PDA

View Full Version : 190 DM stronger



quiet_man
10-18-2005, 01:24 PM
good news, 190 can now stand some beating
at 4.01 against AI I lost controls at single hits from >300m

now I tested 190F8 against a P40 from 500m and the 190 stand some pounding before a critical hit (just don't let them come close)

also the 190 can burn again

.50/190 look pretty realistic to me now

quiet_man

danjama
10-18-2005, 01:40 PM
fishing already? U gotta be joking mate. The 190 DM was incredibly strong in 4.01, it always got me home on WarClouds. Now i dont really see much change, which im glad about. People are saying it burns easier but i disagree. They are just dealing with patch hysteria. Maybe it leaks easier but i think its good.

faustnik
10-18-2005, 01:54 PM
Danjama,

There was a change made to the Fw190s tendency to catch fire in 4.02. It does catch fire easily now from dead 6. ShVaks have a very strong ability to ignite the Fw190's fuel tanks. Even .303 will flame them up.

Other than that, the Fw190 DM has not changed. It leaks fuel but, does not have the rapid fuel dump like in 3.04. (I haven't comfirmed this in the release version but, it shouldn't.)

Monson74
10-18-2005, 02:14 PM
Maybe it's weaker with 4.02 but it's still one tough bird which it should be. Haven't seen one on fire yet - gotto go check that out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kocur_
10-18-2005, 02:14 PM
QMB: you in Hurri IIb, plus 4 friendly Fw190s. Those 12 .303s have enough ammo to light them all (I wont even mention those British tests on Fw190 vs different guns, especially .303 and flammability...). "Probability of catching fire" is CORRECTED indeed.

And then do the same with four Yak-3s...
Maybe its just me, but I cant make those Yaks burn, not one...

NorrisMcWhirter
10-18-2005, 02:40 PM
Oleg: We need to sort that 190DM out.

Teaboy: You mean that one everyone was whining about?

Oleg: Yes, that's the one.

Teaboy: But they whine about the Lagg3 DM too.

Oleg: Never mind that!

Teaboy: Oh, ok. I'll do it right after I finish verifying the DF spawn points have maximum collision probability.

Oleg: Talking of probability, can you raise the chance of getting a brown smoke out of fuel in 30s/fire to something approaching 1?

Teaboy: Sure thing, boss.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More seriously, I did shoot up a 190 in QMB earlier and induce a familiar "grey brown" smoke trail. His prop stopped after about 120s..which seems like a return to the old days. The other one? Yep, you guessed it..he caught fire.

Ta,
Norris

Kuna15
10-18-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
The 190 DM was incredibly strong in 4.01, it always got me home on WarClouds.

lol You are kidding right?!
Last nite you got all 3 of my FW-190A-5 controlls with one bullet pack from P-38J nose; no more than five bullets (elevator, aileron, rudder: damaged http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif)...

Well I am joking obviously, that was just my bad luck involved as well as your well aim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I agree with you FW-190 can be and usually is extra tough plane to bring down for a fighter in 401, more vulnerable parts are it's wings, tho.

Kocur_
10-18-2005, 02:58 PM
And having zillion holes in Yak wing wont affect its handling!
Oh sorry, I forgot: game engine limitations.

Monson74
10-18-2005, 03:01 PM
Er.. maybe it's a bit too flamable now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Just shot up 2x4 A-8s in the QMB - 7 of them burned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif Well, who am I to complain... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

quiet_man
10-18-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
fishing already?

you got me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


U gotta be joking mate. The 190 DM was incredibly strong in 4.01, it always got me home on WarClouds.

I tested 190 DM 4.01 only against AI and there every second bullet would destroy some controll cables, I don't know how this translates to online


Now i dont really see much change, which im glad about. People are saying it burns easier but i disagree. They are just dealing with patch hysteria. Maybe it leaks easier but i think its good.

wasn't the issue that it didn't burned at all at 4.01?

quiet_man

faustnik
10-18-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Monson74:
Er.. maybe it's a bit too flamable now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Something in the Fw190DM code seems to make it hard to adjust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Kuna15
10-18-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
And having zillion holes in Yak wing wont affect its handling!

