PDA

View Full Version : BF109 : what made the kills?



Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 02:39 AM
hi all,

so i read few books now on the 109, on all models and their loadouts. Beside of that i read some germans aces story. Lots of those man scored their kill in 109 ( there was also the 190 but didnt read too much about it at teh moment ). Reading the books i watched the different weapons loadout of the 109 and couldnt stop thinking that some version had very weak armament ( from my point of view that clear ). I mean for exemple the F-4 with 2x7.92mm and a 20mm machine gun. Plus, in some book the F-4 version is considered the "achivement" of the 109 project.
So i asked myself what made the kills...the low caliber machine guns or the 20mm?...i tried in IL2 and well...its true that with the 7.92mm you can stop the engine but you have to aim very good..in my case its the 20mm nose gun that scored the kill. Well after that we must decide what "a kill" is...because if stopping the engine count as one well..the low caliber machine guns works...but to finish my ennemy the 20mm do the job.
So, if there is a 109 expert that read more thant me on this plane...what do you think?

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 02:39 AM
hi all,

so i read few books now on the 109, on all models and their loadouts. Beside of that i read some germans aces story. Lots of those man scored their kill in 109 ( there was also the 190 but didnt read too much about it at teh moment ). Reading the books i watched the different weapons loadout of the 109 and couldnt stop thinking that some version had very weak armament ( from my point of view that clear ). I mean for exemple the F-4 with 2x7.92mm and a 20mm machine gun. Plus, in some book the F-4 version is considered the "achivement" of the 109 project.
So i asked myself what made the kills...the low caliber machine guns or the 20mm?...i tried in IL2 and well...its true that with the 7.92mm you can stop the engine but you have to aim very good..in my case its the 20mm nose gun that scored the kill. Well after that we must decide what "a kill" is...because if stopping the engine count as one well..the low caliber machine guns works...but to finish my ennemy the 20mm do the job.
So, if there is a 109 expert that read more thant me on this plane...what do you think?

Abbuzze
07-22-2007, 03:11 AM
There are a lot of reports of german pilots, that states that the 20mm was more than enough to shot down a plane if you go close (less than 100m) and pull the trigger in the right moment. If you are very good you could also get kills with the MG´s but you have to aim at the pilot and/or the engine.

Polyperhon
07-22-2007, 03:18 AM
I can tell you my experience in the sim...The 20mm does the kill and the 7,92mm are only auxiliary.With them you can only hope to damage the tail surfaces or the ailerons and whatever else might be damaged consider it pure luck.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 03:20 AM
its what thought...with mg's you must aim very good because of the low caliber...i think the 7.92 mm didnt do that much damage...but maybe with some luck you could touch some vital points of the plane.Maybe cut the controls?

but in one of my book they wrote that some pilots used the 7.96mm tracers to help aiming and using the 20mm what those traces touched the ennemy.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
I can tell you my experience in the sim...The 20mm does the kill and the 7,92mm are only auxiliary.With them you can only hope to damage the tail surfaces or the ailerons and whatever else might be damaged consider it pure luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhm yes..but if you have the good angle you can shoot at the engine...i remember doing this against p-40 with an Emil..but then...is this count as a kill?

Rammjaeger
07-22-2007, 03:30 AM
Soviet aircraft designer Yakovlev wrote that "fighter aces are the snipers of the air". That explains a lot.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 03:36 AM
but with 7.92 was this enought? ..ok yes for mans like Hans-Joachim Marseille i think there was no problem..but for "normal" pilots i think its the 20mm that did the job

