[OPEN] "Mk 108 is weak" thread

[NineLine]

That is more of what I expected with the 30mm cannon ... 1 round or 2 should bring down any of these fighters. One round around the wing root seemed to kill the Dora but it could take shots in the middle to edge just like the Mustang if they weren't tightly concentrated. I'd expect the Dora or Mustang to take those hits from the .50 or 13mm if they weren't concentrated but not the 30mm.

 

My stepdad's father was a rear gunner in a B-24 and his plane was brought down from one round of a 25mm Japanese light AA gun in the wing. I know that DCS said they would be examining the damage model later on but if one 30/20mm round hits any of these planes in the wings or tail if should cause major flight altering damage (ailerons/flaps/landing gear/rudder/elevator) if it doesn't take them off. I've had the flaps damaged in the Dora and it made landing ... quite interesting but the Mustang always seems to fly like nothing has happened even against humans.

 

Yeah, what I am swinging at is just that, I dont want to power up the Mk 108 if its not the sole problem, I think there might be things that need looking at with the damage model like I stated above with the P-51D (and reported), that isnt to say I wont submit something about the Mk 108, but I just want to be thorough... knowwhatImean?

[USARStarkey]

Yeah, what I am swinging at is just that, I dont want to power up the Mk 108 if its not the sole problem, I think there might be things that need looking at with the damage model like I stated above with the P-51D (and reported), that isnt to say I wont submit something about the Mk 108, but I just want to be thorough... knowwhatImean?

 

I would certainly agree with that. Id even wager to say its 90% damage model 10% projectile for both the 50s and the Mk 108.

[fastfreddie]

Yeah, what I am swinging at is just that, I dont want to power up the Mk 108 if its not the sole problem, I think there might be things that need looking at with the damage model like I stated above with the P-51D (and reported), that isnt to say I wont submit something about the Mk 108, but I just want to be thorough... knowwhatImean?

 

Well you could have the damage power bumped until the damage models are thoroughly examined but until they are updated it will be difficult to determine how powerful the 30mm needs to be in a final version. I'll probably run another set of test for you because they go pretty quick and here is some of the first test footage. Notice that not all hits are registered visually ... when the smoke appears is usually another sign of a strike so the true number of strikes are difficult to determine. I agree with what you have said in other threads that the stats you see after the match are not the true number of hits. From what I can tell it appears one 30mm round has a value of (2) to (4) depending on what it strikes. The Minengeschoss rounds register visually but not the other types of rounds. I also used the tracer mod for testing and the 109 is a pain to test with because it like to pitch up all the time lol.

 

[NineLine]

Well you could have the damage power bumped until the damage models are thoroughly examined but until they are updated it will be difficult to determine how powerful the 30mm needs to be in a final version. I'll probably run another set of test for you because they go pretty quick and here is some of the first test footage. Notice that not all hits are registered visually ... when the smoke appears is usually another sign of a strike so the true number of strikes are difficult to determine. I agree with what you have said in other threads that the stats you see after the match are not the true number of hits. From what I can tell it appears one 30mm round has a value of (2) to (4) depending on what it strikes. The Minengeschoss rounds register visually but not the other types of rounds. I also used the tracer mod for testing and the 109 is a pain to test with because it like to pitch up all the time lol.

 

vid removed

 

One thing I think is misleading too is the impact explosions as well, I think they happen no matter the quality of the hit, so if its a glancing blow or a hit that passes through multiple parts of the aircraft there is no difference in the impact effect...

[Jagr]

When you are talking about weapons and firepower its really important to realize how each round was designed to cause damage first.. The Mk108 shell was designed to cause structural damage through rapid expansion of the gasses inside a closed portion of the aircraft.. it was fused that way as well. If you fire a 108 into a small airspace and it detonates inside the resulting damage is spectacular. It can literally cause aircraft to break it half when combined with the stresses of flight. The casing is relatively thin to maximize the explosive filler which reduces the frag content.. a trade off. Its also a low velocity round that could be adversely effected by impact angle. You might have rounds skip then detonate on a wing of a B17 if it hit just right.

 

Hits to other areas where surface paneling is damaged can make aircraft very difficult to keep in the air and almost impossible to fight it.. but its not the dramatic explosion and instant kill most people expect.

 

Kinetic rounds do their damage through the energy they carry and penetrate vital AC components or crew.

