

I think the way to solve it is to report this cheating procedure to Steam VAC managers. VAC is a service Steam provides to game publishers and they are interested in improving it. This is how it works with other games: players report cheats and they fix it. There is no chance they test CloD cheats themselves.

Anyone who knows how to use altered files online please write to Steam and explain the procedure. Otherwise this thread will be just a promotion for this cheating mod and more players will use it next week already.

+1.

[Kurfürst]

German penetration table for the commonplace 7,92mm SmK v round, at different ranges and angles, striking the armor plate directly (cont. lines) or indirectly (hitting a 3mm thick dural plate at 20 degrees 1,5 meters before the the armor plate).

For reference, the armor thickness on the Spitfire noted. I believe the Hurricane had the same thicknesses.

Apparanatly a lot was dependent on wheter the bullet hit anything before it struck armor plate. If not, it could go through it rather easily. I am not sure if the Spit had 3 mm thick dural plating on the fuselage (it seems unlikely to me, given that the 'deflector plate' cowling over the tank was only 3.5mm thick and it was considered to be a reinforced part to deflect bullets) but 20 degrees angle of impact and 1.5 meters of spacing does seem practical.

[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.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

You're a wonderful human being with fantastic qualities and deserve to be loved like anyone else.

I'll interpret that as you choosing option #2.

I applaud you for choosing not to continue smearing the names of good pilots simply because they are better than you, as it would seem some participants in this thread are content to do, despite not having a shred of evidence.

I personally find the "he killed me, he must be cheating" attitude to be just as pathetic as cheating itself.

[Ze-Jamz]

Gawd..were not trying to remove ammo now are we?

blimey

[Flanker35M]

S!

Ze-Jamz..you said it out loud. Just wait for the Purist Battalion and their funny sidekicks to march in and demand it On a more serious note can't the servers restrict loadouts like in IL-2 1946? Would solve these fantasy beltings etc.

[JG52Krupi]

I recall asking this to be added as a server side options and was imediatly jumped on looks like I was correct after all.

P.S. I use a (for the most part) historical belt in my aircraft

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

On a more serious note can't the servers restrict loadouts like in IL-2 1946? Would solve these fantasy beltings etc.

Salute

1. The SmK (H) Tungsten round is clearly causing an ahistorical imbalance, since it makes the E-1's weapons more effective than the E-3's and E-4's, not accurate representation of the real situation.
2. The round was in very short supply, its not even listed in the game as part of the standard E-1 loadout, unlike the Dewilde Inciendary round in the Spitfires and Hurricanes or the M-Geschoss in the E-4.
3. We don't have an accurate determination of exactly how good this round was.

I am not raising an issue about the M-Geschoss, that was clearly part of the battle, and an real indicator of which direction the Luftwaffe was taking its air to air weapons program in 1940, ie. towards 20mm weapons.

I'd be happy to see a server with historical beltings, including restricting the British to limited numbers of DeWilde rounds.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

2. The round was in very short supply, its not even listed in the game as part of the standard E-1 loadout, unlike the Dewilde Inciendary round in the Spitfires and Hurricanes or the M-Geschoss in the E-4.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Please quote a source that states the round was "in very short supply".

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Please quote a source that states the round was "in very short supply".

Go back and read my posts.