Hey Kocur maybe if you just put one or two more MK108 shells in its wing, perhaps the wing will be properly trimmed then lol.http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/UT_rocketlauncher_1.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-18-2005, 03:47 PM
I am not sure how many flames are right, but I do feel that API ammo had a HIGH probability of fire starting relative to other ammo types...probably somehting that did not translate well to the game overall. Problem is, because I never flew WWII combat, I can't tell you of 40% of aircraft or 70% or some other...but I do believe that fire was one of the most prevelent modes of failure/kills with US HMG's...only question to me is "how prevelent?"

faustnik
10-18-2005, 03:51 PM
Here is a RAF test of Fw190 vulnerability including hits to the fuel tank. Please check the probability of causing a fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190vunerabilityAdj.jpg

Grey_Mouser67
10-18-2005, 04:01 PM
lol...you may have to interpret that for me, but it looks like the Fw is impervious to any HMG fire! I'll bet there are a bunch of Fw pilots that would argue that chart if they could!

Arm_slinger
10-18-2005, 04:04 PM
they're joking??? .50 and 20mm bounce off of the engine?? strewth!

quiet_man
10-18-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
And having zillion holes in Yak wing wont affect its handling!
Oh sorry, I forgot: game engine limitations.

now I made a little test mission (two enemy ai fighter starting just behind me) and played a bit with planes
attacker: P40B, Mig3UB, 190D
myself: P47,La5,Yak1,Yak3,Yak9U,190F8

I tested not all combinations, but cannon hits at Yak wings do affect handling not MG/HMG
it seams this part was improved!?

but Yaks indeed won't burn, they get fuel leaks asap, but never fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif also Yaks were the strongest planes with the Yak3 being the top air-tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

quiet_man

quiet_man
10-18-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Here is a RAF test of Fw190 vulnerability including hits to the fuel tank...

what were the assumptions and constrains at the test?
distance and angle of attack?
angle of impact?

quiet_man

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 04:19 PM
hit the wings, and it handling is scary.

the engines often drop back to 2cv power if hit

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 04:20 PM
yak, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the 3 may escape such bad handling

faustnik
10-18-2005, 04:29 PM
Here is more info from the RAF test:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190vunerability2adj.jpg

I don't think the Fw190 was immune to catching fire from .50 hits either, I just think there is a problem in adjusting this effect. Right now it is too easy for the tanks to catch fire, combined with the easy wing damage/lift loss and easily damaged controls make the Fw190 a lightweight in the DM department. Please test the ShVak against the Fw190 in 4.02 for a good demo.

I certainly wouldn't say the Fw190 is alone, add any a/c with a glass jawed R-2800 right in there with the wimp DM classification. The P-47 not only has the weak engine, it has the weak tail section.

All of this has to be put into perpective however. It was probably really bad to get hit by anything in any WW2 fighter. The key is not getting shot.

quiet_man
10-18-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yak, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the 3 may escape such bad handling

MG151?

still no excuse for Yak to take more hits than P47, 190, La5

quiet_man

DangerForward
10-18-2005, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Here is more info from the RAF test:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190vunerability2adj.jpg

I don't think the Fw190 was immune to catching fire from .50 hits either, I just think there is a problem in adjusting this effect. Right now it is too easy for the tanks to catch fire, combined with the easy wing damage/lift loss and easily damaged controls make the Fw190 a lightweight in the DM department. Please test the ShVak against the Fw190 in 4.02 for a good demo.

I certainly wouldn't say the Fw190 is alone, add any a/c with a glass jawed R-2800 right in there with the wimp DM classification. The P-47 not only has the weak engine, it has the weak tail section.

All of this has to be put into perpective however. It was probably really bad to get hit by anything in any WW2 fighter. The key is not getting shot.

I can't see the image from that RAF test, but I think I've seen it before. The thing that caught my eye from that test was a line about how changing the angle of attack by as little as 5 degrees gave much different results. Am I wrong about? From my initial tests it did seem that the fw190 catches fire easier than the bf109 though.

Online though I hit a 190a4 with 20 hispano shots before it finally fell apart, without catching fire, that made me less worried about the ease of catching on fire.

Grey_Mouser67
10-18-2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by DangerForward:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Here is more info from the RAF test:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190vunerability2adj.jpg

I don't think the Fw190 was immune to catching fire from .50 hits either, I just think there is a problem in adjusting this effect. Right now it is too easy for the tanks to catch fire, combined with the easy wing damage/lift loss and easily damaged controls make the Fw190 a lightweight in the DM department. Please test the ShVak against the Fw190 in 4.02 for a good demo.