 

Smaller cannon rounds or API rounds are a combination of Kinetic damage as well as an added component of HE or I effect that's acts accordingly. They are a compromise round that are not as effective on large AC like a B17 like a Mk108 would be, but they are higher volume and more easily targeted on smaller AC. Thicker casing, more fragmentation and mass for the KE effect, but less filler.. again a trade off..

 

Consider the detail of the damage model physics and the myriad of variations of impact conditions that occur and you can see that any type of damage model is going to be limited in its "reality"

 

What I think is critical is that flight performance degrade as the structure of the AC takes damage either through parasitic drag from damage skin or through warping/damage to the airfoil. This argument has been played out dozens of times in great detail fating back to the AirWarrior and Warbirds days 25 years ago now.

 

I can say from experience that the potential to make it more accurate in this game engine is VARY high compared to the old days. And, peoples perception of how things really were differ from how things REALLY were. There is no magic formula. You can model the best "average: you want but in reality there were always golden BB's that took out something vital with minimal hits and cases where EVERYTHING was hit EXCEPT the vital things that let AC get home.. there is some randomness in real life that defies the math models or physics engines.

 

Just realize that however "unreal" the current situation is I can tell you that it is generations ahead of what we had when I started flight simming

[NineLine]

Good post! Ah Warbirds... those were the days....

 

I dont think its as bad as some people describe it right now, I do see some issues that could be looked at though for sure... I still have little problem taking down the AI most encounters if I get good guns on them.

 

When you are talking about weapons and firepower its really important to realize how each round was designed to cause damage first.. The Mk108 shell was designed to cause structural damage through rapid expansion of the gasses inside a closed portion of the aircraft.. it was fused that way as well. If you fire a 108 into a small airspace and it detonates inside the resulting damage is spectacular. It can literally cause aircraft to break it half when combined with the stresses of flight. The casing is relatively thin to maximize the explosive filler which reduces the frag content.. a trade off. Its also a low velocity round that could be adversely effected by impact angle. You might have rounds skip then detonate on a wing of a B17 if it hit just right.

 

Hits to other areas where surface paneling is damaged can make aircraft very difficult to keep in the air and almost impossible to fight it.. but its not the dramatic explosion and instant kill most people expect.

 

Kinetic rounds do their damage through the energy they carry and penetrate vital AC components or crew.

 

Smaller cannon rounds or API rounds are a combination of Kinetic damage as well as an added component of HE or I effect that's acts accordingly. They are a compromise round that are not as effective on large AC like a B17 like a Mk108 would be, but they are higher volume and more easily targeted on smaller AC. Thicker casing, more fragmentation and mass for the KE effect, but less filler.. again a trade off..

 

Consider the detail of the damage model physics and the myriad of variations of impact conditions that occur and you can see that any type of damage model is going to be limited in its "reality"

 

What I think is critical is that flight performance degrade as the structure of the AC takes damage either through parasitic drag from damage skin or through warping/damage to the airfoil. This argument has been played out dozens of times in great detail fating back to the AirWarrior and Warbirds days 25 years ago now.

 

I can say from experience that the potential to make it more accurate in this game engine is VARY high compared to the old days. And, peoples perception of how things really were differ from how things REALLY were. There is no magic formula. You can model the best "average: you want but in reality there were always golden BB's that took out something vital with minimal hits and cases where EVERYTHING was hit EXCEPT the vital things that let AC get home.. there is some randomness in real life that defies the math models or physics engines.

 

Just realize that however "unreal" the current situation is I can tell you that it is generations ahead of what we had when I started flight simming

[USARStarkey]

One thing I think is misleading too is the impact explosions as well, I think they happen no matter the quality of the hit, so if its a glancing blow or a hit that passes through multiple parts of the aircraft there is no difference in the impact effect...

 

This as well. There are impact explosions for the Mk108, the 50s, and the MG's on the 109s. With the exception of the MK108, there shouldnt be explosions unless you hit something that then explodes. There need to be strike flashes instead. The real rounds are designed to give off a flash when they strike.

[USARStarkey]

Strike flashes can be seen here:

 

Also, Im referencing this for the purpose of relating to the Mk108 discussion regarding damage effects. This should also apply to the MG131's as well. This is not meant to be about the 50 cals. Just about strike flashes.

[fastfreddie]

Strike flashes can be seen here:

 

Also, Im referencing this for the purpose of relating to the Mk108 discussion regarding damage effects. This should also apply to the MG131's as well. This is not meant to be about the 50 cals. Just about strike flashes.

