PDA

View Full Version : .50 cals are a SERIOUS weapon in PF - still with porked incendiary effect



tigertalon
01-22-2007, 11:55 PM
Ok, this is not fishing (although it may look like one). I did some testing and found out an astounding fact: .50cals in PF have virtually no incendiary power. Light machineguns are far FAR better at setting planes on fire.

I will report it to Oleg for a possible fix, but would be glad to hear your opinion first. Before posting one, PLEASE take a look at the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">tracks</span> (http://s29.quicksharing.com/v/9975519/50cal_testing.zip.html). Compare the .50cal track with one of the light MGs included: .30cals, Mg17 and ShKAS.

(Recomendation: review tracks with manual time compression ON, as I fiddled with slowing down quite a lot to get accurate hits)

FritzGryphon
01-22-2007, 11:59 PM
Have you come the the conclusion that the M2 requires greater number of hits per kill than 30cal guns?

xTHRUDx
01-23-2007, 12:22 AM
in my view, ALL the weapons in this game need to be doing about 2x thier current damage.

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 12:25 AM
n my view, ALL the weapons in this game need to be doing about 2x thier current damage.


Thats an intersting suggestion. You think then, that the P-51 requires an average 3 cannons shells to kill?

xTHRUDx
01-23-2007, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">n my view, ALL the weapons in this game need to be doing about 2x thier current damage.


Thats an intersting suggestion. You think then, that the P-51 requires an average 3 cannons shells to kill? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well the p-51, since you singled out that plane, may take 3 cannon shells or less to kill. whats the ammo type? and where are they striking the p-51?

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 12:48 AM
Average under normal conditions.

What I am meaning is, the number of hits for kill already loosely agrees with historical data. 5-6 for Bf-109F, 6 for P-51, 8 for P-47 (compiled from averages of 20 shots down planes).

The average hits per kill for M2 also loosely matches historical data, particularly the US analyzing of gun camera films. For example, 7 hits for Zero (again, from average of 20 shot down planes).

There are anomolies in certain aircraft that are remarkably durable to some weapons. These have been explored in other more in-depth tests by Jg54_Arnie and others. But that doesn't change that the overall weapon effectives is agreeable to history, more so than previous sims.

I am confused as to the rationalle for a reduction of these by half.

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 12:53 AM
Its an on-going topic. Not only .50 M2's, but most all HMG's dont light up things they should.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
01-23-2007, 12:54 AM
PLEASE EVERYONE JUST WATCH THE TRACKS...


-----


Nice work...

I have watched the tracks and find them compelling.

I WANT your tests to be believed, and I WANT your tests to be influential and to have the desired effect, that the disparity gets fixed.

But I have a question. Please bear in mind that this is a quesiton, and I am not accusing you of tampering with your tests. But I have a question that must be addressed.

How can you assure us that you did not use the realistic gunnery option to skew the results of the tests?

From the Manual...

Realistic Gunnery: Deselecting this option produces two effects.First,gun and machine-gun bullets travel in a straight line.Second,the explosive effect of bullets and shells triples.

It would seem to me that your results could be the result of this setting. So again, how can you assure us of the veracity of the tracks re the Realistic Gunnery setting?

Sceptics will never be satisfied and sooner (sooner it would appear) or later you would have had to answer this.

Like I already said. I found the tracks compelling - and shall try to replicate them tomorrow.

P.S. I have just had another question. Was the convergence the same for all firing planes? (and if so what was it)?

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 01:02 AM
On the some topic, an old test. Not only hits to kill, but way that target is destroyed (PK, fire, etc)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5011059923/p/1

JG53Frankyboy
01-23-2007, 01:05 AM
well, if these info are still in use in the gameengine

Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0



Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


you can imagine why it is easier to flame a plane with .303cal than with .50cal ..........

xTHRUDx
01-23-2007, 01:09 AM
FritzGryphon,
i can't respond to your post because i don't know the definitions of some of the terms you used.

examples:
"Average under normal conditions."

what is average and normal?

"hits per kill"

what was the ammo used to make these hits?

sorry to ask you this, i just want to be clear as to what you are saying so a lot of confusion can be avoided comparing apples to oranges.

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 01:26 AM
By average and normal I mean, as if fighting normally, while making the logical selection of firing range and target locations that we all do while playing (ie, no favored part of target or range, as in this fuel tank test). The numbers I give are generic and describe Shvak, MG151 and Hispano similarly (though we know in shvak, slightly more, and in MG151, slightly less).

----------------------------

I watched tracks, and say that I 100% agree that the light machine guns were more flammable than the P-39's M2. I don't see any evidence of 'easy gunnery'.

Disagree 100% that this has anything to do to prove M2 is 'porked', though.

The M2 belt loading is mostly AP and tracer, with only 1 round in the belt being incendiary (called 'HE' by the game).