I certainly wouldn't say the Fw190 is alone, add any a/c with a glass jawed R-2800 right in there with the wimp DM classification. The P-47 not only has the weak engine, it has the weak tail section.

All of this has to be put into perpective however. It was probably really bad to get hit by anything in any WW2 fighter. The key is not getting shot.

I can't see the image from that RAF test, but I think I've seen it before. The thing that caught my eye from that test was a line about how changing the angle of attack by as little as 5 degrees gave much different results. Am I wrong about? From my initial tests it did seem that the fw190 catches fire easier than the bf109 though.

Online though I hit a 190a4 with 20 hispano shots before it finally fell apart, without catching fire, that made me less worried about the ease of catching on fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't have a scientific calculater...but if I'm in a P-51D at 200 yards off the tail, dead six, of a Fw and I fire...what angle are my bullets if I have convergence set at 200...should be

Tan of alpha = opp/hyp

Hyp= 600 ft and opp= distance of guns from nose...I suspect the angle to be about 1-2 degrees...so how far off to the side does a Mustang have to be in order to acheive a 5 degree angle...I'm betting it is less than 30 ft...and of course there is the fueselage of the plane itself which increases the angle of incidence...I doubt that flying straight away was an effective tactic for a Fw.

VF-29_Sandman
10-18-2005, 07:41 PM
in qmb 190 vs p-38: pk's capable from dead 6, an 'rtb' message from a .5 deflection shot, didnt take much to set it on fire.
190 vs p-39: 2 hits with 30mm cannon='s pk and flame. 3 hits, bye bye tail.
i will admit that the ai 190 a-9(?) runs like a mfr. gains speed like a demon. hmmm

Kuna15
10-19-2005, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yak, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the 3 may escape such bad handling

MG151?

still no excuse for Yak to take more hits than P47, 190, La5

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know what you guys were talking about, so I made some tracks (I like TAGERTs "got track?" phrase).

4.02 tracks
BF-109G6/AS20mm_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_BF-109G6-AS20mm_v_Yak-3.rar)
BF-109G10_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_BF-109G10_v_Yak-3.rar)
FW-190A6_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_FW-190A6_v_Yak-3.rar)

Things are quite clear for me now, however. I will perhaps check P-47 and LA-5 DM later, don't have time right now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

quiet_man
10-19-2005, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:

I didn't know what you guys were talking about, so I made some tracks (I like TAGERTs "got track?" phrase).

4.02 tracks
BF-109G6/AS20mm_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_BF-109G6-AS20mm_v_Yak-3.rar)
BF-109G10_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_BF-109G10_v_Yak-3.rar)
FW-190A6_v_Yak-3-test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/gun-test_FW-190A6_v_Yak-3.rar)

Things are quite clear for me now, however. I will perhaps check P-47 and LA-5 DM later, don't have time right now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

what is clear from your tracks? that MG151 can destroy a Yak3?
No one doubted it as far as I read the posts here. Even more at the distances youre tracks were done.

take an airplane with weaker guns and/or increase the shooting distance
I take two P40B or MIG3UB
you will see Yaks take more hits than other planes (I tested) and never burn

quiet_man

Genie-
10-19-2005, 07:30 AM
now I tested 190F8 against a P40 from 500m and the 190 stand some pounding before a critical hit (just don't let them come close)
quiet_man

500 meters ??

..this is too sad to be true... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Kuna15
10-19-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
what is clear from your tracks? that MG151 can destroy a Yak3?
No one doubted it as far as I read the posts here. Even more at the distances youre tracks were done.

take an airplane with weaker guns and/or increase the shooting distance
I take two P40B or MIG3UB
you will see Yaks take more hits than other planes (I tested) and never burn

quiet_man

Aircraft you mentioned are allied aircraft and Yak-3 will never fly against those online unless we are on open for all arcade server. There is no much point in testing MiG vs Yak, just like there is no point in testing FW-190D vs BF-109E. All Yak-3 historical opponents in game are more than capable to deal with this VVS fighter.

However inflammable Yak-3 issue is something that should be solved, tho. However this issue affect(ed) more Allied fighters, US planes more than RAF and VVS because they don't have cannons.
Most of allied late war planes online so far were probably destroyed due to heavy structural damage (missing parts; wing tail etc.).

