IJA 7.7mm AAMG vs 7.7mm aircraft MG

[crsutton]

In the game armor is armor. I doubt very seriously that anyone gave any thought to the complex modeling of belly armor vs seat armor. The only thing I can think of is if there was a difference in the editor between the two types of MGs. Don't overthink this.

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't recall any Allied fighter with armor 1 getting destroyed by 7.7mm MGs fire. I do get messages of damaged Warhawska being destroyed on landing after a dogfight with Nates, but that is it. No outright destruction in aerial combat.

I'm sure I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down Blenheims and Buffalos in the first few turns of my games and some of them have have armour.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't recall any Allied fighter with armor 1 getting destroyed by 7.7mm MGs fire. I do get messages of damaged Warhawska being destroyed on landing after a dogfight with Nates, but that is it. No outright destruction in aerial combat.

I'm sure I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down Blenheims and Buffalos in the first few turns of my games and some of them have have armour.

That what I'm getting at. I suspect this thread is based on a claim without any basis in fact, just "we all know" nonsense.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't recall any Allied fighter with armor 1 getting destroyed by 7.7mm MGs fire. I do get messages of damaged Warhawska being destroyed on landing after a dogfight with Nates, but that is it. No outright destruction in aerial combat.

I'm sure I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down Blenheims and Buffalos in the first few turns of my games and some of them have have armour.

Uhm, Blenheims are not armored. I would be interested in any combat report about Buffalo losses.

Don't get me wrong, I thought my premise was common forum knowledge. Damage yes, destruction - no. That is why I was suprised to see Warhawks destroyed on starfing run. I thought they were safe flying over units with 7.7mm AAMGs.

[towtow59_MatrixForum]

I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down P-40s before, and even B-17s(Rarely).

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't recall any Allied fighter with armor 1 getting destroyed by 7.7mm MGs fire. I do get messages of damaged Warhawska being destroyed on landing after a dogfight with Nates, but that is it. No outright destruction in aerial combat.

I'm sure I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down Blenheims and Buffalos in the first few turns of my games and some of them have have armour.

Uhm, Blenheims are not armored. I would be interested in any combat report about Buffalo losses.

Don't get me wrong, I thought my premise was common forum knowledge. Damage yes, destruction - no. That is why I was suprised to see Warhawks destroyed on starfing run. I thought they were safe flying over units with 7.7mm AAMGs.

If you're testing already, just test it.

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Miller

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't recall any Allied fighter with armor 1 getting destroyed by 7.7mm MGs fire. I do get messages of damaged Warhawska being destroyed on landing after a dogfight with Nates, but that is it. No outright destruction in aerial combat.

I'm sure I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down Blenheims and Buffalos in the first few turns of my games and some of them have have armour.

Uhm, Blenheims are not armored. I would be interested in any combat report about Buffalo losses.

Don't get me wrong, I thought my premise was common forum knowledge. Damage yes, destruction - no. That is why I was suprised to see Warhawks destroyed on starfing run. I thought they were safe flying over units with 7.7mm AAMGs.

The Mk IV is, as are all british Buffalos.....

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The armor in most cases is to protect the crew. If a fighter attacks from the front the armor will not so much protect the crew and not protect the engine or propeller etc.. The 7.7 has the potential of putting any engine out of operation, even if only by severing fuel lines and spark wires. A single engine plane is thus more vulnerable than a two engine plane like the Beaufighter regardless of where the armor is.

Right, but what about radial vs inline engine? When one reads the stuff from WWII re strafing, the radial engine was the prefered one by pilots flying strafing missions. Supposedly, it soaked AA fire better and offered pilots more protection.

Here, a pilot reminisces about P-47's engine:

https://www.google.pl/search?q=radial+e ... 8wfIhJCADQ

"The huge radial engine was practically indestructible. It protected pilots from injuries during intense flak, mortar, cannon and machine-gun fire".

So, if armor is only taken into account in dogfights, and radial/inline engine is not taken into account when strafing, then it should be possible to destroy P-47s with 7.7mm AAMG fire during the game. Also, IL-2s are dead meat too.

