PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Ballistic Paradox



XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:50 AM
Very curious thing about rifle-caliber machine guns in FB: if they're mounted on the front end of a fighter, they are only slightly more effective than a water pistol. Yet when you've got just a single such gun pointing backwards from a bomber, the same weapon suddenly becomes a death-dealing instrument of great destructiveness.

For example, you can empty eight .303 machine guns into an I-16 at point-blank range, seeing the strikes all along the fuselage and loose bits flying off in your face, and when you're done he's no worse the wear. 109 pilots have reported similar experiences.

Yet a single 7.92mm. machine gun - with roughly similar ballistic characteristics to the .303 - when mounted in the back seat of a bomber, can turn an I-16 (or any other fighter in FB) into a helpless blazing hulk. At least it can and does, with great frequency, when I'm flying the damn thing.

Does Maddox have access to some little-known ballistic information, proving that machine guns are more effective firing to the rear than to the front?

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:50 AM
Very curious thing about rifle-caliber machine guns in FB: if they're mounted on the front end of a fighter, they are only slightly more effective than a water pistol. Yet when you've got just a single such gun pointing backwards from a bomber, the same weapon suddenly becomes a death-dealing instrument of great destructiveness.

For example, you can empty eight .303 machine guns into an I-16 at point-blank range, seeing the strikes all along the fuselage and loose bits flying off in your face, and when you're done he's no worse the wear. 109 pilots have reported similar experiences.

Yet a single 7.92mm. machine gun - with roughly similar ballistic characteristics to the .303 - when mounted in the back seat of a bomber, can turn an I-16 (or any other fighter in FB) into a helpless blazing hulk. At least it can and does, with great frequency, when I'm flying the damn thing.

Does Maddox have access to some little-known ballistic information, proving that machine guns are more effective firing to the rear than to the front?

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:25 AM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote:

- Does Maddox have access to some little-known
- ballistic information, proving that machine guns are
- more effective firing to the rear than to the front?


Well...maybe he was considering that a fighter shooting at the back end of a bomber or other fighter has two extra hills to overcome.

#1 all of the explosive and flight important components like the engine, are at the front of the aircraft.

#2 Bullets coming out of the front of the fighter have a head wind. Bullets coming out of the back of a bomber have a tailwing and all the good places to shoot are sitting out in front of the aircraft for the gunner to hit.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:42 AM
That's something that always confused me. I figure someone firing backward also has reduced velocity.

Picture this. Guy sits in back of pickup, facing the tail. The truck is parked. He fires at a target. Let's say the bullet has average velocity = 1200 fps. That works out to 800 mph, more or less.

Now say we start up the truck and drives at 100 mph. Shooter still fires toward back of the truck. Wouldn't the bullet's effective velocity be about 700 mph, then?



<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:44 AM
Yeah you're right, Icarus. This means a slower aircraft with rearward facing guns will have more hitting power than a faster one.

Well I never !


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:08 AM
What if the target he is shooting at is flying at say 350 MPH?

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:17 AM
As said above, all the really vulnerable bits of an aircraft are in the front end, engine, pilot, ammunition etc.

That's why deflection shots are that much more effective than shots taken from directly behind. Your rounds have a chance of reaching the soft spots on the target.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:28 AM
A bullet shot backwards (or forwards, or sideways. etc.) from a moving vehicle/plane/whatever leaves the muzzle of the gun at the same velocity of the vehicle PLUS the velocity of the the thing it was shot from (gun - even travelling backwards). So - couple that with a plane travelling at 300+ mph you get a recipe for some real impact.I believe the formula for force is force=mass (of bullet in this case) x accleration (of both aircraft). I think if you do the math a smaller bullet travelling at a higher velocity can do much more damage than a larger bullet travelling a bit slower - it generates more force.

The side gunners have it the hardest - deflection shooting with combined angular ingress speeds of 900 or so mph!

So - maybe the foreward gunners are undermodeled or the reargunners are overmodeled - or both.