 

Yeah it would be nice to have flashes from all non explosive rounds so we can see the hit. I don't think the other 30mm rounds are giving a visual clue only the explosive types.

[fastfreddie]

Did another round of testing ... its taking right at 3 separately detected hits to take off wings on any of the planes (P-51, 109, Dora). I've done over 40 different rounds of testing now and I've only seen the wing pop once (109) so far with one registered hit. Some planes have had visual strikes of over 7 before going down on one wing. I'm starting to think the 30 is probably well under strength in the damage model since this was true on all planes.

 

P51 Testing

2 Separate hits of 6,6

3 Separate hits of 8,6,8

3 Separate hits of 6,2,2

3 Separate hits of 12,8,10

2 Separate hits of 4,2

2 Separate hits of 10,6

Fuselage

2 Separate hits of 4,2 ... after first hit started engine shutdown

3 Separate hits of 4,4,4 ... after first hit started engine shutdown

3 Separate hits of 12,10,10

3 Separate hits of 8,4,8

Dora

3 Separate hits of 6,4,4

3 Separate hits of 6,6,6

3 Separate hits of 6,8,8

Fuselage

2 Separate hits of 4,4

1 Separate hit of (2)

Bf109

3 Separate hits of 8,6,2

3 Separate hits of 2,4,4

3 Separate hits of 6,4,4

Fuselage

3 Separate hits of 8,4,6

1 Separate hit of 4 for engine shutdown with the pilot killed on the second hit

[USARStarkey]

Did another round of testing ... its taking right at 3 separately detected hits to take off wings on any of the planes (P-51, 109, Dora). I've done over 40 different rounds of testing now and I've only seen the wing pop once (109) so far with one registered hit. Some planes have had visual strikes of over 7 before going down on one wing. I'm starting to think the 30 is probably well under strength in the damage model since this was true on all planes.

 

P51 Testing

2 Separate hits of 6,6

3 Separate hits of 8,6,8

3 Separate hits of 6,2,2

3 Separate hits of 12,8,10

2 Separate hits of 4,2

2 Separate hits of 10,6

Fuselage

2 Separate hits of 4,2 ... after first hit started engine shutdown

3 Separate hits of 4,4,4 ... after first hit started engine shutdown

3 Separate hits of 12,10,10

3 Separate hits of 8,4,8

Dora

3 Separate hits of 6,4,4

3 Separate hits of 6,6,6

3 Separate hits of 6,8,8

Fuselage

2 Separate hits of 4,4

1 Separate hit of (2)

Bf109

3 Separate hits of 8,6,2

3 Separate hits of 2,4,4

3 Separate hits of 6,4,4

Fuselage

3 Separate hits of 8,4,6

1 Separate hit of 4 for engine shutdown with the pilot killed on the second hit

 

Yeah I feel like the German 30mm should be a 1 hit kill in nearly all cases. Especially in hits to the wings. I think it is mostly damage model though and not the rounds. Same with the 50 cals. The current damage model seems to break the plane into sections and each section has a certain number of hit points. Nothing happens to a component until the section reaches the end of its hit points. So if you have a 30mm cannon that does 6 damage to a wing section and it has 7 HP, nothing happens. Im certainly no expert a reading configs but I modded the 109 and 190 by reducing the critical damage point on the various part of the planes and got much better results. However, I dont really consider that a fix. What we need is a sophisticated DM that is based on something more complex than HP.

 

That being said, I dont see why the planes couldnt be made weaker till something more complex is doable. I see no reason that the planes need to be built from solid granite. Engines are another big culprit. I saw a video on youtube which I will try to find again where 3 50cal AP rounds started a engine fire in a non running car. Just 3. Imagine what a Mk 108 would do! Im not sure how accurate the decal placement is on the planes, but I see alot of hits on engines and no real damage. The DM has some real oddities to it. Like how the prop governor seems to be the most easily hit thing on the engine. Just guessing Id say 90% of all the engine damage I take in MP servers is the prop governor. Why the the prop governor? You hardly ever see engine fires or other effects by comparison.

Edited January 8, 2015 by USARStarkey

[Solty]

Yeah I feel like the German 30mm should be a 1 hit kill in nearly all cases. Especially in hits to the wings. I think it is mostly damage model though and not the rounds. Same with the 50 cals. The current damage model seems to break the plane into sections and each section has a certain number of hit points. Nothing happens to a component until the section reaches the end of its hit points. So if you have a 30mm cannon that does 6 damage to a wing section and it has 7 HP, nothing happens. Im certainly no expert a reading configs but I modded the 109 and 190 by reducing the critical damage point on the various part of the planes and got much better results. However, I dont really consider that a fix. What we need is a sophisticated DM that is based on something more complex than HP.