JG52Uther
07-22-2007, 04:00 AM
Don't forget that however good IL2 is,its not real.In real life even small calibre bullets could cause a lot of damage. One bullet in an oil line,or coolant pipe (or pilot!) and down you go.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 04:05 AM
yes its what i said..maybe you could touch vital points of the plane...but i think those 7.92 where not enought for normal pilots...just a personal thought mine. never fired with a 109 ^^ so i cant tell how much light mgs are in terms of damages
But maeby also hight rate of fire helped even with a small caliber

leitmotiv
07-22-2007, 04:27 AM
What makes "kills" is placing metal at a point in time coincidental with a vulnerable part of a target. Whether you are using a 7.9mm or a MK108 what matters is that ability to hit. Without it you could be armed with lasers able to burn through 20 inches of steel and it would make no difference. Saburo Sakai was able to put his bullets in the cockpits of heavily armored American fighters thus rendering their armor useless and making use of his light machine guns. Great fighters "accentuate the positive" by using what they have to the best advantage. P-51B pilots had only four .50 cal. machine guns up against some German Focke Wulfs armed with four murderous MG151 20mm cannon. As long as they could shot accurately at vulnerable points, and fired close for maximum effect, and fired at their convergence range, they destroyed their enemies.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 05:05 AM
uhm...yes..so 7.92 can be enought...but you must be able to make them "efficients" aiming precise plane parts.
Pilots new that or only aces were actually eable to do this?
My guess is that "normal" pilots ( and not saing they were bad ) counted more on their 20mm that on light mgs...but never read anything about pilots firing experience..son i cant tell

FritzGryphon
07-22-2007, 05:07 AM
Also keep in mind that the aces of WWII were generally putting their bullets in planes going straight and level, as opposed to sim pilots going all over the place. Average joe pilot in WWII was nothing but a cannon fodder noob by sim standards.

I've had lots of success with gunning pilots with MGs (most notably versus 1-16s and P.11s), but only with a surprise bounce.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 05:13 AM
never heard about this...you mean without deflection shooting?

HuninMunin
07-22-2007, 06:23 AM
When you bounce someone in most cases you are comming in high and fast - that gives you deflection naturaly.
No one parks behind the enemy in a bounce.

leitmotiv
07-22-2007, 06:37 AM
I'm not so sanguine about sim "pilots," FritzGryphon. American WWII pilots often had hundreds or even a thousand or more hours before they were in combat. 1939-40 European Pilots could have thousands of hours of peacetime training. How many sim pilots are long on real technique and how many just know how to look good? Crack pilots like Kemper Boyd could get on the tail of an adversary in peacetime training in seconds. I'd give myself about 15 seconds against a military-trained fighter pilot who also used IL-2. Games are games.

jasonbirder
07-22-2007, 07:41 AM
Its not that SIm Pilots are any better than real life WW2 Pilots - quite the opposite, more that the quirks of the sim we fly has made people with a very different emphasis on skills...

I have no doubt that real combat planes were far trickier to fly and require much more effort and concentration than our sim planes do...when you take into acount the difficulties in navigating in the real world, fuel management, flying in formation etc etc...throw in poor visibility and flying for hundreds of hours without ever even seeing an enemy plane....

Its little wonder that most kills were made against unmaneuving planes that didn't know they were under attack...

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 10:18 AM
no doubt about the fact that real ww2 pilots were better than us...no way. Il2 is a simulator but still a game..so any chance to make the coparison. Im sure that flying those planes for real, during war was incredibly more complex that what we do..also for the siply reason that there was a emotional side...you take off, but you are not sure to come back. Each time you seat in the cockpit its your life that you risk. And then..well..yes its a sim but also for shooting i really think that in real war time it was more complex. Nha, i dont even pretend to be close to those man skills, no way.

horseback
07-22-2007, 11:46 AM
While pre war pilots often had hundreds of flight hours, in the case of the RAF and USAAF, it can be stated with assurance that they had d*ck for air-to-air gunnery training, and in most cases, many of their flight hours were not in the fighters they flew into combat.

You have to bear in mind that flight hours are extremely expensive in terms of maintenance man hours, fuel, and general wear and tear on the airplane, so a pilot was really running up his flight hours if he got 10 or 12 flight hours in a week (and the weather had to cooperate too).

