Aircraft armor

Aircraft armor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

inqistor -> Aircraft armor (8/7/2017 8:44:04 PM)
I am making some crazy testing (definitely land units can't produce supply, or fuel :) ), trying to get Japanese bombers defensive armament to actually work. Problem surely lies in 7mm MGs inability to penetrate armor. When penetration is changed from 1 to 2, even Nates seems to be OK plane against B-17. And suddenly Betties loses are cut by half. I've also tried to reduce range of .50 cal to at least 1 point beyond 7mm, initial turn seemed to get huge advantage (like loses reduced to 40%), but further testing reduced it to only around 27% less deaths. What is more interesting, it also reduced loses of B-17 against ZEROs, by 30%. It seems bombers shoot at maximum range of weapon, with reduced accuracy, caused of distance. Anyway, I was seeking for Holy Grail, because it should be theoretically possible, if Allied bomber can shot down attacking fighters. 4 months of AI vs AI produced no such results, but during testing it somehow finally happened. Twice! (100 Betties vs 25 P-40) [image]local://upfiles/35065/0852A1D88EF54C6EABD5879D5EDCF27F.jpg[/image]

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/7/2017 9:17:16 PM)
If I had to guess, your issue lies as much in the exp/morale as in the device penetration ratings on the 7.7mm. Your Defense, Air, and Exp are all likely to be less than 50 on that crew. I'd be surprised to see them score many kills. Also, did you change the rear gun from 20mm to 7.7? If you didn't, you cannot be sure that the kill came from the 7.7... [image]local://upfiles/55090/68569BE5054B4AC48FFB727B0288C237.jpg[/image]

BBfanboy -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/7/2017 9:28:56 PM)
If you are going to monkey with the armament, why not just change the 7.7 mgs to 12.5 mm? IRL that would mean lower payload but it may make the difference in defensive protection.

Yaab -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:26:11 AM)
Some observations on 7.7mm air and 7.7mm AAMG versus Allied aircraft http://www.matrixgames.com/Forums/tm.asp?m=4114177

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Some observations on 7.7mm air and 7.7mm AAMG versus Allied aircraft http://www.matrixgames.com/Forums/tm.asp?m=4114177 Yeah, we noticed same problem, although I assume it is not because 7mm is weak, but because most of hits seems to not penetrate 1 point of armor. Have you checked actual loses at Allied side? I am running tests of 50 B-17 against 100 Nates, and they managed to shot down even 3 B-17 in rare occasion (but I admit, there was NEVER reported B-17 as shot down in Combat Report). My discoveries so far. Unmodified database, where 7mm have 1 penetration. 50 B-17, against CAP of 100 Nates (average presence of 91): Average number of B-17 in attack wave: 32.955 Average number of damaged B-17 reported: 19.11 Average number of B-17 shot down at Allied side: 1 (Yes, ONE) Average number of B-17 reported as OP loss: 0.27 So, Nates can shot down B-17. Chance is around 1.4% :) Modified 7mm, with 2 points of penetration (same, as .50/12mm), but still with 2 points of damage (.50/12mm have 3), and shorter range: Average number of B-17 in attack wave: 33.23 (more, but comparable to previous test) Average number of damaged B-17 reported: 19.615 (again, more but comparable. It means number of actual hits haven't increased) Average number of B-17 shot down at Allied side: 5.154 (Yup, average of 5 B-17 shot down, with only penetration enhanced) Average number of B-17 reported as OP loss: 0.77 So, obviously there is something fishy with penetration of aircraft armor. Since it suppose to represent mainly self-sealing fuel tanks, I doubt there should be difference between 7mm, and 12mm. I get similar results in simulations of ZEROs, against P-40. Kills seems to almost double, when 7mm get better penetration.

BBfanboy -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:30:31 PM)
Self-sealing tanks should be in the durability rating. The armour was behind the pilot and around vulnerable parts of the engines.

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey If I had to guess, your issue lies as much in the exp/morale as in the device penetration ratings on the 7.7mm. Your Defense, Air, and Exp are all likely to be less than 50 on that crew. I'd be surprised to see them score many kills. Also, did you change the rear gun from 20mm to 7.7? If you didn't, you cannot be sure that the kill came from the 7.7... [image]local://upfiles/55090/68569BE5054B4AC48FFB727B0288C237.jpg[/image] Problem is, I have no idea which skill is used in determining of defensive MG fire hit. I doubt it is Def, because most fighters don't have defensive MGs. If this is Air, then we have serious problem, with training Bomber crew/Pilot. So only Exp remains, as obvious choice. Players tend to train it to 50, and in mid-war we can expect that this will be average for Japanese Bomber Squadrons (OK, it should be like 55, with few surviving veterans). But, when I recently checked, B-17 unit starting at Clark, with 60 Exp. After 10 days of AI vs AI turns, scored already 13 kills. So they had no problem with hitting below players average of 70 in Def (or untrained Air). Yeah, it could be hit by 20mm, but I haven't got such results while testing unmodified 7mm. And I recall old Forum Topic about this exact issue, where nobody could show actual defensive kills by Japanese Bombers.