I also noticed that FW-190(I flew A6 type) in game isn't hard to set on fire now.

stathem
10-19-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Here is more info from the RAF test:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190vunerability2adj.jpg

I don't think the Fw190 was immune to catching fire from .50 hits either, I just think there is a problem in adjusting this effect. Right now it is too easy for the tanks to catch fire, combined with the easy wing damage/lift loss and easily damaged controls make the Fw190 a lightweight in the DM department. Please test the ShVak against the Fw190 in 4.02 for a good demo.

I certainly wouldn't say the Fw190 is alone, add any a/c with a glass jawed R-2800 right in there with the wimp DM classification. The P-47 not only has the weak engine, it has the weak tail section.

All of this has to be put into perpective however. It was probably really bad to get hit by anything in any WW2 fighter. The key is not getting shot.

Note the line,"the pilot is protected...not only..but also by the accumulator\s,wireless etc"


Just a general point,

Taking munition hits in the battery in a fighter relying heavily on electric power would not be favourable to the chances of that a/c staying airborne, not to mention the explosion risk of violently shorting a charged battery.

Tully__
10-19-2005, 08:54 AM
Taking munition hits in the battery in a fighter relying heavily on electric power would not be favourable to the chances of that a/c staying airborne, not to mention the explosion risk of violently shorting a charged battery.
In general aircraft engines run on magnetos, thus being independant of batteries, and WW2 fighters had non-assisted controls. The batteries were primarily for ancillary gear (radios etc) and were non-critical to flight (barring having them explode just behind the pilot of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Landing may have presented some problems though in aircraft with electrically extended flaps & gear....

quiet_man
10-19-2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
...
Aircraft you mentioned are allied aircraft and Yak-3 will never fly against those online unless we are on open for all arcade server. There is no much point in testing MiG vs Yak, just like there is no point in testing FW-190D vs BF-109E. All Yak-3 historical opponents in game are more than capable to deal with this VVS fighter.


I agree on the other stuff but not on this one.
I tested some more on the Yak3 and it seams the issue is mostly for light weapons (independend of side). MGs only planes seam to have a higher chance to down a P47 then a Yak3 or Yak9U

I think it has alot to do with the missing fire but also with less chance of controls damage

quiet_man

WOLFMondo
10-19-2005, 10:00 AM
190DM is either been weakened or the .50 is OTT.

190 isn't tough any more. Brown fuel leak is back and the dead 6 PK has always been there.


Originally posted by faustnik:


Other than that, the Fw190 DM has not changed. It leaks fuel but, does not have the rapid fuel dump like in 3.04. (I haven't comfirmed this in the release version but, it shouldn't.)

Test it, fuel leak is back. Had it happen 3 times now. Kinda disappointed with this.

faustnik
10-19-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Test it, fuel leak is back. Had it happen 3 times now. Kinda disappointed with this.

I'll will test it. That really sucks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

MystiqBlackCat
10-19-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
In general aircraft engines run on magnetos, thus being independant of batteries, and WW2 fighters had non-assisted controls. The batteries were primarily for ancillary gear (radios etc) and were non-critical to flight (barring having them explode just behind the pilot of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Landing may have presented some problems though in aircraft with electrically extended flaps & gear....

FW190 controls were electrical, the control surfaces were moved by electric actuators controled by low voltage electrical signals sent from the pilots controls. Sort of a Primitive fly-by-wire system found on modern day aircraft. That being said, controls should be difficult to knock out on the FW190s but when you do hit the battery all would go out at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

As long as 190s have a tougher DM than 109s things are at least moving in the right direction.

One thing that we all need to remember is that compared to WWII pilots we are the aces of aces, many pilots had very little training on what to do when attacked other than bank away, especially for the U.S. early in the war and the Luftwaffe late in the war. This being said pilots would often have a couple more seconds to fire at their target and light them up.