After reading literally dozens of WWII pilot memoirs on all sides, I think it's safe to say that only two air forces put much serious emphasis on air to air gunnery training: the USN/USMC and the Finnish Air Force. The Luftwaffe taught marksmanship with the rifle and shotgun as part of the ground training, and the German hunting tradition certainly contributed to their success, but most of it has to be attributed to better tactics, and the development of individual skills in Spain.

Similarly, most USAAF pilots actually learned the principles of marksmanship back on the farms and fields of their youths, where a mostly rural Depression-era population augmented their diets with game they shot or trapped themselves.

cheers

horseback

Bewolf
07-22-2007, 12:05 PM
I am not too sure about pilots back then beeing so much better, really. One has to take into account that back then, dead was dead. Mistakes often enough ment ppl couldnt learn from it anymore. We can, as often as we want, and thus gather expirience way beyond any real life fighter pilot (exception maybe the 1000+ missions german pilots). Flying planes also may appear tricker, but I am not too sure about that either. It was for sure more complex, on the one hand, but on the other hand those guys did not just have a small monitor with limited field of vision and resolution, but the real deal and a seat under their butts to feel what its like, and thus a much better sense of orientation and the goings ons. In that sense flying and fighting should have been quite a bit easier.

Those are just added arguments to the ones above, not to counter the views displayed before. But I am pretty sure after getting used to real life planes, weather conditions and real equipment management, all the folks playing flight simulators in a serious way arent that bad off, physical condition and abilities not taken into account.

horseback
07-22-2007, 02:09 PM
I'd like to add that most of the aces still needed a great deal of luck the first few times they scored; it takes a while to develop a shooting eye. Although in real life, your opponent often had to work a lot harder just to keep his aircraft on his wingman's wing, and could not therefore, see you coming (or in the case of the AI in game, 'sense' your approach), the air was a lot busier than it is modeled in the game, and it was a BUNCH harder to get hits on any target.

The 109 gives you certain advantages in that you don't have to be as concerned with 'convergence' range as a pilot flying with his main battery in his wings. It's more of a matter of pointing your a/c at your target and shooting. The key is being able to judge how much to lead your target (because you rarely have a 'dead six' solution), and whether to raise your nose a bit if the range is greater than your convergence (which is really just the point in front of you at which the flight of your rounds crosses your pipper).

A 20mm cannon was a pretty effective weapon, IRL, firing big heavy armor piercing or high explosive shells at high velocity and a fairly high rate of speed. Two or three rounds in the right place(s) could fatally damage most fighters in WWII, and make life even more miserable (and/or shorter) for a bomber crew.

The smaller rifle caliber (7-8mm, a 12.7mm or .50 caliber was considered a heavy round) machine gun was generally speaking, an artifact left over from pre-war theory based on WWI experiences. However, against an unarmored engine or cockpit, it was quite useful, and was quite capable of puncturing oil and glycol coolers, hydraulic or control lines, unprotected fuel tanks and tearing up wooden, fabric, or to a lesser extent, aluminum surfaces to the point of ripping or shredding themselves apart in the slipstream.

However, the fairly simple damage modelling in-game ignores most of that capability, so their best use involves hitting the engine or cockpit (although the Sturmovik's oil cooler is still vulnerable-though less than in real life).

Trying to climb up your target's tail and peppering him with 7.9mm MG fire, no matter how close you get, has next to no effect in-game, unless you get lucky. Even heavy MGs have a limited effect in the current game, although not to quite that unrealistic degree.

Remember that against even Rookie AI, your opponent knows literally everything about your aircraft's state-how fast you're going, if you're properly trimmed, if you can bring your guns to bear, and how much and what kind of ammo you have left.

The microsecond you get within 300m and two degrees of having him in your crosshairs, he's going to start cavorting around the sky to force you to take snap shots at high angles. It is a hard way to develop your shooting skills.

If you want to practice how a real 'bounce' went 85-90% of the timein WWII, use the QMB to attack Friendly targets until you get the knack of hitting what you're shooting at.

cheers

horseback

MEGILE
07-22-2007, 02:31 PM
The guns, generally.

