I can’t find the earlier post but someone here had expressed concern, over WOTR combat pics, of “wings getting sawn off by .303’s” I really don’t remember the pics (video?) I just remember the concern. Just got done watching a boatload of WW2 gun camera footage.
Caveat: I get there are 100’s of variables.
Wings getting “blown off”, or in some cases stress failing due to maneuvering with damage, was really not all that uncommon. Granted such sequences are preserved and displayed often for the dramatic effect and, based on much of the footage the weapons being used were the awesome .50 cal, but I wouldn’t get too excited at the current stage of WOTR development.

can't believe we have to explain 'dramatic effect' in this day and age. No the speakers aren't faulty, it's called 'silence' (actual comment had to be posted for star wars ep 8).

The number of pictures displaying wings being blown off isn't proportional to the number of times it actually happens in the sim. I have shot down plenty of planes without that happening too.

Huh?

Err. What do you think I am trying to say in my OP?

Simply because I am the one who posted many such pictures, I am clarifying that the percentage posted with wings blown off is not the same as the percentage that actually are in the Beta version of the sim. A sort of - straight from the horses mouth - addendum to your post, if you will.

Okay. I think. Let me do a TLDR version.
To sum up, for whoever posted their concern, wings getting “sawed off” - more properly getting shot off, blown off, or separating due to structural weakness - is not uncommon with American aerial weapons, i.e., the .50 cal or, in rarer cases, a 20mm in the aerial gun camera footage I viewed for about 30 minutes this morning.
I make no claim(s) beyond that.

It was this post:

http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4430961/re-wotr-pics#Post4430961

And he made the distinction that he was referring to .303 guns (I did not confirm that, but I assume he's referring to some of the earlier, non-cannon fitted Brit planes). So it wasn't concerning .50 cal or 20mm cannons.

Again, I didn't spend any time to verify his concerns, but if .303s are ripping off wings, I'd have to agree.

By this time in warfare technology, 'rifle-caliber' air-to-air guns were becoming inadequate. They are (comparatively) weak guns, really only in service for rate of fire far superior to most cannons and a range that didn't suffer horrible trajectory drop.

Probably one of the best compromises was the very guns you mention: The good old .50 cal. Put 6 or 8 of those bad boys on anything, that's a lot of lead down range. And it can do reasonable damage.

But even then, as the war progressed, and by the time of Korea a few years later, everyone starts gravitating more toward cannons and, not long after that, AA missiles.

Yes I remember the .303 distinction made and, as you state, it certainly lacks the awesome “sawing effect” of a .50 cal. Shot ground mount M2’s on plenty of occasions and the Hollywood flicks don’t do it, or it’s power on target, justice.
Did 1939/40 RAF fighters mount gun cameras? I will guess yes? Maybe?