Oh yeah - and are the I-16's made of canvas? I think I read once that bullets have little effect on canvas planes. They merely go right thourgh w/o doing any structual damage. Gotta hit hit the pilot or the engine. Maybe that was considered and overmodeled? Heck - they shoud make the next stealth bomber canvas, no one would expect that.

http://www.mdarted.org/SIG2.jpg



Message Edited on 07/27/03 11:29PM by dugong

Message Edited on 07/27/0311:45PM by dugong

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:33 AM
Its an issue of what you're hitting. The back of a plane has nothing but radios (which can't be disabled), cobwebs and dust bunnies. The front has engines, fuel lines, oil lines, radiators, guns, ammo, prop pitch controls and so forth. The cockpit doesn't really count. While most planes have less armour to the front part of the cockpit, that doesn't always apply. The Fw 190's cockpits are pretty much bullet proof in both the front and the rear.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:39 AM
Good point about all the good stuff being at the front -

Someone should model a plane that flies backwards to attack whole flying in reverse! That would also fool the gunners as they would see a plane coming at them backwards!

In all honesty, that is a good point about all the juicy stuff in the front. I wonder if that was ever a design consideration for bomber-killers?

http://www.mdarted.org/SIG2.jpg



Message Edited on 07/27/0311:40PM by dugong

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:47 AM
It was a design consideration for Galland who developed some techniques to attack a Bomber group from the front.

It also led to the development of the forward firing gunner positions in the nose of the B-17G's (????) and up.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:52 AM
There was a Japaneese plane called a Shinden or something like that. It was a high altitude interceptor with its engine in the back (pusher prop) so bomber gunners couldn't kill it as easily. I don't know much about it, just vaguely remember it from way back in Aces of the Pacific from the early 1990's.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.
</center>

Message Edited on 07/27/0310:53PM by Maj_Death

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:10 AM
jeez-uz!
With the possible exception of dugong, this thread sounds like remedial science 001.
You people need to do some thinking on your own. No wonder Oleg wants Beta testers with some brains.

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. J. Ripper

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:14 AM
Force isnt the factor that matters, its Kinetic energy which is 1/2 M V^2. Kinetic energy increases exponentially as muzzle velocity increases, thats why anti-tank rounds are such high velocity rounds. When you are talking about Force = Mass times Acceleration, that acceleration would be the negative acceleration(deceleration) of the bullet once it impacts the target, not the accelerations of the aircraft, that times the mass of the round equals the force exerted on the plane by that round/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:21 AM
dugong wrote:
- A bullet shot backwards (or forwards, or sideways.
- etc.) from a moving vehicle/plane/whatever leaves
- the muzzle of the gun at the same velocity of the
- vehicle PLUS the velocity of the the thing it was
- shot from (gun - even travelling backwards). So -
- couple that with a plane travelling at 300+ mph you
- get a recipe for some real impact.I believe the
- formula for force is force=mass (of bullet in this
- case) x accleration (of both aircraft). I think if
- you do the math a smaller bullet travelling at a
- higher velocity can do much more damage than a
- larger bullet travelling a bit slower - it generates
- more force.

Yes....but if the gun is fired backwards at a trailing fighter it has +300mph in the direction of travel. That means it's real velocity is is MuzzleVelocity - 300 if it's fired directly backwards. ie the gun has to overcome momentum of the projectile.

Of course the target's moving at similar speeds so relatively speaking it;s the same as firing from a dead stop.

On high velocity vs larger bullet. Remember that's it's KE= 1/2xMxVxV so mathematically it's easier to add KE by upping Mv but that doesn't factor in that larger projectiles lose their energy slower than lighter rounds and therefore may hit harder at typical engagement ranges. Not to mention that a larger projectile can have a larger chemical payload.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:29 AM
While many different squadrons were emplyoing head-on tactics against bomber formations on an individual scale, still the "official" situational tactic was devised by Egon Mayer.

..

The JW71 Shinden engine placement, I think, had to do more with the fact that it was a canard-type plane.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

ShadowHawk__
07-28-2003, 05:42 AM
A 30mm cannon round won't have much of a problem with cockpit armor, then again bombers weren't equipped with 30mm cannons.

As for the velocity all that really comes into play (if one plane is flying perfectly behind the other) is the headwind/tailwind. Otherwise the speeds of the aircraft, if they're the same, will cancel eachother out.

-----------------------
http://www.geocities.com/tk_shadow_hawk/Signature.txt
-Death From Above

Message Edited on 07/27/0310:46PM by ShadowHawk__

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:48 AM
Jesus Hashimoto Christ. You guys....

And it's no good pointing out that it's virtually impossible to destroy an I-16 or an I-15 from ANY direction - even head-on - with .303 or 7.92mm.fire, whereas bomber gunners can set you on fire while you're pulling away from them - breaking after an attack run - with 1/8 as much firepower.