Fighterduck
07-22-2007, 03:44 PM
uhm..well generally i try to finish my ennemy with the 20mm nose cannon. I think that with more precise damae model the 7.92 could be also deadly..this said is still possible to make serious damages if you aim at the engine thats true.
But my question was to know if in fact, in real air combat, pilots counted more on the 20mm or on the 7.92. I know aces had very good aim skills and also with low cal they could shoot down the ennemy. But personally, i think that was the 20mm gun in most of the cases that scored the kill. ( but this only because in my experience with only low cal mg like for the Hayabusa it takes me tons of time to shoot down a plane..had fight where i used all the bullets without shooting him down..just bad aiming i guess )

M_Gunz
07-22-2007, 05:22 PM
Some of those guys were so good they managed to down Russian planes in times and places where
there were no Russian planes flying!

Oh, wait, that can't be right, it is only Allieds that inflated the claims.

CastleBravo
07-22-2007, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Some of those guys were so good they managed to down Russian planes in times and places where
there were no Russian planes flying! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who and where? You sound like one of those bitter Allied historians, who couldn't believe the kill counts of German pilots. State your proof or shut up.

Gumtree
07-22-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CastleBravo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Some of those guys were so good they managed to down Russian planes in times and places where
there were no Russian planes flying! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who and where? You sound like one of those bitter Allied historians, who couldn't believe the kill counts of German pilots. State your proof or shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the desert campaign on the day that Marseilles claimed a bucket load of kills for example:
(5 I think from memory) and the rest of the German pilots claimed 21 kills in total the actual losses of the allies were 2 more than Marseilles claimed, now either Hans or the rest of the Geshwader were over claiming. (see the book, Desert warriors,Russell Brown)

This keeps happening repeatedly throughout the war, it is caused by the hero worshipping of the Ace by the German propaganda and the pressure to get the decorations that come with the victories.

By no means am I claiming that the Germans were the only to suffer from this, yet I feel it was more prevalent in the Luftwaffe.

Fighterduck
07-23-2007, 02:30 AM
claiming more kill than the real ones? well it happened in both fields. For the allied it happened generally when there was big formation of bombers with their escort. Bombers gunners claimed kills, escort plane also and happened that the total of claimed kills was more than the number of planes that luftwaffe had in the sky that day.

Rammjaeger
07-23-2007, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Don't forget that however good IL2 is,its not real.In real life even small calibre bullets could cause a lot of damage. One bullet in an oil line,or coolant pipe (or pilot!) and down you go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To hit the oil line, engine etc., the bullets have to penetrate the airframe. I guess this explains why 0.303 cal machine guns were only effective in air combat as long as aircraft had practically no armor (WW1, inter-war era). Another factor to consider is that this calibre was already in use for decades by WW2 and air forces were probably reluctant to acquire completely new and more effective machine gun designs since that would've increased aircraft production cost.

In the game 7.92 mm guns are mostly effective against early unarmored types (SB, Gladiator etc.) and lightly armored inline-engine fighters (P-40, Hurricane). One-pass kills are possible against these if you hit the engine with a long and accurate burst. Some aces apparently also excelled at getting very close to the enemy aircraft and hitting the rudder and other control surfaces.

leitmotiv
07-23-2007, 03:48 AM
We seem to return to this now and then, and I find it hilarious to see game players condescending to war pilots like they have really fired guns in anger. Of course we haven't. Not even close because our biology is not reacting to out stick antics (fighter pilots tended to avoid aerobatics in favor of maintaining balance for shooting, for example), etc. We are good at an acrobatic shooter which is much more demanding than CALL OF DUTY, but we ain't pilots or air-to-air gunnery experts.

ImpStarDuece
07-23-2007, 04:06 AM
Overclaims were a fact of life, regardless of airforce and theatre. Every airforce, in every theatre overclaimed (with the possible exception of the Finnish in the Winter War).