With external views, padlocking, and the highly developed sense of awareness that comes on full switch servers it is very rare that anyone gets to sit behind a target in a bank turn and pour rounds into them.

stathem
10-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Taking munition hits in the battery in a fighter relying heavily on electric power would not be favourable to the chances of that a/c staying airborne, not to mention the explosion risk of violently shorting a charged battery.
In general aircraft engines run on magnetos, thus being independant of batteries, and WW2 fighters had non-assisted controls. The batteries were primarily for ancillary gear (radios etc) and were non-critical to flight (barring having them explode just behind the pilot of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Landing may have presented some problems though in aircraft with electrically extended flaps & gear.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye I wasn't suggesting it would stop the engine straight off... but the FW was kind of special in having a larger number of elecrical systems than other aircraft of the day. (KG,Guns)

I did make an appeal for info a little while ago but oddly, no-one seemed to have a wiring diagram for an A-8 to hand.

faustnik
10-19-2005, 12:12 PM
Stathem,

I think your point that there is a lot to go wrong if an a/c is hit by any projectile is a good one. I bet as DMs get more complex in BoB, all a/c will be easier to render ineffective with all types of guns.

stathem
10-19-2005, 12:27 PM
I tell you what would be a great feature for BoB - if you got hit in the 'wireless hitbox' and teamspeak stopped working.

Maybe a little hard to implement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Kocur_
10-19-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:

FW190 controls were electrical, the control surfaces were moved by electric actuators controled by low voltage electrical signals sent from the pilots controls. Sort of a Primitive fly-by-wire system found on modern day aircraft. That being said, controls should be difficult to knock out on the FW190s but when you do hit the battery all would go out at one time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


I hope it was supposed to be a joke, otherwise its just BS.
The only electric control in Fw190 was elevator trim, all the rest was purely mechanical like in all planes of the era (except for later Lightnings boosted ailerons).

Kuna15
10-19-2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
...
Aircraft you mentioned are allied aircraft and Yak-3 will never fly against those online unless we are on open for all arcade server. There is no much point in testing MiG vs Yak, just like there is no point in testing FW-190D vs BF-109E. All Yak-3 historical opponents in game are more than capable to deal with this VVS fighter.


I agree on the other stuff but not on this one.
I tested some more on the Yak3 and it seams the issue is mostly for light weapons (independend of side). MGs only planes seam to have a higher chance to down a P47 then a Yak3 or Yak9U

I think it has alot to do with the missing fire but also with less chance of controls damage

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will try to test this (although I have no idea how since I can't tell AI to use only MGs, --using only late war axis-- I will try to manage something online). Maybe we could go online two of us if you are willing for some testing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Now I'm being curious, since I don't have reason to not believe you.

JuHa-
10-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by MystiqBlackCat:

FW190 controls were electrical, the control surfaces were moved by electric actuators controled by low voltage electrical signals sent from the pilots controls.

I'd remember that Fw190 used metal rods instead of
wires to move the control surfaces, and they were mechanically operated (ie. muscle power).
The very last bit before surfaces may be wire, but don't know in details.
Reason for this arragement was to avoid the stretch in the control wires and the slack in controls that it causes.

JtD
10-19-2005, 01:53 PM
WRT that test...

Does 0.5" B. Mk.II mean they used ball ammuniton, like 100% metal slugs? How would you expect fires from them?

But what about incendiary ammo types? That stuff that's actually meant to ignite fires?

quiet_man
10-19-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
190 isn't tough any more. Brown fuel leak is back and the dead 6 PK has always been there.


which 190?
online/offline?
hit by what gun?

I just tested 190A5 letting me hit by an AI P47
the 190 took a few hits into left wing and tail without to big issues, the wing drop was slight and a tank leak sealed within 1 minute without significant lose of fuel
of course if he gets a serious burst on you with >20/30 hits your easily in trouble

much more an issue are russion MGs, an I16/18 gets the 190 leaking and engine smoke from first burst and burning at second from 500m!!!
why did they go to HMG at all with such MGs???

no PKs from bullets at this tests, only from fire!

quiet_man

Kuna15
10-19-2005, 02:02 PM
quiet_man please check your PM.

horseback
10-19-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
WRT that test...

Does 0.5" B. Mk.II mean they used ball ammuniton, like 100% metal slugs? How would you expect fires from them?

But what about incendiary ammo types? That stuff that's actually meant to ignite fires? Just a guess, but I think that is a reference to .50 cal Browning design machine guns. AFAIK, the British .303 Browning machine gun was essentially the same design as the American .50 Browning MG, scaled down for the lighter round. With the introduction of the .50 cal model, the British military would give the Browning 'heavy' their own designation, rather than the American M2.