Or that a pilot sitting behind a big air-cooled radial engine should have a hell of a lot more protection than he does from astern in a plane without serious cockpit armor, yet a bomber gunner can kill an I-153 pilot from ahead with the greatest of ease but a Hurricane sitting on his six can shred the whole rear of the plane without giving the little bastard so much as a hangnail.

(Leaving aside for the moment the related question of why the Chaika is very nearly The Thing That Wouldn't Die, while the Hurricane, likewise of fabric-covered construction, exhibits all the durability of a used tea bag. At least it does in the Beta 8 version. But that's a different issue.)

Or that the P-39 has its engine in the rear, or -

No. No good pointing out any of that. Because you'd just think of a lot of logical-sounding explanations for that too.

Anything rather than admit that maybe O. Maddox got something (gasp) wrong.

(Sounds of rending fabric, cries of "Sh'ma Yisroel, Adonai, elohaynu, Adonai echad!")

You remind me of the explanations those bogus psychics come up with when somebody catches them in a mistake. The negative vibrations of skepticism were to blame....

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:31 AM
The poor physics knowledge in here is exceeded only by the lack of reading comprehension.

Hint #1: The speed of an object is measured relative to something else. The important measurement of a projectile's velocity is NOT relative to the ground it's passing over, but to the target it is about to impact.

Hint #2: Occam's Razor.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 06:53 AM
Re: Blind_Joe_Death wrote:
-
- Anything rather than admit that maybe O. Maddox got
- something (gasp) wrong.
-

You wish to understand why some of us attempt to defend Oleg? You don't frequent the Ready Room much, do you? Oleg has taken a tremendous amount of very personal abuse for much of the time Il-2 has been on the market. People has accused him of just about everything, and many have made threats. On front page of the RR right now is a thread where the author states if he doesn't get his way, he will spent massive amounts of his time and resources trying to bring this game down. Frankly it's disgusting.

I'm really beginning to understand why this genre is dead; every time someone brings it back to life, we make certain to kill them, just to prove a point.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 08:17 AM
Doesn't anyone in here know Physics? I don't mean to sound rude, but allmost everything related to Physics posted here is grossly incorrect.



http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:11 PM
UR_Spinne wrote:
- Doesn't anyone in here know Physics? I don't mean to
- sound rude, but allmost everything related to
- Physics posted here is grossly incorrect.

Youp I do, at least if you believe my Professors...

For measuring speed of an object you have to do this in a frame of reference.
For the purpose of measuring the speed of the bullet we would do this in the frame of the earth (ground) which we could assume as stationary (in a very good approximation).
We just do Newtonian Physics here, but then almost everybody does (doing it relativistically would complicating things so that nobody would understand anyhow, and it would only change the result in the 10th digit behind the dot).
Okay so what do we got?
1 Bomber flying with v1 in direction x
1 Bullet flying with exiting velocity vb in direction -x
1 fighter flying with v2 in direction x

to make things easier vb in direction -x is the same as
vb`= -vb in direction x (which just means it flies beackwards).
We can do that because we don't have any airfriction and the volume and shape is not in our calculations.

so what is the speed of the bullet IN THE FRAME OF THE EARTH?
v_fly = v1 + vb` = v1 - vb
that is the velocity of the flying bullet...
now with what speed is this bullet hitting the fighter?
(if it hits at all, but thats not our concern, but rather that of the tailgunner)

v2 - v_fly = v2 - v1 + vb
(why a minus? because its a closing speed, what we basically did was to transform the frame of reference)

Considering that both the fighter and the bomber fly the same speed it wouldn't make a difference in our calculation
if they are at rest or not, or if the bullet was fired by a tailgunner from the front or another fighter in the back.

Why did you hear that tailgunners had greater range and more power?
Simply because we neglected an very important factor here:
airfriction!

okay how do we bring in airfriction?
first we need something force the airfriction excerts on the bullet:
F = c*v²
where c is just a constant into which flow the shape, volume surface material etc.
v is the relative speed of the bullet compared to the air that surround it.
If you got problems with that, get a good physics book.
(on a small sidenote: this is of course just an approximation, for very small speeds (a few cm per second) the term F=d*v would be more accurate...a complete term for
friction (and therefore airfriction) is very, very complicated and to calculate the equations do need quite specialized computers)

okay so we got the Force on the bullet. By Newtons law is
F = M * a (M = Mass, a = accelaration)
the acceleration is the change of velocity, and infinitesimal written this is:
a = dv/dt (if you don't know what do do with the infinitessimal things, see dv as some v_1 - v_2, same with the dt)

so let's throw things together:
F = M * a = M * dv/dt
but F = c*v²:
c * v² = M * dv/dt
=> v² = (M/c) dv/dt
this is an differential equation which we could solve, but
but doing this analytically can be quite complicated (specially when you include gravitation, and doing it as vectors to get a trajectory), but that maybe aother time...