As a general rule of thumb, overclaims by fighter pilots, even aces with dozens of claims, seem to run to 3 claims of a confirmed kill for every 2 actual kills, and 2 claims of damage for every aircraft actually damaged.

The ratios do vary considerably though. For example, Fighter Command overclaimed by a factor of 2 to 1 in France in 1940, by 2.5:2 in the Battle of Britain, by 2.5:1 in 1941 and by about 3.5:2 in 1942. However, the RAF may of actually underclaimed kills over Germany in 1944, when Intelligence awarded a far higher proportion of 'damageds' than 'confirmed' claims than usual, even with cine camera evidence.

That said, there were certainly some German units who artifically padded their claims, in the Western Desert and over Russia, and some 'Old Hand' aces who did likewise, according to personal accounts of fellow pilots.

Probably the worst serial overclaimers of the war were the Japanese, who seem to have claimed about 5 times as many kills as aircraft actually shot down (although the Aussies operating Spitfire Mk Vs out of Darwin against the Japanese had a very similar overcliam ratio). How much of this is propoganda cliams, as opposed to actual unit claims, is hard to determine, as many records were lost in the firebombing of Japan.

Nimits
07-23-2007, 04:23 AM
Overclaiming was a fact of life on all sides (in one famous example, VF-3's defense of the Lexington in February 1942, when almost the whole combat took place within visual range of a carrier task force, the USN still managed to overclaim by several aircraft). The Japanese were the worst offenders, but the Germans claimed lots of planes that were never shot down, just like anybody else. In general, I think you could halve the kill totals of every pilot in the war (Germans included) and come up with a number closer to the truth.

waffen-79
07-23-2007, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
How much of this is propoganda claims, as opposed to actual unit claims, is hard to determine, as many records were lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That right there is SIG material mate, or at least it should be addressed everytime a troll wants to talk about overclaiming regardless the air force.

something like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
that's a PROPAGANDA ISSUE, lock
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

leitmotiv
07-23-2007, 06:34 AM
Before generalizing vigorously, the abiding vice of forums, wouldn't hurt to look at some hard scholarship. Caldwell's JG26 rigorously cross-checked German-British-American claims pertaining to the exploits of JG26. He found German accounting to be remarkably accurate, and the British and American to be terrible. Anybody who has made even a casual study of the rigorous German claim procedure knows it was formidably bureaucratic, and demanding.

Abbuzze
07-23-2007, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gumtree:

In the desert campaign on the day that Marseilles claimed a bucket load of kills for example:
(5 I think from memory) and the rest of the German pilots claimed 21 kills in total the actual losses of the allies were 2 more than Marseilles claimed, now either Hans or the rest of the Geshwader were over claiming. (see the book, Desert warriors,Russell Brown)

This keeps happening repeatedly throughout the war, it is caused by the hero worshipping of the Ace by the German propaganda and the pressure to get the decorations that come with the victories.

By no means am I claiming that the Germans were the only to suffer from this, yet I feel it was more prevalent in the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ring/Shore wrote a very good book about the fights in the desert, it´s very simply written, more a kind of diary. Main goal is comparing claims vs. real kills and the situation of the air forces.
After reading this book I´m very carefull to use "overclaiming" because it sounds very dishonourable in my ears. Most of this "overclaimed" kills were made in good believe. If we would fly without killmessages it would be even worse in this game.

Fighterduck
07-23-2007, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Most of this "overclaimed" kills were made in good believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think yes..but from the pilots...then maeby propaganda changed their numbers.

Abbuzze
07-23-2007, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fighterduck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Most of this "overclaimed" kills were made in good believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think yes..but from the pilots...then maeby propaganda changed their numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even the 17 kills at one day by Marseille are traceable in british documents. Of course there was a lot of propaganda at all sides. It was easier to push up total numbers then the number of single pilots - their squadmates would realy dislike them if they would be celebrated for nothing. Especially if you risk your life for them.

