Everyone is so hung up on who had the biggest bullets but nobody cares that the relative damage was minimal unless the pilot or engine was knocked out.
F4UDOA, everybody would agree to that.
It's just that we do the reasoning; "rarely should there be any damage at all in the first place" when planes are at certain distances - they can't hit the enemy plane with enough accuracy to ensure its destruction.
If HTC has modelled the difference in relative powers between various gun shells of AH, into somehing that even remotely resembles any real life figures - then, inevitably the problem must be found within the other aspects which do not resemble real life figures at all - and those are damage modelling, and (particularly) long range shots.
The factual data provided on reasons behind plane losses, can be looked in this point of view:
When an attacking plane approaches its target within a very close range to fire(100m or so..),
the first immediate point of targetting an average pilot will set his eyes upon, will be the fuselage area. It is the largest part of the plane visible to the attacker, and also the easiest place to target.
It is very likely the average pilot will aim for the fuselage, and many of his shots will land there inside such close firing range, rather than other areas.
That will lead to a pilot death or engine damage, if it penetrates the pilot protection or if there was deflection enough for shots to land at the frontal part of the fuselage from behind.
If not, it will most likely puncture fuel tanks and lead to fire.
I believe that accounts for the high rate of plane losses due to pilot deaths/fires(fuel area hit)/loss of power(engine hit, with slight deflection), rather than loss of wing or elevators.
...
However, when the effective firing range becomes longer than real life, the probability of structural failure on the wing/elevator/stab parts become increasingly larger - since admitabbly the fuselage area is more durable than the wings.
With a burst of guns in AH firing distances, connecting at 400~500 yards, the dispersion of the cannons will land hits that are spread relatively wide across the rear surface of the target plane(trailing edge of wings, elevators, V-stab...) - in which case
the weaker areas will fall off first(in current style of "sufficient number of hits = part falls off" DM), before prolonged fire damages pilot/engine/fuel compartments, residing inside the fuselage.
Then, as I have wondered, it becomes a matter of how those shots land like that in the first place, in such ranges. There are many reasons behind this, but that is discussed in other threads. The more important fact to poin out right now, is if AH firing ranges would come down to realistic levels, then the loss of planes would start to match the real data collected.
Add a better DM to that, and it is going to be almost exactly like what you have read.
I know some people don't like these comparisons, but IL2/FB does exactly what I have said - effective firing range against a straight, level plane is 300~400m max(lucky pot shots with MK103 or so, sometimes kill out to 700m, but that's very very very rare).
Against maneuvering planes, you need to go within 200m. With the DM as they have, damage is gradual and not instant - a few shots to the wing do not break it down.
Since the shooting range is so close, most of the shots landed are concentrated at the fuselage area rather than wings. Hits on the wings usually lead to degradation in balance/performance, which in turn, leads to the final coup-de-grace where the target cannot maneuver well, and the attacker approaches and deals the death blow to the fuselage areas, starting a fire, or killing the engine. Hits on the wings itself, does not kill planes by that alone, in IL2/FB, since spread out hits at long ranges, which some rounds connect to the wing, are uncommon in the first place, and ineffective even if it happens so.
Thus, the largest reason for death in IL2/FB, is usually fire, or engine failure due to damage.