-Fishion

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:21 PM
Let's assume the velocity of the bullet (relative to the
firing weapon) is V.

Let's assume that the velocity of the bomber firing the
trailing guns is B, and that of the fighter is F, and that
everything is colinear and the fighter is on the tail
of the bomber.

If the gun is firing from the back of the plane, then
the velocity of the bullet relative to the ground is
V-B

Relative to the target is is V-B+F

If you are firing at a bomber, then the velocity of
your forward-firing guns relative to the ground is
V+F, and relative to the bomber it is V+F-B.

So if you are going at 200mph, with bullets that
can go 800mph, and the fighter is catching up on your
your six, going 300mph.

The velocity of your bullets relative to you - 800mph.
Relative to the ground - 600mph. Relative to the
fighter, 900 mph.

The fighters bullets go 800mph relative to it, 1100mph
relative to the ground, or 900mph relative to your
bomber.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:28 PM
Fishion- wrote:

- Youp I do, at least if you believe my Professors...
-
- to make things easier vb in direction -x is the same
- as
- vb`= -vb in direction x (which just means it flies
- beackwards).
-
- ... and tons upon tons of needless equations...
-
-
- We can do that because we don't have any airfriction
- and the volume and shape is not in our calculations.
- so let's throw things together:
- F = M * a = M * dv/dt
- but F = c*v²:
- c * v² = M * dv/dt
- => v² = (M/c) dv/dt
- this is an differential equation which we could
- solve, but
- but doing this analytically can be quite complicated
- (specially when you include gravitation, and doing
- it as vectors to get a trajectory), but that maybe
- aother time...
-
--Fishion

You really should read Deadmanflying's hint #2. It's waaaay simpler than all this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:44 PM
- You really should read Deadmanflying's hint #2. It's
- waaaay simpler than all this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- cheers/slush

Don't need to, I need to know that stuff for exams anyway
:-)

Though that differential equation really got me now...

-Fishion

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 12:58 PM
I must say, I love the snotty statements about physics and what people should know. Especially when those making snotty comments seem to not know as much about physics as other people.

Most amusing.




<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

fluke39
07-28-2003, 02:11 PM
hobnail wrote:
-
- dugong wrote:
-- A bullet shot backwards (or forwards, or sideways.
-- etc.) from a moving vehicle/plane/whatever leaves
-- the muzzle of the gun at the same velocity of the
-- vehicle PLUS the velocity of the the thing it was
-- shot from (gun - even travelling backwards). So -
-- couple that with a plane travelling at 300+ mph you
-- get a recipe for some real impact.I believe the
-- formula for force is force=mass (of bullet in this
-- case) x accleration (of both aircraft). I think if
-- you do the math a smaller bullet travelling at a
-- higher velocity can do much more damage than a
-- larger bullet travelling a bit slower - it generates
-- more force.
-
- Yes....but if the gun is fired backwards at a
- trailing fighter it has +300mph in the direction of
- travel. That means it's real velocity is is
- MuzzleVelocity - 300 if it's fired directly
- backwards. ie the gun has to overcome momentum of
- the projectile.
-
- Of course the target's moving at similar speeds so
- relatively speaking it;s the same as firing from a
- dead stop.

jeez thank god someone put that one straight!!! ( did you mean plane instead of projectile btw?)

a bullet fired backwards from a plane does not ADD the speed of the plane to it !! please, come on people /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 02:26 PM
As Blind_Joe_Death wrote above there is a considerable "inbalance" in the FB game which makes the I-16 invulnerable to ME-109 guns.

If you search the forum you will find dozen of postings on the lethality of the ME109 guns and the imprecision of the ME109 cannon.

I appreciate everybody's effort to explain with logic (and physics) the dynamics of the game but in this particular case you may want to take the "inbalance" as a fact.

Any other discussion is a waste of time (and nerves)...

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:02 PM
In my little example I showed the speed of the bullets
relative to a fighter approaching a bomber at 100mph
would be about 900mph. This represents about 25% greater kinetic energy per round at 900mph than 800mph.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:07 PM
So what ?
Try to destroy an I-16 with ME109 guns on a frontal pass. 900mph+700mph (both planes) !
And good luck with the result...