The test also doesn't account for the fact that far more LMG rounds are hitting due to higher ROF. Especially the Shkas, which is 30RPS unsynced, compared to 13RPS for the M2! Not sure what that amounts to sychronized, but a big difference for sure.

I think if you repeated this test with IL-2s as the target, you would see that the LMGs had no effect at all, while the 50 cals destroyed with ease.

If in-game had the all-incendiary loadout of late war USA planes, there would be 3x more chance to start a fire. As it is, the M2 is mostly an AP weapon in the game, and LMGs will naturally start fires better. It's not to say LMGs are better, because in practical use, you have more variety in target types, and the M2 is overall the more destructive gun.

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
PLEASE EVERYONE JUST WATCH THE TRACKS...


Ty very much for support!


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
How can you assure us that you did not use the realistic gunnery option to skew the results of the tests?

Easy. If desired, I can repeat the test with a short burst at the beginning (or end) of each test, firing along water, and bullets will actually arc down and hit the water (which shouldn't happen on non-realistic gunnery).

Anyway, I'm encouraging any possible sceptic to recreate the test himself.


Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you can imagine why it is easier to flame a plane with .303cal than with .50cal ..........


FrankyBoy, please review the tracks. Pay a special attention to the part where H8K is involved. It's not like 2 times more .50 cals are needed compared to .30 cals (which can be assumed from your post even assuming .50apit and .30 apit have same incendiary power), it's like 20 or even 50 times more.

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 01:51 AM
Tracks for test against IL-2M. Hurricane with 8 LMG, and P-47 with 8 HMG.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/m2vs30cal.zip

Again, no disagreement with lack of fire-starting on 50cal. But disappointing you come to conclusion of "porked" on this alone (and hyperbolic). It's clearly better than 30cal by leaps and bounds.

Instead of assuming 20-50 times, why not use gunstat? Better to have real numbers.

In fact, even better, don't do the test in the air at all. Use tailguns on planes on the ground. Then variables can be controlled more easily, and shots are more precise. I think I'll go try that now.

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 02:16 AM
I just did a few test's and found something VERY interesting. I would like to have some people try and duplicate this.

I used a hurricane Ia with 8 .303's and a P-47 with 8 .50 cals and went up against a bunch of H8K's. Had a hard time with both aircraft. They kept shooting down my P-47 and hurricane, so I switched them to friendly. I pulled up behind them at 200M and let them have it. Both guns took hundreds of rounds to kill them. My convergance was at 200M. On the last one, my P-47 got in 100M and the darn thing lit up like a firework! Im thinkin "Naaa, cant be! I was out of convergance!" and set my convergance too 100M and re-did the test. NIGHT AND DAY!!!! Things were dropping like crazy with very little hits. Im talking about G4M Betty's with 4-5 wing fires when I could not get a SINGLE wing fire at 200M+!!! The screenshot you see above proves that I had a VERY hard time trying to light these things.

I took up friendly Zero's. At ranges above 200M, it took an average of 25 hits to down a Zero. No fires. At 200M and below, it took an average of 7 hits with multiple fires!

Do a quick test. Same aircraft, same guns, differant distances. It seems that our incendary's burn out at just over 200M or something. I can only get things to light up well at 150M or LESS!!! Now, with the way bomber turrets are snipers, 150M is just insane.

Lets see some reports. I may have found the problem. The question is weather this is historic. I know M2's had a small ammount of incendary content, but the UB's had a lot, and they seem to have the same problem. They could not light anything up at distance.

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 02:24 AM
I tested the B-25, G4M and TB-3 tailguns against the B-17D's fuel tanks (4 each).

Overwhelmingly, the B-25's M2s flamed the fuel tanks in less time than the G4M and TB-3 light machine guns. The G4M's tailguns are single mounts, but the difference is still significant.

In this case, M2 is clearly more incendiary of the bunch. Too bad there aren't more guns that can be tried this way.

Tracks:

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tailguncompare.zip

DKoor
01-23-2007, 02:25 AM
And where's the news in all this?

First off, TigerTalon thanks for your work. You are a good member of our community and I appreciate your work.

Second your conclusion is right... I've finished whole Burma campaign with Ki-43-II (2x12,7) (some 80 missions in total) and other than direct engine hits I cannot say that I've EVER flamed any aircraft by hitting it's fuel tank. Certainly not Beaufighter.

Something is seriously wrong with this game when it is easier to inflict structure damage than setting aircraft on fire with 12,7.
That conclusion works vs. Japanese aircraft too.

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Instead of assuming 20-50 times, why not use gunstat? Better to have real numbers.

Why need real numbers? If it should be, say, 4:1, then I don't care if it is 1:20 or 1:50, both are WAAAAY wrong. Plus gunstat gives you overal hits at the plane - here many hits ended up in a tail/fuselage/engines and should not be counted. Look at this and compare with what Gibbage posted above:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Betty.jpg


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
It's clearly better than 30cal by leaps and bounds.

