PDA

View Full Version : Very Serious Question For Pacific Fighters



AG104
11-22-2004, 09:54 PM
I don't remember ever hearing this in a readme or anything, correct me if i am wrong, but is there a way to destroy even a small Japanese fishing boat with fifty calibre ammo? I hear some talk about this compared to CFS2, well being a long time sim flyer going back to EAW, i at least can say CFS2 had the damage models on ships 100% more realistic than this game.

I peppered a japanese fishing boat, unarmed, with at least 800 rounds of 50 calibre ammo from a Corsair-I like the effects you get when hitting the boat: torn up sail, holes in side of deck, etc...However, this is without a doubt wrong in all...please, if there was anything said about this going to be fixed, fill me in, and thanks for all the feedback!

AG104
11-22-2004, 09:54 PM
I don't remember ever hearing this in a readme or anything, correct me if i am wrong, but is there a way to destroy even a small Japanese fishing boat with fifty calibre ammo? I hear some talk about this compared to CFS2, well being a long time sim flyer going back to EAW, i at least can say CFS2 had the damage models on ships 100% more realistic than this game.

I peppered a japanese fishing boat, unarmed, with at least 800 rounds of 50 calibre ammo from a Corsair-I like the effects you get when hitting the boat: torn up sail, holes in side of deck, etc...However, this is without a doubt wrong in all...please, if there was anything said about this going to be fixed, fill me in, and thanks for all the feedback!

AG104
11-22-2004, 09:56 PM
I should also reply, i did later go back and try that attack with the Corsair Cannon version, same thing!

x__CRASH__x
11-22-2004, 10:10 PM
FISHING BOATS ARE OVERMODELLED!1!!

x__CRASH__x
11-22-2004, 10:13 PM
If this was a serious post, and not a troll, I will attempt to give it a serious answer.

The modeling of fishing boats should be about #1739 on the list of things to do for this sim. Preceded by such things as modelling relaistic toilets in the B-29, and correcting the look of my sneeze in the cockpit of a Corsair.

Seriously, who gives a **** about fishing boats? Spend your time on worthy targets.

chris455
11-22-2004, 10:21 PM
Wrong X_Crash_X - the importance of accurate damage modelling of Japanese fishing boats is actually 1,543rd on Olegs Master List- far higher than the desultory 1,739th you gave it. But I digress............... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You CAN destroy fishing boats with .50 cal MGs.
The trick is to catch them in shallow water and aim slightly below them- such that the rounds ricochet off the sea floor and up through the thin hull bottom.

Kinda like you do with Tiger tanks.

(Can you guess which angler in this photo sees the diving enemy aircraft?)

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/trolling.bmp

Slammin_
11-22-2004, 10:31 PM
Ahh, I was gonna say man. I was getting pretty peeved that the FMB wouldn't allow me to replace those tanks with fishing boats.

Now that I know the 'trick' to killing those boats, the tanks should be a breeze!

S!


In all seriousness, why do these type threads keep popping up? Are they from imposters, haters, or what?

Sheeze.

Waldo.Pepper
11-22-2004, 10:40 PM
Chris455 wins!

Sorry Crash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stanger_361st
11-22-2004, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slammin_:
Ahh, I was gonna say man. I was getting pretty peeved that the FMB wouldn't allow me to replace those tanks with fishing boats.

Now that I know the 'trick' to killing those boats, the tanks should be a breeze!

S!


In all seriousness, why do these type threads keep popping up? Are they from imposters, haters, or what?

Sheeze. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not see anything wrong with this post. If I recall corectly, Some of those fishing boats shoot at you so I should knock them out. Yes the DM of a boat is not that important to some, but us ground pounders like to shoot things on the surface too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AG104
11-22-2004, 11:14 PM
Last i checked, this was a legit post, and unless Crash is a moderator, i don't see any reason smashing my post by calling it or me a hater or whatever...even if you were a mod, this would be a very unreasonable post to call an unserious question.

This is a question-if you read my post...and if you think that attacking boats isn't important, i think you don't quite understand the missions flyers took part in...