 

That being said, I dont see why the planes couldnt be made weaker till something more complex is doable. I see no reason that the planes need to be built from solid granite. Engines are another big culprit. I saw a video on youtube which I will try to find again where 3 50cal AP rounds started a engine fire in a non running car. Just 3. Imagine what a Mk 108 would do! Im not sure how accurate the decal placement is on the planes, but I see alot of hits on engines and no real damage. The DM has some real oddities to it. Like how the prop governor seems to be the most easily hit thing on the engine. Just guessing Id say 90% of all the engine damage I take in MP servers is the prop governor. Why the the prop governor? You hardly ever see engine fires or other effects by comparison.

+1

[USARStarkey]

+1

 

 

Effects of 20mm cannon on engine.

 

 

Effects of 50cal, similar to 13mm in MG 131.

[fastfreddie]

 

Second testing section video.

 

I don't have much of a problem with the engine damage model on any of the planes outside the P-51 always getting the governor failure instead of say a coolant or oil leak. I've been shot down with very little damage to the engine in all of them ... 109 seems to get coolant leaks with little damage to the engine or wings and is probably the easiest to bring down in that regard. In fact probably over the 90% of the time I'm brought down is engine related but I'm pretty good as evasive flying so that may be part of it.

Edited January 8, 2015 by fastfreddie

[Echo38]

Yeah I feel like the German 30mm should be a 1 hit kill in nearly all cases.

 

While some aircraft were indeed taken down by a single 30mm shell, this was not something that happened constantly. As I said in my previous post, that's what happened under "perfect" conditions. Often, however, the target aircraft survived multiple hits. Even fighters could withstand several, with some luck.

 

If our virtual fighters are regularly eating five or six with no problem, then I agree that there's likely a flaw in the simulation, but the opposite extreme (that of ~1.1 hits required on average to make a kill) would be just as much as a flaw, because that isn't how it went in reality. Even that video of the Spitfire ... three hits to the rear fuselage, and the fuel tank caught on fire, but it doesn't appear to have blasted the tail off, or anything similarly dramatic.

 

If one browses through gun camera footage, it doesn't take long to see a fair number of cases where aircraft survive multiple hits from these cannons. On the other hand, it's quite rare to find cases where a single hit takes down an aircraft. As far as I can tell from the variety of sources I've examined, the notion, commonly propagated by flight simmers, that the Mk. 108 cannon should usually kill any fighter with one hit, is a myth. Two hits average is a more accurate estimate.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Echo38

[USARStarkey]

While some aircraft were indeed taken down by a single 30mm shell, this was not something that happened constantly. As I said in my previous post, that's what happened under "perfect" conditions. Often, however, the target aircraft survived multiple hits. Even fighters could withstand several, with some luck.

 

If our virtual fighters are regularly eating five or six with no problem, then I agree that there's likely a flaw in the simulation, but the opposite extreme (that of ~1.1 hits required on average to make a kill) would be just as much as a flaw, because that isn't how it went in reality. Even that video of the Spitfire ... three hits to the rear fuselage, and the fuel tank caught on fire, but it doesn't appear to have blasted the tail off, or anything similarly dramatic.

 

If one browses through gun camera footage, it doesn't take long to see a fair number of cases where aircraft survive multiple hits from these cannons. On the other hand, it's quite rare to find cases where a single hit takes down an aircraft. As far as I can tell from the variety of sources I've examined, the notion, commonly propagated by flight simmers, that the Mk. 108 cannon should usually kill any fighter with one hit, is a myth. Two hits average is a more accurate estimate.

 

Given that the Luftwaffe deemed 5 20mm hit sufficient for a fighter, I find it hard beleive that fighters routinely absorbed multiple 30mm hits. I single hit to either wing would almost certainly destroy the spar or spars which would cause the wing to fail. That same explosion would also probably take out a fuel tank, severe control lines and whatnot. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at the british tests. Its not impossible to survive more than one hit, but its not routine.

[NineLine]

Given that the Luftwaffe deemed 5 20mm hit sufficient for a fighter, I find it hard beleive that fighters routinely absorbed multiple 30mm hits. I single hit to either wing would almost certainly destroy the spar or spars which would cause the wing to fail. That same explosion would also probably take out a fuel tank, severe control lines and whatnot. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at the british tests. Its not impossible to survive more than one hit, but its not routine.