Did you even review tracks I posted? Did you read the second sentence I posted in this thread?

Yes, .50cals do pierce armour. Yes they do structural damage. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But they don't set things on fire as they should. For me this is enough to call them porked, especially because most of kills in WW2 that were done with .50 cals went down because of fire, not because of structural damage.

FritzGryphon
01-23-2007, 02:54 AM
Tigertalon, I did. Now please watch the tracks I made with the bomber tailguns.

The M2 was significantly -more- flammable than the two LMGs tested. By a large amount.

I see your results just fine, but do not jump to a conclusion when there are contradictions.

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 03:03 AM
Just reviewed them, struggling to recreate.

msalama
01-23-2007, 03:08 AM
My findings so far:

P-39D-2 vs. Bf-109G-2 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/P-39D-2_vs_Bf-109G-2.ntrk)
P-39D-2 vs. Bf-110G-2 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/P-39D-2_vs_Bf-110G-2.ntrk)
P-39N-1 vs. Ki-21-II (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/P-39N-1_vs_Ki-21-II.ntrk)
P-40B vs. Ki-21-I 1 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/P-40B_vs_Ki-21-I_1.ntrk)
P-40B vs. Ki-21-I 2 (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/P-40B_vs_Ki-21-I_2.ntrk)

Use time compression as you see fit. And please observe that I _don't_ have an opinion about the matter one way or another myself, so I'm not CLAIMING anything here, pro or con! I'm just supplying these tracks for reference, that's all...

S!

ytareh
01-23-2007, 03:17 AM
Going from 200 to 100m convergence is astonishingly good once you observe some common sense precautions like not shooting out much further than 200m.Bombers must be attacked from hidden angles but require really short bursts to seriously damage.
50 cals (in fact all guns) seem a lot more potent post '46.....(maybe Im just getting better after 3 or 4 years but I dont think thats it!)

PFflyer
01-23-2007, 05:23 AM
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......

SeaFireLIV
01-23-2007, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Tigertalon, I did. Now please watch the tracks I made with the bomber tailguns.

The M2 was significantly -more- flammable than the two LMGs tested. By a large amount.

I see your results just fine, but do not jump to a conclusion when there are contradictions.

I agree with FritzGryphon. In stuff like this you REALLY need to have the figures and be factually correct. Such `errors` need to be without doubt or a greater error will be made that will benefit no one. I`m not saying Tigertalon`s wrong, just that you need more than this. You musn`t jump to conclusions without real fact to back you up. The tracks aren`t enough to prove what you`re trying to prove.

Diablo310th
01-23-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, if these info are still in use in the gameengine

Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0



Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


you can imagine why it is easier to flame a plane with .303cal than with .50cal ..........

Another reason why the argument for a different loadout on US 50 cals. A long time ago there was an argument for US 50 cal loadouts to be APIT-APIT-APIT-APIT-APT. If there is a problem with the incindeary ammo imagine how effective this loadout would be. Alot of people have been argueing for this loadout for a very long time now. Look at the power ratings too...that would make 50's even better.

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I tested the B-25, G4M and TB-3 tailguns against the B-17D's fuel tanks (4 each).

Overwhelmingly, the B-25's M2s flamed the fuel tanks in less time than the G4M and TB-3 light machine guns. The G4M's tailguns are single mounts, but the difference is still significant.

In this case, M2 is clearly more incendiary of the bunch. Too bad there aren't more guns that can be tried this way.

Tracks:

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tailguncompare.zip

Hey fritz, I'm trying to recreate your test, however I need your help (or anyone elses). I can set the B-17s on the ground and turn them into the desired direction, but when I set my B-25, it starts in the air (athough of course I set first waypoint to takeoff and move it away from the airfield). It starts on the ground only when AI. What should I do? thnx


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The tracks aren`t enough to prove what you`re trying to prove.

Did you review the tracks? Well, like I wrote in the first post, unless this is one incredible coincidence getting this (with 7.62 mg):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Light.jpg

12 times in a row in a single mission without interrupting, and then getting this (with .50 cal = 12.7mm):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Heavy.jpg

again 12 times in a row without interupting on the same track, I take the liberty to call it a hairsplitting if someone asks for accurate number of hits in both (or all 24 if you want) cases.

It is like the Gladiator would outpace Me262 some 2 or 3 times, and ppl would want accurate speed of both planes.

(edit: added calibres of weapons)

JG53Frankyboy
01-23-2007, 08:50 AM
-make it a dogfight map
-check your difficultie settings

DKoor
01-23-2007, 09:35 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Light.jpg

tiger, correct me if I'm wrong but on this picture you are actually using Yak fighter aren't you?
UB150RPG?

