Air canons against shipping

[Dili]

In my editing deambulations i am seeing that Aircraft gun "Penetration" is much less than "Anti-Armor" penetration.

If this because with Air Combat where planes doesnt have armor in mm then how this affect Anti-shipping gun attack?

[el cid again]

I am in harmony with you: In RHS aircraft cannon penetration = 1.75 times caliber - consistent with ground weapons.
Exceptions exist - for low velocity guns - where I use half that value. After a year of testing it clearly has not upset air combat to do this.

[Dili]

Hmm i am not seeing in that. CVO 6.559  20mm canons have 4mm penetration for example M2B have 4mm "Penetration" 35 "Anti-Armor"

[el cid again]

OK - there are two different values -

The penetration of armor in mm is shown in the anti-armor value

The "penetration" field is - as often is the case in WITP terminology - misleading and is NOT the penetration in mm

but the "penetration" of aircraft armor (1 = normal armor)

[Mifune]

Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding.

[Dili]

Yes that is how understood and thats reason of my question. So when attacking shipping aircrafts use "Penetration" like Naval Guns or "Anti-Armor" like against a LCU device? And shouldnt land and ship anti-aircraft guns have same limitations?

[el cid again]

I cannot see the code. Those who can say it is often unclear how it works anyway: "After 6 to 9 months you begin to think 'I know how this routine works' - then you see something that completely changes that understanding."

But IF the code is properly done, don't worry about this. The will be using the anti-armor value - which is entirely logical as ships have (or can have) armor. If they messed up, they can fix it someday - if anyone ever figures it out and decides it is worth fixing. But we cannot proceed rationally on the assumption every possible error is built into the system!

I repeat - my assignment is "get the data right - and the code will follow" - so that is what I do.

[Dili]

Well putting 3 in penetration for a 20mm gun is not right
 
Btw concerning Air Canons Weight what is the propose of it?
 
So after the bomb load i have to add the gun weights? And gun amno weights?

[el cid again]

If the code is done right - IF - then 3 in penetration probably means something like "3 inches" -

assuming the standard is 1 = 1 inch

There are virtually no aircraft with a protection rating of 3

Most are 0 or 1

I have about two special cases - maybe three (Sturmovik comes to mind) where it is 2

Penetration = 1 should mean "can penetrate armor = 1" (if die rolls are within normal range - GG LOVES die rolls)

Weight MIGHT matter for a gun listed as "EXT" - ALL EXT devices (guns, bombs, DC, torpedoes, maybe mines, drop tanks)
should add up to less than the "max load" field for the plane

Well - not quite: that is the normal case, BUT IF

a plane has drop tanks AND bombs - it is possible to exceed this value - and instead you must insure all NON drop tank devices weigh the same or less than maxload - and also that drop tanks weigh less than maxload

Wether this data is used, it is required for the plane definition to be valid and rational - and it may well be used in some situations

Anyway - I use gun weight as listed in references - and ignore the ammo - because no one has addressed it; if internal it does not matter anyway; if external we can apply it ONLY if we do so for ALL external guns in the set - to be fair. But we could do that. I am not even sure if we have any external guns?