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Self-sealing tanks should be in the durability rating. The armour was behind the pilot and around vulnerable parts of the engines. I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane. And what about multi-pilot bombers? They should have then more armor, because enemy could kill only one pilot.

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 6:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy If you are going to monkey with the armament, why not just change the 7.7 mgs to 12.5 mm? IRL that would mean lower payload but it may make the difference in defensive protection. I was thinking about putting .50 Browning in Japanese Bombers, and check what will happen, or even trying to put B-17 on Japanese side, and see if there will be difference, but I assume code is the same for both sides, and some Data value creates problem. There are 3 main areas to test: penetration, range, and effect (7mm have all values lesser, than 12mm). If I can find problem with gun, this is only one field in Database, if I have to rearm all Japanese Bombers, it is frikking 4-5 fields in 50 planes. But there is one peculiarity, Japanese Army used two different Type 98 MGs in planes, and this twin sucker shot 1400 RPM. So not only better accuracy, but probable damage by two bullets with every hit.

spence -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/8/2017 11:00:01 PM)
"Shattered Sword" discusses the inability of the 7.7mm's carried in the KB's Zeros to inflict sufficient damage on TBDs, IIRC either before or after describing the attack by VT-6 on June 4, 1942. Again, IIRC many of the Zeros on CAP when VT-6 arrived had just previously expended all or most of their cannon ammo repelling the attack of VT-8. Six planes from VT-6 managed to launch torpedoes at various CVs because of the 7.7mm's ineffectiveness against even the poorly armored TBDs. The CAP planes subsequently landed on the KB's carriers to re-arm preventing the KB from spotting its anti-ship strike until too late (the SBDs arrived).

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/12/2017 4:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Self-sealing tanks should be in the durability rating. The armour was behind the pilot and around vulnerable parts of the engines. I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane. And what about multi-pilot bombers? They should have then more armor, because enemy could kill only one pilot. Most games borrow from their predecessors. When it comes to air combat, it is likely (but not certain) that well known air combat games like Air Force/Dauntless (Avalon Hill) and the Fighting Wings Series (Clash of Arms/J.D. Webster) heavily influenced the air combat models in use in UV/WitP/WitP:AE. Having owned both of those games, I can tell you they both model cockpit hits and also account for pilot and co-pilot. I would also note that if you consult the scenario editor, the number of pilots is recorded for an aircraft. See pg 27 of the scenario editor manual (C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Manuals\WITPAE-Editor.pdf) "Crew is the number of pilots." Finally, if you play the grand campaign for even a week or so, you will probably end up with some pilots that are listed as WIA and have a return date. Pilot death and wounding is most definitely modeled in the game - and it is hard to argue that potential cockpit hits does not have an impact on A2A results as well as operational losses.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/12/2017 4:36:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor So, obviously there is something fishy with penetration of aircraft armor. Since it suppose to represent mainly self-sealing fuel tanks, I doubt there should be difference between 7mm, and 12mm. I get similar results in simulations of ZEROs, against P-40. Kills seems to almost double, when 7mm get better penetration. I just want to offer a point of information that not all self sealing tanks are created equal, apparently. If you look at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tojo-155A.pdf, the tactical data box on the right bottom of page 3 specifically notes that the Tojo is "equipped with armor plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks ineffective against .50 calibre fire." Presumably, they protect against .30 calibre fire, but who knows?

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/12/2017 4:51:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor If I can find problem with gun, this is only one field in Database, if I have to rearm all Japanese Bombers, it is frikking 4-5 fields in 50 planes. Are you modding Scenario 1? There are 4 7.x mm devices that equip aircraft: device id's 183, 184,185, and 1917 are all equipped upon aircraft in the Japanese OOB for scenario 1. (Device 186 is not used on any air craft in the scenario): [image]local://upfiles/55090/3C39C795D69148839E2A72619BB58082.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/14/2017 7:32:52 PM)
quote: "equipped with armor plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks ineffective against .50 calibre fire. Not much in an A/C could withstand Ma-deuce.[:D]

Barb -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/15/2017 6:52:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: "equipped with armor plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks ineffective against .50 calibre fire. Not much in an A/C could withstand Ma-deuce.[:D] Yup, according the wiki: "All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m)." - adding enough armor to protect the pilot, and some other critical parts can take a fair percentage of weight in an aircraft!