As for incendiary effects from solid rounds, metal striking metal often produces sparks. High octane aviation fuel spraying from a torn tank into the wind often resulted in an explosion or fire, even without further rounds being expended. Solid rounds striking from (often a lot) less than 400m generated a significant amount of kinetic energy, particularly the heavy .50/12.7mm rounds.

The normal .50 cal loadout contained an appreciable portion of armor piercing incendiary (API) and armor piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) in any case. I'm given to believe that it's over half the rounds in a burst would be made up of incendiary type rounds.

cheers

horseback

JtD
10-21-2005, 12:19 PM
Yes, horseback seems all right. But I got two "but"'s.

1. - but the test says "A.P&B." 0.5" rounds were used - no "I" anywhere in ammo designation. So I still think that this test only shows that the all metal round wouldn't cause fires.

2. - but the test was done against a static aircraft, which would not trail fuel - and thus are not prone to fires from metal slug sparks.

Essentially, this test has very little resemblence to what was going on in the sky in 1943+ or to what we have modelled in the game. You can not use it for any argumentation concerning fires of the Focke.

Unless, of course, "B." is British for "I.".

faustnik
10-21-2005, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by JtD:


Essentially, this test has very little resemblence to what was going on in the sky in 1943+ or to what we have modelled in the game. You can not use it for any argumentation concerning fires of the Focke.

Interesting that you would try to discount a test specifically for vulnerability of the Fw190 including probablility of igniting a fire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Why do you think the RAF was performing the test?

JtD
10-21-2005, 03:19 PM
I am not discounting it, it's just that it got nothing to do with the flamable FB 190.

a) no incendiary rounds tested (only 20mm and whoops, 15 or 50% (whatever that means) chance of fire)

b) incendiary rounds used in the war

c) incendiary rounds supposedly modelled in FB

It's like testing a HE shell against a tank and claiming, from that test, that a certain cannon could not defeat that tanks armor without ever testing AP rounds.

What does my opinion about the reason the British performed that test to do with the value of that test for a certain purpose? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif It's not that I don't have one, but it just has nothing to do with the value of that test. No need to get carried away.

Simply question to you: Did the British test incendiary 0.5" rounds in this test? Yes or No.

faustnik
10-21-2005, 03:33 PM
All you are doing is making assumptions, it's just silly. Anyway, no big deal, you are certainly free to express your opinion.

JtD
10-21-2005, 11:51 PM
What assumptions?

They say they tested AP & B - which are standard designations for armor piercing and ball ammunition types for the 0.5" in British service. They have no incendiary effects and thus are unlikely to start fires. The British test confirms that.

It makes no statement about any incendiary ammo type that was used (later) in the war and is modelled in FB.

No assumptions at all.

Why do you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question? Appears to me as if you don't like the answer.

faustnik
10-22-2005, 05:23 PM
The chart clearly shows that even 20mm API has only a small chance of igniting a fire in the Fw190's fuel tank. It's right there in front of you. Some people can't see through their own bias though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JtD
10-23-2005, 01:54 AM
Like many others here I was a bit focused on the 0.5" guns, sorry.

I also have no clue what a 20mm SAP/I round is supposed to mean or what it's data is.

Kocur_
10-23-2005, 05:23 AM
H.E.I - high exposive incendiary
S.A.P./I. - semi armour piercing/incendiary

And if I read it correctly only the most danagerous projectile, i.e. HEI has 50% at best chance of causing fire! But that must mean chances of causing fire inside the tank. Fire of leaking fuel which creates air/fuel spray inside airframe is a separate issue I think. OTOH only 20mm projectile is able to create fuel leak to be described as "Serious". I guess it means considerable amout of fuel is leaked before hole is sealed. Or perhaps 20mm hole is too large to be sealed effectively?
Anyway it looks like it takes at least .50 to create any fuel leak. Fw190 fuel tanks, and in fact fuel tanks of all planes which had decent protection (unlike Yaks with 2mm + 2mm rubber), should be immune to ~8mm mg fire. QMB with Hurri IIb vs Fw190 shows it isnt so...or is, but for Yaks only...But since MiG-3U "flew" in 1942, i.e. before it was built or decided to - let nothing surprise us in Olegtrix.