 

But realistically, would the Germans waste 30mm on fighters, or save for bombers, wasnt this the purpose of adding the function of firing separetly? But anyways I pretty much agree with Echo, there was probably times when the most innocent shot brought down an aircraft, and then there were times, like that Japanese pilot I talked about, who took 78 some shots to his Zero and flew home...

 

Finding that balance in a sim like this will be tough, but I dont think we are THAT far away, just some work on the damage model, lots of work on the visual damage and effects, and some tuning of the guns...

[gavagai]

Josh,

 

You argue persuasively and always try to be logical. But in this case you have not presented evidence to support your position. It is speculation. You don't know what kind of armament was fired in the gun camera footage you've seen. If you knew it was a 30mm Mk 108 that didn't get the job done in 1 hit, you would have posted it in order to prove your point.

 

:thumbup:

 

I admit that the data set for the Mk 108's ability is small, but the data we do have points to it being a 1-hit-1-kill weapon in many different scenarios, and not necessarily by disintegration of the target fighter. This weapon was intended for the destruction of bombers, not single-engine fighters.

 

While some aircraft were indeed taken down by a single 30mm shell, this was not something that happened constantly. As I said in my previous post, that's what happened under "perfect" conditions. Often, however, the target aircraft survived multiple hits. Even fighters could withstand several, with some luck.

 

If our virtual fighters are regularly eating five or six with no problem, then I agree that there's likely a flaw in the simulation, but the opposite extreme (that of ~1.1 hits required on average to make a kill) would be just as much as a flaw, because that isn't how it went in reality. Even that video of the Spitfire ... three hits to the rear fuselage, and the fuel tank caught on fire, but it doesn't appear to have blasted the tail off, or anything similarly dramatic.

 

If one browses through gun camera footage, it doesn't take long to see a fair number of cases where aircraft survive multiple hits from these cannons. On the other hand, it's quite rare to find cases where a single hit takes down an aircraft. As far as I can tell from the variety of sources I've examined, the notion, commonly propagated by flight simmers, that the Mk. 108 cannon should usually kill any fighter with one hit, is a myth. Two hits average is a more accurate estimate.

[fastfreddie]

While some aircraft were indeed taken down by a single 30mm shell, this was not something that happened constantly. As I said in my previous post, that's what happened under "perfect" conditions. Often, however, the target aircraft survived multiple hits. Even fighters could withstand several, with some luck.

 

If our virtual fighters are regularly eating five or six with no problem, then I agree that there's likely a flaw in the simulation, but the opposite extreme (that of ~1.1 hits required on average to make a kill) would be just as much as a flaw, because that isn't how it went in reality. Even that video of the Spitfire ... three hits to the rear fuselage, and the fuel tank caught on fire, but it doesn't appear to have blasted the tail off, or anything similarly dramatic.

 

If one browses through gun camera footage, it doesn't take long to see a fair number of cases where aircraft survive multiple hits from these cannons. On the other hand, it's quite rare to find cases where a single hit takes down an aircraft. As far as I can tell from the variety of sources I've examined, the notion, commonly propagated by flight simmers, that the Mk. 108 cannon should usually kill any fighter with one hit, is a myth. Two hits average is a more accurate estimate.

 

There is big difference between being able to absorb a 30mm round or multiple 20mm rounds and still be combat effective versus limping home. I've seen too many planes flying around like nothing happened after being devastated in online play. I don't expect wings to come flying off every time a 30mm hits them but I do expect them to lose critical flight components some of the time. I'm sure ED will work on this in the future with WWII become such a big part.

[fastfreddie]

But realistically, would the Germans waste 30mm on fighters, or save for bombers, wasnt this the purpose of adding the function of firing separetly? But anyways I pretty much agree with Echo, there was probably times when the most innocent shot brought down an aircraft, and then there were times, like that Japanese pilot I talked about, who took 78 some shots to his Zero and flew home...

 

Finding that balance in a sim like this will be tough, but I dont think we are THAT far away, just some work on the damage model, lots of work on the visual damage and effects, and some tuning of the guns...

 

Everything I've read about the 190 pretty much lead to the 109 not being a great aircraft for attacking bombers or ground attack. They often flew escort for FW190's because they we're better suited for that role and they didn't fare very well when attacking bombers. One book I've got has a good drawing of how they flew cover with layers but did say that sometimes the close escort would go in for attack runs with the 190s. God help DCS because when the AI B17 comes out I can only imagine what we'll be crying about then. You may have to put another "Veteran of DM B-17 Crybabies Thread" in your sig.