People do not read carefully what are you considering here, so some tests are done with 7,62 and perhaps other weapons.

What we want to check (I assume) is the .50cal. That model is mounted on Ki-43-II, B-239, P-40E/M, F2A, P-51, P-47... those all are aircraft with .50cal as their only weapon.
Perhaps best results (best accuracy) can be achieved if we use only nose mounted .50cals (like on Ki-43-II, P-39Q10 or F2A etc.).

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
tiger, correct me if I'm wrong but on this picture you are actually using Yak fighter aren't you?

Yes, Yak-1 and use only two ShKAS 7.62 mgs.


Originally posted by DKoor:
What we want to check (I assume) is the .50cal. That model is mounted on Ki-43-II, B-239, P-40E/M, F2A, P-51, P-47... those all are aircraft with .50cal as their only weapon.
Perhaps best results (best accuracy) can be achieved if we use only nose mounted .50cals (like on Ki-43-II, P-39Q10 or F2A etc.).

On all tests I am using P-39Q-10 for .50 cal testing. I use various light MGs (on planes like Yak-1, Ki43-Ia or Bf109F) simply to compare.

Edit: A question though, is it possible to check gunstatin coop multiplayer and how do I do it?

DKoor
01-23-2007, 10:01 AM
Thanks for your reply.
I've conducted few tests myself and like I suspected some aircraft didn't burn at all (that means that you have like 10:1 probability <sub>at least!</sub> to destroy a fighter by structural damage:fire damage.
Yak-1B and Beaufighter. Fuel leaks all over the place... fire? No. You can flame Yak eventually by hitting the engine but for me, no hope about Beaufighter - that plane simply refuse to burn.

edit**

Originally posted by tigertalon:
(ps: is forum eating posts up again?)
ubi hamster ate about 10-15 of my newest posts, I guess it's winter so his demands are higher now

tigertalon
01-23-2007, 10:11 AM
Yaks are very VERY hard to set on fire, but it's doable. Take a light mg plane and pump literally hundreds of bullets into the wingroot. (if you use heavier weapon, wingloss is much more likely). Story is the same with mustang.

From what I found out during testing, it seems beaufighter doesn't even have fuel tanks modelled anywhere.

This will make a great bug-topic after we finish this .50 cal issue.

(ps: is forum eating posts up again?)

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 10:51 AM
Perhaps 50 cal APIT is as tracer and tracer burns out soon? I only guess.

TT I know you are serious and not screwing around, you already sent tracks to dev team?

Some of those screenies, wing should have been cut right through even without fire.

Rjel
01-23-2007, 11:21 AM
I posted (lost in the great forum crash of '07) this a few days ago. It was done in the QMB, my P-38 vs a Fw-190A6. Like I mentioned in my post, in all the years of flying in this sim, I've never exploded a 190. Made them burn, blew wings off, but never exploded.

https://home.comcast.net/~rjelmiles/1.jpg

My convergence is set to 175, and I think I was closer than that (these screens are closeups to show the Fw-190 better). Granted, I was flying a P-38, but my impression is that the .50s hit very hard now, especially close in. I've watched the ntrk several times and maybe a stray 20mm hit a fuel tank, but considering the firepower of the four .50s, I think they are very destructive when in range.

https://home.comcast.net/~rjelmiles/3.jpg

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......


No offence...but thats very very doubtful..especially if your post count reflects your flying time.

Tigertalon has been testing aspects of IL2 for years.

How long have you been playing this sim?

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-23-2007, 11:49 AM
I know these forums are for discussion and this thread is not hostile in any form or fashion. I'd only like to say a couple things. First, I tend to agree with the screens TT posted. There defintiely seems to be s glitch there somewhere. Second, while we are all flying a newer version (with subsequent changes in DM's etc) I take it all for what it is and simply look forward to each opportunity I get to fly this sim.

I fly red more than half the time and typically don't fly a Spit (thus no cannon-armed birds unless the occassional Cobra is available or EF planeset). I guess I've simply gotten used to the .50's and though I don't have the one shot=one kill hitting power that my typical opponents enjoy, I have accepted it and simply take it as a challenge with the understanding that many of my wounded enemies will end up on the tally sheet of someone else.


TB

StellarRat
01-23-2007, 11:51 AM
I wonder if the tracer burns out in the .50 around 150 m? Maybe Oleg has taken that into account? Another thing, .50s have always been much more deadly under 150 than at 200. It makes sense that your going to get a lot more rounds on target at close range.

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 11:53 AM
I have made planes explode quite a few times with the 50 cals in this patch. It only seems to happen with the MG's.

I can do it to Zeros with the 50 cals quite often. Also FW190's tend to explode if you keep hitting them up close.

Rjel
01-23-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have made planes explode quite a few times with the 50 cals in this patch. It only seems to happen with the MG's.