As I said, technical discussions are worthless with this particular combination (ME109 + I-16)

AaronGT wrote:
- In my little example I showed the speed of the
- bullets
- relative to a fighter approaching a bomber at 100mph
- would be about 900mph. This represents about 25%
- greater kinetic energy per round at 900mph than
- 800mph.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 03:33 PM
dugong wrote:

- Oh yeah - and are the I-16's made of canvas? I think
- I read once that bullets have little effect on
- canvas planes. They merely go right thourgh w/o
- doing any structual damage.

Certainly it could and did happen but not as often as people like to think. Keep in mind that underneath the canvas was usually a wood frame or thin aluminum frame and bullets are being sprayed all over it.

On the Eastern front 109s routinely shredded and flamed I-16s and I-153 in large numbers. The issue here is not physics (at least not real world physics) but the damage modeling of these aircraft which, as I understand it, will be changed to more accurately reflect reality in the patch.

As far as the .303 cal ammo damage effectiveness is concerned I would imagine that all the above mentioned physical effects would be negligible under most combat circumstances. If a rear gunner can kill you with 30cal from his position then I imagine if you pour a good amount of 30cal into his turret you can kill him too. If it isn't this way in FB then it should be.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:12 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- In my little example I showed the speed of the
- bullets
- relative to a fighter approaching a bomber at 100mph
- would be about 900mph. This represents about 25%
- greater kinetic energy per round at 900mph than
- 800mph.



Your little example was one of the more nonsensical efforts in a discussion that spectacularly misses the point. You have no idea how fast a machine gun bullet is, do you? Hint: Between 2500 and 3000 fps is typical. A 100mph closing speed would add about 3-5% to the relative velocity of a .50 caliber machine gun round.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:13 PM
You are making things way too difficult guys !

Blind_Joe said everything (even with eyes closed, respect!).

Nothing to do with Physics !
But as I see we host many physisians in the community I will help you: It has something to do with material characterisation !

As a rule of the thumb:
If YOU fly ME109 then the enemy I-16 has a titanium shell.
If YOU fly I-16 it has a cardboard shell!
If YOU fly I-16 and the others fly ME109 it has a titanium shell again!

4th year university, solid state physics or, X-men (in a cinema near you)... or a patch (oh no! the p... word! now we're gonna have this thread locked!)

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:18 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- You wish to understand why some of us attempt to
- defend Oleg? You don't frequent the Ready Room
- much, do you? Oleg has taken a tremendous amount of
- very personal abuse for much of the time Il-2 has
- been on the market. People has accused him of just
- about everything, and many have made threats. On
- front page of the RR right now is a thread where the
- author states if he doesn't get his way, he will
- spent massive amounts of his time and resources
- trying to bring this game down. Frankly it's
- disgusting.

So you are saying that since some people make personal attacks on Oleg, we can not and are not allowed to point out flaws in the simulator he made?

Man, you're a bright one! I would never have made that connection.

I hope.

/Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 04:46 PM
LilHorse wrote:
-
- dugong wrote:
-
-- Oh yeah - and are the I-16's made of canvas? I think
-- I read once that bullets have little effect on
-- canvas planes. They merely go right thourgh w/o
-- doing any structual damage.
-
- Certainly it could and did happen but not as often
- as people like to think. Keep in mind that
- underneath the canvas was usually a wood frame or
- thin aluminum frame and bullets are being sprayed
- all over it.

IIRC, the I-16s had a stressed skin made out of laminated wood.

One .303 hole punched through a sheet of plywood will not have much effect on it. Even if the bullet hits at an angle and rips through the plywood.

FB as it is seems to add up these hits. One hit with no effect plus one hit with no effect plus one hit with no effect ... plus one hit with no effect equals 57 hits with no effect overall.

That's not quite the way it works in the real world though. Punch twenty .303 holes in a 50x50 cm sheet of plywood and I doubt it will be much use as construction material...

Cheers,
Fred

No sig as of now, as people apparently can't handle reality without creating too much trouble for the poor mods.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 05:41 PM
Even aiming at the wing roots wont help much - all those bullet hits actually makes the wings stronger! If you want to see what I mean, try getting a piece of toilet paper to *tear across the perforations*!