[Solty]

But realistically, would the Germans waste 30mm on fighters, or save for bombers, wasnt this the purpose of adding the function of firing separetly? But anyways I pretty much agree with Echo, there was probably times when the most innocent shot brought down an aircraft, and then there were times, like that Japanese pilot I talked about, who took 78 some shots to his Zero and flew home...

 

Finding that balance in a sim like this will be tough, but I dont think we are THAT far away, just some work on the damage model, lots of work on the visual damage and effects, and some tuning of the guns...

 

Other sims did that, so this can too. It is nearly insulting that a game that claims to be a top notch simulator doesn't have a proper damage model. I don't say it should be like IRL. I know that there are limiatations, but a few more options would be nice.

 

 

Also, no the ability to shoot separately was since the begining of the 109E3 (at least) as it had 20mm canons MG/FF and it was to conserve 20mm for accurate shots and MGs were used as a guidance system, you could tell what the trajectory will be when compared to those MGs and make a proper deflection shot. They weren't just keeping it for the bombers.

[NineLine]

Other sims did that, so this can too. It is nearly insulting that a game that claims to be a top notch simulator doesn't have a proper damage model. I don't say it should be like IRL. I know that there are limiatations, but a few more options would be nice.

 

What? I have no clue where you got that from... The damage model we have right now is probably more advance then anything out there (for the PFM player controlled aircraft), the visuals and effects are not a good representation of that... no idea how you think I am insulting the game by saying what I did, I think you need to re-read what I posted...

[USARStarkey]

But realistically, would the Germans waste 30mm on fighters, or save for bombers, wasnt this the purpose of adding the function of firing separetly? But anyways I pretty much agree with Echo, there was probably times when the most innocent shot brought down an aircraft, and then there were times, like that Japanese pilot I talked about, who took 78 some shots to his Zero and flew home...

 

Finding that balance in a sim like this will be tough, but I dont think we are THAT far away, just some work on the damage model, lots of work on the visual damage and effects, and some tuning of the guns...

 

Those times are both extremes, not the norm. If you peruse gun camera footage, watch the effects of these guns on various targets in tests, or simply read the encounter reports of pilots that amount of time spent hosing down targets was brief. In most gun camera footage a fire or other noticeable damage occurs quite rapidly in most cases. Just look at the damage caused in the 30mm test on that spitfire. That damage greatly exceeded what would be needed in most cases as it ruined several control surfaces and would mostly likely have caused wing loss if the plane had been in flight and not resting on the ground. Sensational stories of how airplanes came back with extensive damage were sensational because they were not normal. I dont expect a zero to routinely take 74 hits, especially since the most common perception is that they were easily destroyed. Nor do I expect a P-47 to take hundreds of 30cal and over 20 20mm hits. Because that was the exception, not the rule. The most casual look at gun camera footage will show that it did not take many strikes to bring down a plane. What you are saying also goes directly against what the Luftwaffe stated their weapons could do. 5 20mm = typically sufficient.

[otto]

Those times are both extremes, not the norm. If you peruse gun camera footage, watch the effects of these guns on various targets in tests, or simply read the encounter reports of pilots that amount of time spent hosing down targets was brief. In most gun camera footage a fire or other noticeable damage occurs quite rapidly in most cases. Just look at the damage caused in the 30mm test on that spitfire. That damage greatly exceeded what would be needed in most cases as it ruined several control surfaces and would mostly likely have caused wing loss if the plane had been in flight and not resting on the ground. Sensational stories of how airplanes came back with extensive damage were sensational because they were not normal. I dont expect a zero to routinely take 74 hits, especially since the most common perception is that they were easily destroyed. Nor do I expect a P-47 to take hundreds of 30cal and over 20 20mm hits. Because that was the exception, not the rule. The most casual look at gun camera footage will show that it did not take many strikes to bring down a plane. What you are saying also goes directly against what the Luftwaffe stated their weapons could do. 5 20mm = typically sufficient.

 

I'm of the same opinion :thumbup: .

[USARStarkey]

109 an 190 gun cameras:

 

American propaganda film that contains alot of general gun camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2FFtu441s&list=LL9p_QEwysGYhs3YDKN0f60w&index=18

 

Also, keep in mind were talking about fighters. The Germans considered 20 20mm hits sufficient to down a 4 engine bomber......