I can do it to Zeros with the 50 cals quite often. Also FW190's tend to explode if you keep hitting them up close.

In my post, I mentioned it being the first time I'd had it happen on a 190. I've seen it on other planes. The Zero included. No surprise there. It wasn't several bursts that hit it, but a single burst. I have the ntrk if anyone wants it for comparison.

BTW, since when do post counts and time registered an forum matter? PFflyer has an opinion on the issue like anyone else.

crazyivan1970
01-23-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......


No offence...but thats very very doubtful..especially if your post count reflects your flying time.

Tigertalon has been testing aspects of IL2 for years.

How long have you been playing this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Xio, post count doesnt indicate anything. And i can confirm that 50 cal in the current verstion is more powerful then ever. And i can provide you 1000 tracks that will show what 50 cal is capable of now and what it was back in 4.05 etc. Is my post count credible enough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BrewsterPilot
01-23-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......


No offence...but thats very very doubtful..especially if your post count reflects your flying time.

Tigertalon has been testing aspects of IL2 for years.

How long have you been playing this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Xio, post count doesnt indicate anything. And i can confirm that 50 cal in the current verstion is more powerful then ever. And i can provide you 1000 tracks that will show what 50 cal is capable of now and what it was back in 4.05 etc. Is my post count credible enough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://menacingmorons.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/owned.jpg

SlowBurn68
01-23-2007, 01:05 PM
I agree the 50's are weak. I don't think I ever claimed a kill in any P51 version. I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

faustnik
01-23-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Only Tigers, did you test on Tigers?

Friendly_flyer
01-23-2007, 01:28 PM
I did some testing to see if I could find Gibbages magical 200 meter limit. I used various bombers in take-off position and a poor P-47 as target (as they can take a bit of damage and doesn't light up on the first hit). The P-47 where placed at a take-off waypoint, so that bout planes where stationary, and hits could be made with a bit of consistency. The poor Thunderbolt where placed so that I fired at his 7-8 o'clock (a typical angle). Guns tested where:

Twin .50 M2's of the A-20G
Twin .30 Browning of the SBD
Single .50 Berezin UB Pe-3
Single .303 Wickers of the A-20C
Single .30 ShKAS of the P-2

Distances tested where from 215 to 195 meters and around 100 meters.

First of, I could not pin down any definitive limit around 200 meters regarding how close I had to be to put the P-47 on fire. However, like Gibbage, I found that firing from 100 meters (ca 300 ft) produced markedly different results than firing from 200!

Secondly, the absolutely most deadly gun at 200 meters where the single, but fast firing, Russian .50 Berzin UB. It set the poor P-47 ablaze with just a few shots.

Thirdly, while the Russian gun was perhaps a tad more effective at range, at close quarter (100 meter) I found no difference between the Russian gun an the twin M2's of the A-20G.

Lastly, worst off was the single .303 Wickers and .30 ShKAS. I spent all my ammo, but could not get the P-47 to burn or explode, even at 100 meters (though I cut its engine, and made the pilot run for his life!). The twin .30 Brownings where a bit better.

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I agree the 50's are weak. I don't think I ever claimed a kill in any P51 version. I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Yep!

Rather than using Anti Tank guns, the Allies used to have banks of 50 cals rowed up. Any Tiger which arrived where just cut to pieces by the 50's!

It was only years later that the Allies and every other army in the world realised how stupid they had been in producing 120mm guns on their tanks. What they really needed were 2x50 cal MG's to puncture armour.

Godamm stupid armies! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......


No offence...but thats very very doubtful..especially if your post count reflects your flying time.

Tigertalon has been testing aspects of IL2 for years.

How long have you been playing this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Xio, post count doesnt indicate anything. And i can confirm that 50 cal in the current verstion is more powerful then ever. And i can provide you 1000 tracks that will show what 50 cal is capable of now and what it was back in 4.05 etc. Is my post count credible enough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmm, I am not sure if you have enough experience actually! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif I would prefer someone with a few more posts myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


I know it doesnt really mean anything, and its possible that he is an old timer, which is why I wanted to ask how long he had been flying...If he is very new to the game, then I doubt he would be a better shot than TT, but of course he may not be new, and he may be a experienced flyer...

I think the 50's are great too, but I think what TT means is that something is wrong, not that they are weak. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
01-23-2007, 02:40 PM
I am just busting your chaps Xio... but, Gibbage brought up that issue and i did several tests, actually spend 4 hours trying every 50 cal armed plane against betty. The outcome was different:

1) They either go down before i light them up (killed pilot, loss of controls, etc.

2) They light up like a xmas tree if i hit inner area of the wing, engine, etc.