Again, since i'm not given a clear cut answer, is there or is there not a way to kill the boats? Any boats for that matter...is it possible to riccochet bullets off the shallow water? I know the TIger tank trick, read it many times, but the water i've never heard of.

x__CRASH__x
11-22-2004, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Chris455 wins!

Sorry Crash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He posted a pic! Totally not fair!

actionhank1786
11-22-2004, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AG104:
Last i checked, this was a legit post, and unless Crash is a moderator, i don't see any reason smashing my post by calling it or me a hater or whatever...even if you were a mod, this would be a very unreasonable post to call an unserious question.

This is a question-if you read my post...and if you think that attacking boats isn't important, i think you don't quite understand the missions flyers took part in...

Again, since i'm not given a clear cut answer, is there or is there not a way to kill the boats? Any boats for that matter...is it possible to riccochet bullets off the shallow water? I know the TIger tank trick, read it many times, but the water i've never heard of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no one's slamming you for the post.
They're mocking it.
In all actuallity, i see what you mean.
But how often were fishing boats a high priority target in the PTO?
Unless they find a way to launch a strike force from it, i say dont worry about it.
in Real life would .50s sink the boat?
Most likely, or riddle it with holes and render it useless.
If it doenst work this way in game, it doesnt work.
But i see no reason to have Oleg waste time tweaking a Fishing boat to sink from .50 hits when he could be tweaking the flight model of AI or player controlled planes.
It's a matter of importance.
And CFS2's Damage model wasnt even 1% better.
People complain about Zeros lighting up like a christmas tree in December now, CFS2 was rediculous.

actionhank1786
11-22-2004, 11:53 PM
p.s.
The ricochetting bullets off pavement trick for tigers is a made up thing too.
Can you imagine the angle you'd have to hit to "skip" bullets up into the bottom of a Tiger?
And at that Angle, even if they did manage to skip off the pavement instead of imbedding themselves in it, they probably wouldnt penetrate armor.
And i dont believe you can ricochet bullets in Shallow water, although i believe Bullet bounce off water was supposed to be modeled...hmmm

AG104
11-23-2004, 12:01 AM
action hank, on CFS2's damage realism, i was pertaining to boats...they were quite a bit better with bullets, the subject i was comparing...

Yes, i know it isn't the most important, but again!...I was just asking moreover, i honestly did not know if sooner or later 50's would destroy a boat. and by all means don't single the "fishing boat" the only thing, expand your mind and try and see where i'm going...cargo vessels, dry liquid, all those transports in the game...it'd be really fun to have those be destroyable in the game. That is too bad also about the bouncing bullets for the Tiger...a lot of airmen did that in the ETO...

Hendley
11-23-2004, 12:14 AM
For what's its worth, I set up a quick mission with a fishing boat and tried strafing it. The Beaufighter sank it in three passes (using cannon and MGs) but after 6 or so passes in the Havoc I'd only knocked down the sail.

However, as actionhank mentions, you wouldn't normally expect to sink a largish boat with just MGs.

There was a fairly detailed article in World War 2 magazine about the modded B-25s and A-20s and their operations. In it there was no mention of any ship being sunk with just the guns. The planes would strafe the ships to keep the AA gunners' heads down while their fellow pilots would skip bomb the targets. Ships were always sunk with the bombs.

Though this doesn't mean it never happened, it does suggest that it was uncommon to sink a boat with just MGs. Seems like the modelling isn't THAT far off.

Hendley
11-23-2004, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AG104:
...the bouncing bullets for the Tiger...a lot of airmen did that in the ETO... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty sure this is a myth, isn't it? The physics of it just don't make any sense, AFAIK.

Waldo.Pepper
11-23-2004, 12:17 AM
Hendley saves the day.

Thank you Hendley.

Oh and BTW a fishing boat ia a VERY legit target as during the war they gathered intelligence. (they were improvised Picket boats, and carried small ammounts of supplies).

chris455
11-23-2004, 12:38 AM
I WAS JUST KIDDING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Athosd
11-23-2004, 06:54 AM
In PF .50cal MGs aren't capable of destroying any vessel bigger than a patrol/torpedo boat. I believe IRL a battery of .50s would make one hell of a mess out of a fishing trawler - though if it did sink it would likely take quite a while.
At least in 3.01 you can shred the gunners on the armed trawlers - though I don't believe their destroyed gun positions should smoke quite as extensively as they do.