Beside, in the desert the type of a killed plane was mostly comlete wrong.
Britisch pilots just killed german planes, and german pilots never just got hurricanes - it was at least a P40 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ake109
07-23-2007, 09:43 AM
I would think the advantage Sim pilots have in 'skill' over real wartime pilots is that us Sim pilots are sitting pretty at home while wartime pilots have to worry about a couple hundred switches more then IL2 'full real' allows, did not have enough sleep, was breathing through an oxygen mask, is tired after flying 6 hours, had to maintain formation tightly, is tense from the ever-present danger, gets blinded much more intensly by the sun than a monitor allows etc etc. All these distractions probably give a lot of chances for an enemy to sneak some shots in during occasions where a Sim pilot would have spotted the enemy.

zugfuhrer
07-23-2007, 10:04 AM
I think that you draw you conclusion about weakness/toughness of aircrafts originates from this game.

I also think that the programmers of this game has deliberatly made some a/c:s less vulnerable than they where in real life.

In this game some things like the inline engines radiators and cooling system, are not included in the damageprofile at all, I think.

One or a few hits there and you engine overheats and stop. Take a look at a blueprint of an a/c and see how cramped most of the frame is.

I have tested the damageprofiles in this game and found out that an a/c can take much punishment, much more than I think it could do in real life.

An AI I-16 for example could take many hits frontal in the engine without any damage at all, and that should not be how it was in real life, according to my limited knowledge.
And in non AI-a/c:s are almost as tough.

dirtdigger54
07-23-2007, 10:43 AM
Let's not forget shear FEAR....It's extremely hard to stay concentrated on the target while getting peppered with 50 cals..... The beauty of the the reset button pushes fear away. I bet my Dad and his squad mates would love to have had a button. I was in a personnel carrier that was hit by 51 caliber rounds once.... not something I'd soon forget.

To answer the initial question: I believe it was the pilot and not the machine that made the kills.

Fighterduck
07-23-2007, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dirtdigger54:
Let's not forget shear FEAR


To answer the initial question: I believe it was the pilot and not the machine that made the kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well all the biological and phisical aspect arent in a sim..so we have a more easy life flying those machines. If you are shooted down you hit "refly" and there you are back in the sky...but in real life..no "refly" button to hit so yes..thats why i think real ww2 pilots will still always better than us.

as for the answere...well, thats true: but is a "pohetic" way to see.In the sense of, yes, its the man inside the cockpit that pull the trigger, but its the gun that fire. My question was more "weapons" oriented.

joeap
07-23-2007, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
I also think that the programmers of this game has deliberatly made some a/c:s less vulnerable than they where in real life.

An AI I-16 for example could take many hits frontal in the engine without any damage at all, and that should not be how it was in real life, according to my limited knowledge.
And in non AI-a/c:s are almost as tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, limited that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dirtdigger54
07-23-2007, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as for the answere...well, thats true: but is a "pohetic" way to see.In the sense of, yes, its the man inside the cockpit that pull the trigger, but its the gun that fire. My question was more "weapons" oriented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see.... Well than I have to admit a 20mm has more punch than a 7.92, But it still takes the skill of the pilot to line up the shot, calculate the angle, adjust the fall of the shot and maintain the fire on the target. The very last of the criteria would be the effect of the shot on the tartget. I can be shot down with a 7.92 just as easily as a 20 mm. I would argue a 20mm just makes it eaier for those that can't shoot as well or follow the other criteria for a dogfight kill....

I guess the real test is, with all things being equal, who is the better pilot?

Not looking to start a war here, but size of your gun isn't as important as how you use it.... : )

DD

Fighterduck
07-23-2007, 12:46 PM
well thats what i said..i agree with the fact that the light mgs can be deadly like the 20mm gun thats ok. But how you stated i think that to be efective with those 7.92mm gun you need more skills, and maybe most of the pilots didnt have it for the simply reason that you didnt have time to practice. So my guess was that it was the 20mm that "scored" most of the time.But again, this is a personal thought. NEver read anything about pilots fyiring experiences.