Also, me and Faustnik did some extensive testing of 50 cal vs various bombers... inc Betty, Ju-88, Ju-87 and several fighters. Tests were performed on P-39-q10 firing only nose mounted MG and later P-47. Should have recorded tracks...but it`s never too late. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And i have to tell you, i was suprised. Taking on the plane such as He-111 while in Cobra was a challenge in previous versions...now, 3 high speed passes brought that sucker down (loss alot of parts and both engines) Just with 2x50 cals alone, no NS37. 1 Pass in P-47 from high 6 brings it down almost every time. I intentionally didnt park on opponents 6, i wanted to see how effective they are under normal combat circumstances. That is why i am VERY suprised to see another 50 cals are porked thread.

BSS_CUDA
01-23-2007, 03:14 PM
MAN I've found exactly the opposite, I think the 50's on my 38 hit like a ton of bricks now, I'm sawing Betty's in half easily, folding 109's with ease, sending 190's down in flames. sticking by arse out the window and farting on Zero's and watching them explode http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif if your not hitting hard with the 50's check your convergence I've heard many people say the convergence changed in the new patch, or its your aim, because as far as I can tell they are tearing things up now

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Only Tigers, did you test on Tigers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2007, 03:20 PM
The Brownings are devastating to some planes and not so much towards others. Same can be said for the British .303s, they absolutely tear up 109s and Japanese aircraft but dont fare near as well vs other aircraft. I dont think the M2s are that bad they certainly have been worse in previous patches. So why all the fuss now?

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 03:35 PM
One thing bugs me is how RANDOM the DM seems. Some people light them up easy, some dont. I thought the distance thing solved the reason, but only 1 guy tested it. His conclusions sort of match my own that at 100M, the .50's do a MUCH higher damage then 200M. Honestly, 200M is not much! I have the velocity drop off chart at home and will look it up, but I dont think it has lost much at 200M. Some yes, but not enough to make such a drastic differance as I see. I still think there is something wrong, and we just need to pin-point it. The M2 still had lethal velocity all the way out too 2000M, I dont see how it can loose 50% of its power at 200M!!!!!

VW-IceFire
01-23-2007, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, if these info are still in use in the gameengine

Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0



Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


you can imagine why it is easier to flame a plane with .303cal than with .50cal ..........

Another reason why the argument for a different loadout on US 50 cals. A long time ago there was an argument for US 50 cal loadouts to be APIT-APIT-APIT-APIT-APT. If there is a problem with the incindeary ammo imagine how effective this loadout would be. Alot of people have been argueing for this loadout for a very long time now. Look at the power ratings too...that would make 50's even better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably should be APIT, API, API, API as the 't' stands for tracer and I think that'd be too many tracers for anyones tastes. Otherwise agreed...although it might make the weapon too good in the 1943 or earlier scenarios.

Ahh bring on Storm of War and user configurable ammo belts....

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 04:23 PM
Im still amazed that we DONT have incendary on .50's, and the APIT is only 1 in 4 rounds. On the otherhand, the .30's have 70% incendary or APIT's? I would like at LEAST APIT-AP-API-AP belting on the .50's. That should help start more fires.

DKoor
01-23-2007, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I am just busting your chaps Xio... but, Gibbage brought up that issue and i did several tests, actually spend 4 hours trying every 50 cal armed plane against betty. The outcome was different:

1) They either go down before i light them up (killed pilot, loss of controls, etc.

2) They light up like a xmas tree if i hit inner area of the wing, engine, etc.

Also, me and Faustnik did some extensive testing of 50 cal vs various bombers... inc Betty, Ju-88, Ju-87 and several fighters. Tests were performed on P-39-q10 firing only nose mounted MG and later P-47. Should have recorded tracks...but it`s never too late. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And i have to tell you, i was suprised. Taking on the plane such as He-111 while in Cobra was a challenge in previous versions...now, 3 high speed passes brought that sucker down (loss alot of parts and both engines) Just with 2x50 cals alone, no NS37. 1 Pass in P-47 from high 6 brings it down almost every time. I intentionally didnt park on opponents 6, i wanted to see how effective they are under normal combat circumstances. That is why i am VERY suprised to see another 50 cals are porked thread. It isn't so much about .50cal are porked as much as it is about that many planes just refuse to burn as they should.
I mean if I get 4-5 fuel leaks on a plane, and not a single fire, and that occurs 4-5 times in row... something is fishy.

Planes are supposed to be quite prone to fuel tank fire... but not in this game. Of course this is not a general statement, some actually do catch fire rather quickly when hit, but some are just insane regarding this matter.

Now the logical problem emerges; with LMG and HMG one hopes to inflict most damage by setting E/A on fire.
Since that occurs at an significantly lower rates than in R/L what is the conclusion?

I mean we have mutual agreement that .50cal are not capable to set some of the E/A on fire (fuel tanks) like they were capable IRL, aren't we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Because against some particular aircraft I shoot and shoot and shoot and well, his wing fell off and no fire in spite that I've scored many hits specifically in fuel tank.