Cheers

Athos

Saburo_0
11-23-2004, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AG104:
...the bouncing bullets for the Tiger...a lot of airmen did that in the ETO... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty sure this is a myth, isn't it? The physics of it just don't make any sense, AFAIK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tigers were known for leaking fuel & oil all over the place tho & it would be possible to start a small fire. Combined with people nearby running for cover-tho not the crew i don't imagine- & the tank possibley stopping. I can see how pilots might think they'd done some serious damage. And of course a bunch of .50s would throw up alot of dust & debris. A case of sound & fury signifying nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
11-23-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
I WAS JUST KIDDING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. I was reading their reaction to your post and kept thinking, wryly, is Chris going to feel merciful and say he was joking? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I`m glad you did otherwise I could see it now, "Oleg, why can`t i ricochet .50s off the water to hit the underside of a fishing boat and kill it?"

I think sooner or later I would`ve stepped in and told him just to save on a new 0.50 cal thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p.s. and the bouncing bullets under a Tiger tank to kill it is a silly situation that got blown out of all prportion and was turned into a 10 page thread! I believe that in WWII a pilot suggested (or tried) to destroy a Tiger tank by firing 0.50s to ricochet off the road to its weaker underside, but it was not a success. he was just giving it a TRY!

Slingn
11-23-2004, 08:15 AM
Man, I shot that boat for ever with unlimited fifties and cannons. it did nothing to the boat, only damaged the planes on its deck. Whats wrong with this game.

Mjollnir111675
11-23-2004, 09:09 AM
The only time I have ever heard of "Shell skip" was by armored divisions using that tactic against panzers.And even then it took a gunner with a great eye,common sense and some degree of physics and ballistic knowledge.Its common knowledge that the sherman and most other allied armor could not penetrate the frontal armor.Top hull/turret armor isn't thick and cannons can bust it up but I doubt that a .50 could even come close to penetrating the belly armor even with repeated DIRECT hits.Especially on a tiger.Now if the pilot cornfused the panzer 4 with the tiger as often happened because of the hull shape then maybe after hitting the same exact place over and over again it may be possible but even then I doubt it.But fer ref here is a pen val table fer a .50:

Thickness of armor pene'd @ 30 degree angle

shell wght Muzz vel. 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

.50 MG 0.04 kg(HMG) 884m/s 13 7 3 - -


And given that lets look at the armor thicknesses fer the PzKpfw VI:


Hull front :100mm
"" sides: 60mm
"" top: 25 mm
Ss front:100 mm
"" sides: 80mm
"" rear: 80 mm
"" top: 25 mm
turret front:100 mm
" " sides:80 mm
" " rear:80mm
"" top: 40 mm

And the pen values will decrease sharply if you get into the konigstiger and panther as sloped armor effectively almost doubles any given armor thickness.And besides,german armor was of THE highest quality surpassed by noone.The soviets advantage on the T-34 came not from armor quality but can be attributed to the engineers brilliantly sloping it.

Now,lets leave the realm of earth and take to the skies:

Assuming you are coming in on a headlong pass and can manage to keep the guns pounding on the same EXACT place it would still take alot of hits to even spall the armor and I dont believe any plane carried that much ammo..One needs to see what ami 75mm cannons couldn't do let alone a .50. Now the engine deck is a whole other matter.But head on, no way in Hades is anything gonna happen to the integrity of the armor.Maybe a commander kill or some crew but the armor should be left to the tank busters with cannons or bombs.To even waste .50 ammo on a forward run on a/v's is ridiculous except fer harassing fire to get them to button up!!

Sorry if I hijacked this thread with useless info bout armored vehicles.

oh yeah:"A sufficient thickness of face-hardened plate could also cause the solid shot of smaller guns to shatter on impact,.."

Aero_Shodanjo
11-23-2004, 09:17 AM
I recall when I joined this forum, the 0.5 cal topic was a "hot topic". A topic that once you start it you can....

...let's just say you can make a book from the replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

LilHorse
11-23-2004, 09:47 AM
OK, here's my attempt at a legit answer to the question. I think the differences here are not just DM but also ballistics between the two games.