M_Gunz
07-23-2007, 03:38 PM
The position you fire from is as important or more than the guns you are using.
Get off the dead six, learn deflection shooting, and you can avoid needing to pierce armor.

jasonbirder
07-23-2007, 04:03 PM
Or alternatively if the AI aborted its mission when it took substantial damage instead of pressing on regardless of damage...
Then you wouldn't need to force every plane to explode into a thousand fragments to acheive your mission - you could just force it to break off...
Whatever the problems with the Damage model, they are exacerbated a hundred fold by the fact that planes will press on or chase after a kill regardless of damage, leaks, wounds etc etc...
In real life they would have turned for home or broken off and disengaged - meaning you would have a mission kill without unrealistically needing to force them down in pieces to interfere with their mission

JG52MadAdler
07-23-2007, 11:58 PM
Convergence! At the right distance even 7.92's can be deadly. I set mine at 100 get close and short well aimed burst. Deliver the most rounds at there
highest energy in a tight group at a sensitive area of the target. (Cockpit or Cowling)
Throw a 20mm in the mix and good night!

Rammjaeger
07-24-2007, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Whatever the problems with the Damage model, they are exacerbated a hundred fold by the fact that planes will press on or chase after a kill regardless of damage, leaks, wounds etc etc...
In real life they would have turned for home or broken off and disengaged - meaning you would have a mission kill without unrealistically needing to force them down in pieces to interfere with their mission </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If an AI plane presses on with the attack regardless of the damage, it is easier to shoot it down. This behaviour makes scoring kills easier, not harder.

By the way, if a damaged enemy plane does emergency landing in its own territory, it will nevertheless be counted as a kill in the game - which is kind of unrealistic considering that such aircraft were repaired and back in combat in a few days IRL, if I'm not mistaken.

AI behaviour in the game is often bizarre. Enemy planes will make unrealistic aerobatic manoeuvres when attacked but they will head home after reaching their last waypoint and won't bother to do a single evasive manoeuver even when they are being shredded to pieces.

horseback
07-24-2007, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If an AI plane presses on with the attack regardless of the damage, it is easier to shoot it down. This behaviour makes scoring kills easier, not harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I'm not so sure that is true.

In my experience, it doesn't seem as though an enemy ai's aircraft performance is affected by paltry distractions like being on fire, missing control surfaces, or an engine generating enormous clouds of smoke in the same ways that you or I would be if our aircraft of the same type took the same damage.

I've been caught up to and shot down by ai that were billowing flames and smoke from aircraft that on paper weren't in the same performance class as the one I was piloting on more than one occassion since the last patch. AI don't appear to experience the same loss of control/performance or increase in drag that we do under the same circumstances.

This is probably because the ai always fly at an inhuman level of perfection by default, and are limited only by the game's programming.

cheers

horseback

Rammjaeger
07-26-2007, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If an AI plane presses on with the attack regardless of the damage, it is easier to shoot it down. This behaviour makes scoring kills easier, not harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I'm not so sure that is true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's suppose you start the Russian fighter campaign in 1941 in an I-16. If the German fighters start heading home at full throttle whenever they judge that tactical superiority isn't on their side - a routine practice of German fighters on the eastern front -, you won't get many potential kills, will you? But in the game, AI planes won't leave the combat zone until they are either shot down or the enemy wiped out of the sky completely. This ensures the are many targets around.

I've recently started a German DGEN fighter campaign and the flight leader conveniently attacked 6 enemy fighters over enemy territory even though I was the only other pilot left in the flight. This was completely unnecessary for since the enemy planes weren't attacking our bombers, ground vehicles or anything else for that matter. Such attacks were inconceivable in ww2 or any other time. Needless to say, he was shot down in a matter of minutes and I could barely outrun the enemy and return to base.