Armor vs. Durability and Air vs Experience

[Rusty1961]

Perhaps some of this information is hidden in the code, but exactly what do they do?

Say a Nate is attacking a P40E. The P40 has an armor of "1". So the 7.7mm guns of the Nate can't penetrate the armor-therefore there is no check against durability?

Is the durability essentially just a check against any round that gets through the armor?


Now the Air vs Experience: what do high or low ratings mean, specifically? I find that if my bombers have high experience and air they rarely take op losses. Is one of those more important in determining Op losses?

Thanks.

[Yaab]

People say Nates can penetrate armor 1.

printable.asp?m=4114177

[Rusty1961]

Yes, I've seen that. So exactly what does it do or how does it work?

[BBfanboy]

Armor protects engines and pilots. If the attacking aircraft guns can penetrate the armor there is a much better chance of damaging the engine or killing/wounding the pilot and bringing the aircraft down during the engagement. (the critical hit effect)

Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Pilot "Defensive" skill goes to avoiding attacks from fighters, bombers and AA. I assume this is maneuvering to dodge fire and to present defensive gunfire.

Pilot "Air" skill is about knowing your aircraft systems and characteristics. This would help with getting maximum performance during battle.

Pilot "Experience" is about airmanship, knowing how to overcome damage/storms/holes in the runway/etc. to keep the aircraft from being destroyed or written off.

All of these things seem to have some random die rolls involved in resolving what happens to the aircraft.

[InfiniteMonkey]

Armor implies protection for the crew and the fuel tanks. It is not armor in the sense of an envelope of protection around the entire aircraft. I proceed upon the assumption that the device's Penetration value minus the armor determines which "hit effects table" gets used. Hits that would normally hit the cockpit (pilot injury/pilot death/instrumentation failures) or fuel tanks (fuel leak / fuel fire/ fuel explosion) get ignored or have reduced effects when the difference is 0. However, those hits against the fuselage, wings, etc. score damage. When a hit occurs, Durability is a measure of how much of the devices' Effect can be absorbed before the aircraft becomes "damaged" or "destroyed".

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Not Quite. Self Sealing tanks are in the armor rating:

ORIGINAL: WITPAE-Editor.pdf
Durability the ability of the aircraft to withstand damage and not be destroyed.

Armor represents whether the aircraft had protective armor and/or self-sealing fuel tanks in which
case it rates a rating of a 1. A few aircraft warrant a 2 or greater due to special design characteristics.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Durability includes structure and other protections (like self-sealing fuel tanks) which determine how much damage will affect them. I think it may also model in the abstract the mechanical reliability of the engine and controls. I think if the total damaging hits exceed the durability there is a chance of the aircraft going down during the engagement. (the accumulated damage effect).

Not Quite. Self Sealing tanks are in the armor rating:

ORIGINAL: WITPAE-Editor.pdf
Durability the ability of the aircraft to withstand damage and not be destroyed.

Armor represents whether the aircraft had protective armor and/or self-sealing fuel tanks in which
case it rates a rating of a 1. A few aircraft warrant a 2 or greater due to special design characteristics.

TYhank you for this, and to the OP for having raised the interesting topic.

BTW, what the armor of the IL 2, just as curiosity?

And, is the durability of the P 47, as an example of a particularly sturdy plane, sensibly higher than that of other single engined by average?

[LeeChard]

In real life a Nate could shoot down any aircraft that was unlucky enough to get caught in a stream of
rifle caliber bullets.
Every aircraft has parts that are vulnerable besides the pilot who while protected from behind and sometimes from
the front with armored glass was still exposed at many angles.
Hits in the oil or water radiators, magnetos and control lines could prevent an aircraft from reaching home.