It's well known that CFS's DM was of the "bubble" type. Meaning that in the case of a/c if you put enough rounds into the bubble for the aileron you shot it off. Even if you never actually hit the airplane. In short, "close" was good enough in CFS. So, for the boats, put enough rounds in the right area and you sink it.

In IL2, the DM is a kind of section panel overlay that is on the objects. It is especially complex on the a/c. Therefore, not only is the damage very specific to parts of the airplane, the tracking of the bullets must be very accurate to render the different types of damage.

So what I'm trying to say is that you may be spraying a lot of rounds at the boats, but just not enough in one critical area to sink it. I imagine that it was a lot harder to sink boats in RL than was rendered in CFS2. Whether IL2 is dead on in that regard is debatable. But I'd be willing to bet it is more accurate.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-23-2004, 10:00 AM
Hi,

I tried the shallow water rebound trick using the 151/20 and actually sank a carrier with only two hits!

Rather ironic, don't you think, as they do nothing to aircraft.

Norris

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

Supr
11-23-2004, 10:08 AM
How is this a serious question? Much less a VERY serious question. So you cant sink a fishing boat with 50 cal machine guns? You've got to be kidding us. Is that a spinning reel or a jusr a cane pole? Also, why do we keep comparing a 5 yr old game to this one. Yeah, cfs1 and 2 were fun. I had alot of good times. But man, they are really worlds apart from this one. I'm sure their are guys out there that still enjoy it, but holy cow, how can you actually compare them. Unless your still on a 5 yr old computer, this game is way better in just about all aspects.

Tater-SW-
11-23-2004, 10:11 AM
The "fishing boat" is actually a 150 gross ton wooden Sea Truck, called a "Sugar Dog" by US military. You can make them smoke with .50 cal, but cannot sink them. In real life, they would be set ablaze pretty easily with .50s, and if not an outright sinking (all sinkings in PF are far far far too fast), it would burn up, then sink. Given the all or nothing point system for campaigns, etc, a smokign ship below a certain size should burn up, then sink. Larger ships should burn, and then stop smoking after a while unless they have some number of fires, then assume damage control can't put them out, and they sink.

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/burning_sea_truck.jpg
Sea Truck set ablaze by 0.50 caliber MG fire. I don't think she's gonna be making port any time soon.

tater

LilHorse
11-23-2004, 10:12 AM
Also, just a side note about the reaction you've gotten here.

There have been a number of times when someone shows up on these boards and they are obvious CFS "boosters". Usually it goes something like:
"I can do X in CFS. But I can't do X in Il2. Therefore, something's wrong with Il2."

Of course, it could be (and is more likely I think) that there was something not quite right with CFS.

As per the DM/ ballistics I mentioned above; I got to the point where I could almost make high angle deflection shots in CFS with my eyes closed. I thought that was what gunnery was like. Then I got Il2 and it was a big wake up. I realized then that there was a lot about the CFS series that wasn't quite as accurately done as Il2.

VonKlugermon
11-23-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AG104:
I don't remember ever hearing this in a readme or anything, correct me if i am wrong, but is there a way to destroy even a small Japanese fishing boat with fifty calibre ammo? I hear some talk about this compared to CFS2, well being a long time sim flyer going back to EAW, i at least can say CFS2 had the damage models on ships 100% more realistic than this game.

I peppered a japanese fishing boat, unarmed, with at least 800 rounds of 50 calibre ammo from a Corsair-I like the effects you get when hitting the boat: torn up sail, holes in side of deck, etc...However, this is without a doubt wrong in all...please, if there was anything said about this going to be fixed, fill me in, and thanks for all the feedback! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably (as someone else posted somewhere) a low priority item, but valid point IMHO. I imagine the Japanese were driven to utilizing small/lightly armed/armoured coastal trawlers to haul supplies to avoid subs by staying shallow water. Anti-shipping attacks were a fairly common mission, if I'm not mistaken. Also, didn't the Doolittle raid have to leave early (and thus run out of gas) because the fleet was spotted by a "picket" boat? (i.e. fishing trawler)

Willy

chris455
11-23-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
I WAS JUST KIDDING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. I was reading their reaction to your post and kept thinking, wryly, is Chris going to feel merciful and say he was joking? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I`m glad you did otherwise I could see it now, "Oleg, why can`t i ricochet .50s off the water to hit the underside of a fishing boat and kill it?"