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/17/2017 6:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Self-sealing tanks should be in the durability rating. The armour was behind the pilot and around vulnerable parts of the engines. I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane. And what about multi-pilot bombers? They should have then more armor, because enemy could kill only one pilot. Most games borrow from their predecessors. When it comes to air combat, it is likely (but not certain) that well known air combat games like Air Force/Dauntless (Avalon Hill) and the Fighting Wings Series (Clash of Arms/J.D. Webster) heavily influenced the air combat models in use in UV/WitP/WitP:AE. Having owned both of those games, I can tell you they both model cockpit hits and also account for pilot and co-pilot. I would also note that if you consult the scenario editor, the number of pilots is recorded for an aircraft. See pg 27 of the scenario editor manual (C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Manuals\WITPAE-Editor.pdf) "Crew is the number of pilots." Finally, if you play the grand campaign for even a week or so, you will probably end up with some pilots that are listed as WIA and have a return date. Pilot death and wounding is most definitely modeled in the game - and it is hard to argue that potential cockpit hits does not have an impact on A2A results as well as operational losses. I wrote: quote: I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane My guess is that plane gets destroyed, and then random roll indicates if pilot survives/gets wounded. If there are any criticals, I doubt they then check if this is engine, fuel, or pilot hit. And as for number of pilots, I don't see those 2 pilots helping BETTY survival. They die like flies. Like seriously, more than HALF of attacking planes gets shot down. quote: I just want to offer a point of information that not all self sealing tanks are created equal, apparently. If you look at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tojo-155A.pdf, the tactical data box on the right bottom of page 3 specifically notes that the Tojo is "equipped with armor plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks ineffective against .50 calibre fire." Presumably, they protect against .30 calibre fire, but who knows? Yeah, but in-game it is either NO armor, or 1 armor (OK, few planes have 2 points). How self-sealing of fuel tanks can be ineffective? They seal AFTER hit. .50 cal makes too big hole for them?

inqistor -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/17/2017 6:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor If I can find problem with gun, this is only one field in Database, if I have to rearm all Japanese Bombers, it is frikking 4-5 fields in 50 planes. Are you modding Scenario 1? There are 4 7.x mm devices that equip aircraft: device id's 183, 184,185, and 1917 are all equipped upon aircraft in the Japanese OOB for scenario 1. (Device 186 is not used on any air craft in the scenario): 1, 2, and 8th December beginning. If there is problem it affect both sides, so I have to change all 7mm/.30 MGs for both sides. I-15/16 are probably really weak against armored Japanese planes now. I wonder how Hurricane fares in later war.

BBfanboy -> RE: Aircraft armor (8/17/2017 9:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Self-sealing tanks should be in the durability rating. The armour was behind the pilot and around vulnerable parts of the engines. I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane. And what about multi-pilot bombers? They should have then more armor, because enemy could kill only one pilot. Most games borrow from their predecessors. When it comes to air combat, it is likely (but not certain) that well known air combat games like Air Force/Dauntless (Avalon Hill) and the Fighting Wings Series (Clash of Arms/J.D. Webster) heavily influenced the air combat models in use in UV/WitP/WitP:AE. Having owned both of those games, I can tell you they both model cockpit hits and also account for pilot and co-pilot. I would also note that if you consult the scenario editor, the number of pilots is recorded for an aircraft. See pg 27 of the scenario editor manual (C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Manuals\WITPAE-Editor.pdf) "Crew is the number of pilots." Finally, if you play the grand campaign for even a week or so, you will probably end up with some pilots that are listed as WIA and have a return date. Pilot death and wounding is most definitely modeled in the game - and it is hard to argue that potential cockpit hits does not have an impact on A2A results as well as operational losses. I wrote: quote: I doubt game simulates pilot kill, before destroying his plane My guess is that plane gets destroyed, and then random roll indicates if pilot survives/gets wounded. If there are any criticals, I doubt they then check if this is engine, fuel, or pilot hit. And as for number of pilots, I don't see those 2 pilots helping BETTY survival. They die like flies. Like seriously, more than HALF of attacking planes gets shot down. quote: I just want to offer a point of information that not all self sealing tanks are created equal, apparently. If you look at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tojo-155A.pdf, the tactical data box on the right bottom of page 3 specifically notes that the Tojo is "equipped with armor plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks ineffective against .50 calibre fire." Presumably, they protect against .30 calibre fire, but who knows? Yeah, but in-game it is either NO armor, or 1 armor (OK, few planes have 2 points). How self-sealing of fuel tanks can be ineffective? They seal AFTER hit. .50 cal makes too big hole for them? I think the .50 cal bullet had some phosphorus burning in the back end both for visibility and to ignite anything flammable as it passed through or lodged in it. It may also be that the Japanese version of self-sealing tank liners were indeed not capable of sealing a half-inch hole fast enough to avoid a fire.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625