You've said that you've conducted the tests with Faustnik. What were your conclusions considering this specific matter?

I think that .50s are inflicting just about fine (my wild guess) structural damage, but that is not what this thread is about.

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I think that .50s are inflicting just about fine (my wild guess) structural damage, but that is not what this thread is about.

BINGO! I agree with this 110%. When I shoot down 8 Betty bombers, with damage all in the wings from .50 cal, and 7 out of 8 go down from wing failure and not a single fire, ya. There is something wrong with how the API or fuel tanks are modeled in the DM.

drizz01
01-23-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Only Tigers, did you test on Tigers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK it was funny the first 500 times. Now the lufties just bring that topic up whenever the weakness of 50 calibers comes up to distract from a serious discussion.

faustnik
01-23-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by drizz01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Only Tigers, did you test on Tigers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK it was funny the first 500 times. Now the lufties just bring that topic up whenever the weakness of 50 calibers comes up to distract from a serious discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lufties???

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

rmorgansmith
01-23-2007, 06:11 PM
Could somebody please answer this question in plain english? What ammo is modelled for the .50 US? It is my understanding that only a solid slug, also known as a ball round is moddeled and it appears some tracer which would have some incendiary qualities would it not. What is this .50 HE nonsense in the charts that get thrown up during these discussions? Isn't that historically inaccurate? I don't ever remember any reference to that in my 35 plus years of reading WWII air warfare literature.

What I do remember reading was a passage in a recent book about the Marianas Turkey Shoot about a PBY crew that traded some booze for several boxes of .50 AP/Incendiary rounds instead of the standard issue ammo. They loaded that stuff up on there various machine gun stations and went hunting, downed several Japanese multi engine patrol planes and remarked how much more effective it was.

drizz01
01-23-2007, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drizz01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
I thought 50 cals used to bust tanks?

Only Tigers, did you test on Tigers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK it was funny the first 500 times. Now the lufties just bring that topic up whenever the weakness of 50 calibers comes up to distract from a serious discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lufties???

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I should have said Luftwhiners. My bad.

crazyivan1970
01-23-2007, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I think that .50s are inflicting just about fine (my wild guess) structural damage, but that is not what this thread is about.

BINGO! I agree with this 110%. When I shoot down 8 Betty bombers, with damage all in the wings from .50 cal, and 7 out of 8 go down from wing failure and not a single fire, ya. There is something wrong with how the API or fuel tanks are modeled in the DM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bingo or not... thread title says that 50s are SERIOUSLY PORKED!!! All in caps. I am i missing something here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 07:54 PM
Some bullets and shells have both explosive and incendiary material and have both as one power.
Perhaps the .50 HE is what .50 API was, to spread the flash?

Gibbage, penetration is done by kinetic energy formula mass x (velocity squared).
So if you lose 10% of velocity, you lose 19% of your kinetic punch (but only 10% of momentum).
That might change things but I have tables for civilian rifles only and they do lose a good
bit for every 100 yards, most in the 1st 100, etc, more loss for higher velocity and tails down.
I will be looking for your .50 ballistic data to add to my notes folder! Hope it is 40's data!

Friendly_flyer
01-23-2007, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I mean we have mutual agreement that .50cal are not capable to set some of the E/A on fire (fuel tanks) like they were capable IRL, aren't we?

Not quite sure I agree with you. Try fiering at planes on the ground from the back tower of a stationary A-20G. You'll see plenty of fires. Having bout planes standing still removes much of the random factors we othervise encounter in these tests.

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 11:13 PM
Starting MV of a .50 cal AP 45" varrel is 2935 f/s.

At 200M, its still traveling at around 2700 f/s.

Thats not much lost of velocity from the berral.

At 100M, its about 2850M. So it only lost about 150M/s from 100M to 200M. That cant explain the huge differance in hitting power from the two distances.

This is a penetration chart, but shows the MV of the gun. Its a 1948 M2 document.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/B-06.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
01-23-2007, 11:31 PM
This debate reminds me of the scientific debate around milk. (Whether it is good for you or bad!)

Something so fundamental, whether the 50 cals are accurate or not, cannot be agreed upon.

I am amazed by this.

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Bingo or not... thread title says that 50s are SERIOUSLY PORKED!!! All in caps. I am i missing something here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Im sure you are. Your missing the fact that we are trying to figure out WHY there are some DM issues here. I think I may have found something. You can help or hinder. So far I have had 1 guy confirm the loss of damage at over 200M. Its easy to see that .50's loose 1/2 its power at 200M, and I have proof in the chart that this should not be that way.

crazyivan1970
01-23-2007, 11:43 PM
i am trying to help Gibb, Faust will post tracks later on. You be the judge.