I think sooner or later I would`ve stepped in and told him just to save on a new 0.50 cal thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p.s. and the bouncing bullets under a Tiger tank to kill it is a silly situation that got blown out of all prportion and was turned into a 10 page thread! I believe that in WWII a pilot suggested (or tried) to destroy a Tiger tank by firing 0.50s to ricochet off the road to its weaker underside, but it was not a success. he was just giving it a TRY! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never realized I'd haul in such a catch with such a shameless troll! That .50 calber stinkbait is potent stuff.

Aaron_GT
11-23-2004, 01:13 PM
" i at least can say CFS2 had the damage models on ships 100% more realistic than this game."

In CFS2 you can sink a carrier with .50s if you hit it enough times. Hardly realistic.

AG104
11-23-2004, 03:42 PM
Didn't ever try sinking carrier with 50s...haha, guess not then...but for the trawlers and such, troop transports, etc...it does seem good for those.

SUPR-have you seen all the pac. gun footage of airmen destroying small boats loaded with ammunition? Great footage...i was just curious to see if that was possible in this game...this is a serious question because heck, a lot of things like that are not explained in the game, and that aspect of the air war (air to ground war to be specific) was a vital part of the war...destroying shipping supplies! No, i am not trying to "Bring Up" CFS, or trying to compare the "X" between CFS to IL2, i am very happy with this game; i simply had a question, and got a lot of mixed reactions to it to be honest. Thanks to EVERYONE for their answers and opinions.

Oh, P.S., you can look it up, and there were many (many, not ALL)accounts pilots tried to bounce 50's off the ground on heavy tanks...watch Disc. Wings, and heck, talk to veteran airmen!

Tater-SW-
11-23-2004, 03:51 PM
The sea truck can be smoked with 50s. DDs, etc can be made to catch fire (smoke) with .50 cals in PF. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough, we should just have the campaign scorekeeper mark "probables" or "damaged" so dynamic campaigns can take partial damage into account. Maybe points for each damage level something takes. If a ship has 4 damage levels, then you get credit based on what damage level it makes it to.

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/dead_dog_sm.JPG


In real life, you rarely saw the ship you attacked actually sink, even mortally wounded ships. Typical sinking times were in hours (yes, there were exceptions, we have to deal with a simple DM that will produce "average" results).

I'd like to see the sinking time for all ships in this game be multiplied by at least 10.


tater

Paul_K
11-23-2004, 04:46 PM
Just to add my sixpence-worth to the debate, don't discount fishing boats as targets. Along with other small vessels such as landing craft, they were widely used for resupply work in island chains such as the Solomons and Philipines, and in inshore waters around the Japanese home islands.

In fact, in many areas they were all that was left for such work, the larger ships having been sunk wholesale by allied aircraft and US submarines. A lot more significant to PF missions than the toilet on a B-29. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Athosd
11-23-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The sea truck can be smoked with 50s. DDs, etc can be made to catch fire (smoke) with .50 cals in PF. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough, we should just have the campaign scorekeeper mark "probables" or "damaged" so dynamic campaigns can take partial damage into account. Maybe points for each damage level something takes. If a ship has 4 damage levels, then you get credit based on what damage level it makes it to.

&lt;pic&gt;

In real life, you rarely saw the ship you attacked actually sink, even mortally wounded ships. Typical sinking times were in hours (yes, there were exceptions, we have to deal with a simple DM that will produce "average" results).

I'd like to see the sinking time for all ships in this game be multiplied by at least 10.


tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Tater - I agree with your points concerning ship damage modelling, however it should be pointed out that the smoke shown in your pic is due to the destroyed gun mount on the foc'sle (so wouldn't appear for an unarmed Sea Truck).
Similarly DD's will smoke due to MG fire that destroys a light AAA mount - not because of other structural/incidental damage.

I'm certainly hopeful that a greater variety of these lighter vessels will eventually be included - along with a more comprehensive damage model. Tankers catching fire and suffering secondary explosions would be particularly cool.

Cheers

Athos