&lt;embed src="http://www.redhalibut.co.uk/webs/RedHalibut/images/flyboysig240603.swf" loop=true menu=false quality=high wmode=transparent bgcolor=#030303 WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=32 TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash"></EMBED>

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 09:04 PM
-The issue
- here is not physics (at least not real world
- physics) but the damage modeling of these aircraft
- which, as I understand it, will be changed to more
- accurately reflect reality in the patch.
-

It may be changed by the final patch, Lilhorse, but it sure as hell isn't in Beta 8. If there's any change at all in the damage modeling for any of Polikarpov's fine products, I can't tell it. And I both fly them and fly against them; I even fly Chaikas against Chaikas. (Finnish outfit, captured I-153s. Historic fact.)

Curiously, one Chaika can shoot down another fairly well. Because of course VVS machine guns are far more effective than British or German or American ones. But that was true pre-beta too. As I say, I can't tell that there's been any change. The bomber gunners do just as much damage, too, though they don't hit you quite as often.

No, wait, there's one big difference: the Chaika's upper wing no longer turns blue when hit. They did fix that. Credit where due.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 09:26 PM
- You wish to understand why some of us attempt to defend
- Oleg? You don't frequent the Ready Room much, do you?

I wouldn't say I frequent it, no. (I don't even "frequent" this zoo in here.) But I've visited it a good many times. And Maddox's behavior in there, especially lately, is one of the main reasons I've taken such a hearty dislike to him.

But so what? Your point is entirely irrelevant. To defend Maddox as a human being, because you feel he's being unjustly criticized or abused, is one thing. Commendable in fact, if you feel that way.

To defend everything in the sim as right and perfect, with no errors or need for correction, because you feel people are being mean to the designer, is simply asinine. One has not to do with the other.

There is a common fallacy, especially popular among political people on both right and left:

(1) A says that 2+2=4.
(2) A is obviously a jerk.
(3) Therefore 2+2=5.

And you also see the same doofus syllogism in its mirror image:

(1) A says that 2+2=5.
(2) A has been the victim of great injustice.
(3) Therefore 2+2=5.

The latter is particularly beloved of advocates for various minority causes (or, in the case of feminism, a majority that acts like a minority) but I'm not really surprised to see it turning up in here too. No matter where it appears, though, it's equally bogus.

The victim, as Merle Miller pointed out, is always entitled to our sympathy, but he is not always right.

Harry old shoe, Oleg Maddox is a grown man. While I don't know him personally, I have never seen any evidence that he's a super-sensitive, jelly-skinned soul who bursts into tears and hides in his room whenever anyone says anything negative about him or his work. My impression indeed is that he's a pretty tough-minded character with a case-hardened ego. I doubt if he pays any attention at all to the howling and shrieking of the fanboys; he probably just chortles all the way to the bank: "Screw them! I got their money!" Why not? I would, in his shoes.

But even if I'm wrong, even if his feelings are terribly traumatized when anyone finds fault with his creation, that doesn't make him right on technological points. That would just make him a big crybaby. Which I don't think he is, and if you admire him so much then you shouldn't portray him as such a weenie.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 09:59 PM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote:

- It may be changed by the final patch, Lilhorse, but
- it sure as hell isn't in Beta 8. If there's any
- change at all in the damage modeling for any of
- Polikarpov's fine products, I can't tell it.

Well, I don't know which build they were flying but the translations that Crazyivan posted from the Russian forums seemed to indicate that the Polykarpovs were "tired old Ronson lighters" or some such colorful description. I hope something of these characteristics makes it into the final.

Not that I have anything against the Polykarpov fighters per se (I think they're pretty cool actually). But history shows us that 109s were flaming these birds pretty easily. We're talkin' F2s and F4s firing 30cal and 15 and 20mm. No 50cal and 30mm MK-108s here. Let's hope.

XyZspineZyX
07-28-2003, 10:18 PM
Howdy

Perhaps it has nothing to do with physics?

Maybe with the current version of FB the AI Gunners
are more accurate on the intitial burst?

When you fly as a gunner do you drop, I-153's, Hurricanes,
109's or whatever like flies?

S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 12:30 AM
All Physic's a side. Shouldn't the rear gunner die. When all those 303's are hitting the rear of the plane where he is sitting.

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:30 AM
hobnail -

I did not mean the velocity of the plane would be added to the muzzle velocity of the bullte - I simply meant that it is already traveling that fast before it is fired.



http://www.mdarted.org/SIG2.jpg



http://www.mdarted.org/SIG2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-29-2003, 01:45 AM
dugong wrote:
- hobnail -
-
- I did not mean the velocity of the plane would be
- added to the muzzle velocity of the bullte - I
- simply meant that it is already traveling that fast
- before it is fired.

Point taken, as you were.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>