My understanding is that most of the radial engines of the day sort of operated as a bunch of separate engines (either individual cylinders or banks of cylinders) all turning the same propeller shaft. There was inherently a lot of redundancy in the basic design, and incoming fire could destroy some of those "engines" without affecting the others too much. They also benefited from a lot of free air cooling.

Inline engines typically needed vulnerable liquid cooling systems to keep the engine cool (often conveniently equipped with air scoops/radiators on the bottom of the plane) and engine damage was more likely to lead to complete failure of the entire engine.

Mike

[Coach Zuck]

OMG

Please Gentlemen NEVER Quote Wiki on historical info again!
Students who quote Wikipedia often fail!

From the City of Mombassa's own historical website:
In 1988, the Imperial British East Africa Company set up headquarters in Mombasa. British rule of Mombasa became official in 1895 when they leased a stretch of the coast including the port city from the Sultan of Zanzibar. Officially this coastal strip still belonged to Zanzibar until ceded to a newly independent Kenya in 1963.


http://www.mombasa-city.com/brief_histo ... ombasa.htm

[JeffroK]

Nothing wrong with Wiki, only what is posted there.

PS.I doubt this is an official website.

Try https://www.mombasa.go.ke/history-of-mombasa/

It would be interesting to find a legal arguement about this situation, the British controlled this area for over 100 years, maybe it was only polite legalities in 1963 that Zanzibar passed control during the Independence of Kenya & Tanzania.

[Denniss]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa_Protectorate
-> Administration, last section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Kenya

In short: never transferred to or annexed by the UK, just governed/controlled as part of a lease agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar.

[Sardaukar]

BTW, related to original question, my other forum buddy Anthony Williams have great site:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Must read for everyone interested in these things.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

BTW, related to original question, my other forum buddy Anthony Williams have great site:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Must read for everyone interested in these things.

Too many bloody penguins around here [8D]

[witpqs]

Look! There's one on the telly!

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: towtow59

I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down P-40s before, and even B-17s(Rarely).

Actually , I tested Nates vs B-17 this April. Used Coral Sea scenario and DDB-C. Nate pilots were 80 experience, 70 air skill.
Ran 15 combats, watched all 15 combat animations.

Most hits suffered by one aircraft (displayed as "*" sign during combat animation)

Max * per one B-17: ****
Max * per one Nate: ****

Not a single B-17 was destroyed by Nates in air combat.

Quit testing after 15 combats.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: towtow59

I've seen Nates and Claudes shoot down P-40s before, and even B-17s(Rarely).

Actually , I tested Nates vs B-17 this April. Used Coral Sea scenario and DDB-C. Nate pilots were 80 experience, 70 air skill.
Ran 15 combats, watched all 15 combat animations.

Most hits suffered by one aircraft (displayed as "*" sign during combat animation)

Max * per one B-17: ****
Max * per one Nate: ****

Not a single B-17 was destroyed by Nates in air combat.

Quit testing after 15 combats.

Does not sound like you proved the premise of the thread. Sounds more like you confirmed "really hard for Nate to destroy B-17". I am willing to say that because if they could get damaging hits then they could destroy one with enough hits.

[Yaab]

I guess if I had run 150 tests, I would have probably seen some destroyed B-17s. I just quit after 15 tests, cause it was a mind-numbing experience ( I did it in one go). I was looking for the damage limit on B-17 during the tests. Max I saw was **** message. Maybe when you get to ***** the aircraft is destroyed? I don't know, I gave up after 15 combat animations.

[Panther Bait]

The Nate (and all the other 2x7.7 armed Japanese planes like the early Oscars) are woefully underarmed to go up against anything with some structural durability. A 4-engine bomber would certainly qualify for that. Try replicating this setup (Nates vs B-17) in IL-2 or something similar, and I bet you'll find that the B-17s win all/most of those engagements, too.

Mike

[Yaab]

I guess with a lucky shot you could kill the bomber's pilot. Could the glass nose of B-17 withstand 7.7mm MG bullets?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I guess with a lucky shot you could kill the bomber's pilot. Could the glass nose of B-17 withstand 7.7mm MG bullets?

No, but his Zippo lighter will save him. [8|]