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
i am trying to help Gibb, Faust will post tracks later on. You be the judge.

I can only guess by your tone that this will be like the wobbles. In the fact that your going with the "If it does not happen to me, it does not happen at all" therie.

There is something happening here. Even if it does not happen too you, there are too many people finding issues to just dismiss it. I even had a track that shows me filling a Betty's wing with hundreds of rounds, and still its dismissed because it does not happen too you?

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 12:40 AM
1st off is THANK YOU GIB! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOOOUUUUUUU!

2nd is okay now consider something that at 100 yards the bullet has the power to penetrate
but at 200 yards it has not.

Yeah that is not the case as we know to all parts of the planes at all. No way.
Besides which, the .50's at well beyond 200 yards are still far more than .30's at 50 yards.
The point of the above statement is that perhaps saying half power is not really the case.

Does the DM model overpenetration? IOW, can a shot make a hole and pass through taking some
or most of its energy along with it? IIRC there was posts long ago about shots that could
damage one part and hit the next and the modelling shortcut did not allow for deflected path
but instead all shots went straight along. The part I am really foggy about is if the 1st
part had to be destroyed and it is remaining energy of the bullet that goes to the next.
That would leave a DM of many parts with each having hit-points and acting as a shield until
the whole part itself is destroyed which does fit how non-updated models get the "concrete"
DM like the old I-16's before they were updated. In such a case you cannot weaken the main
spar for example with holes but have to destroy what is in whole a very strong structure!

OTOH there is fires and many easily destroyed critical parts like control lines, cranks and
mounts, holes in fuel tanks, instruments, engine, pilot, etc. Shell fragments have better
chance of getting to the least of those.

Would you rather have hit bubbles? Then even shots well above the wings make wing damage.

I do say though that some of the screenies take me back to the old 151/20 threads when the
ammo mix was mainly AP.

faustnik
01-24-2007, 01:00 AM
Online DM test ntracks:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/HMG_DM_TEST.zip

Pinker15
01-24-2007, 02:13 AM
Not only 50 cals are undermodelled but all low caliber guns. I have documentary movie where Polish RAF ace Stanisław Skalski (founder of Skalski's circus in africa) state that short burst from Hurricane was enougth to bring an emil. In real 2 7.62 brownings in P11 was enought to bring down He111 in one pass. Here in game P11 has even 4 guns and thats allmost impossible like Hurri nedds all ammo to bring emil often.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2007, 02:27 AM
In real 2 7.62 brownings in P11 was enought to bring down He111 in one pass.

In 1939 the amount of armour on He-111s was low. By 1940 and the Battle of Britain RAF pilots were often frustrated that 15 seconds of 8 .303 guns would sometimes fail to bring down an He-111 with armour. The versions we have in the game have armour, so it would be no surprise if two 7.62 guns have difficulty. This having been said if you aim at the lower wing roots of the He111 with two 12.7mm guns they are very vulnerable, and also to head on attacks with .303s.

Pinker15
01-24-2007, 02:34 AM
But Emil is not that case.

Pinker15
01-24-2007, 02:38 AM
I doubt that here in game P11 with 4 guns can bring unarmored plane in one pass. Something must be wrong.

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I think that .50s are inflicting just about fine (my wild guess) structural damage, but that is not what this thread is about.

BINGO! I agree with this 110%. When I shoot down 8 Betty bombers, with damage all in the wings from .50 cal, and 7 out of 8 go down from wing failure and not a single fire, ya. There is something wrong with how the API or fuel tanks are modeled in the DM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bingo or not... thread title says that 50s are SERIOUSLY PORKED!!! All in caps. I am i missing something here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I agree they are effective. They are "sawing wings off", "killing the crew", "cutting the cables" etc etc etc. But they are not lighting planes up like they should be. Kuna stated it right: if 9 of your 10 victims of .50 cal fire goes down for a reason different than being on fire, then something is very wrong.

Let's not forget guys, this thread is about ability of .50cals we have in PF about setting planes on fire. This is the only thing that's in question, not their armour penetrating power or power to cause structural damage.

Hmm, and only SERIOUSLY is in caps! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
I doubt that here in game P11 with 4 guns can bring unarmored plane in one pass. Something must be wrong.

BTW, I found during my testing He111 damage model is another issue. Nearly impossible to set on fire.

msalama
01-24-2007, 04:08 AM
I doubt that here in game P11 with 4 guns can bring unarmored plane in one pass.

Could be they can, could be they can't. Depends on where you hit them.

But FWIW, I'm starting to believe that this is a plane-specific DM issue, rather than an issue with the .50cals themselves. If you care to watch the tracks I posted above you'll see that the .50s can indeed set stuff on fire pretty easily per se, provided that the receiving DM accepts it - which, OTOH, is NOT saying that all's clear here: we've all seen the tracks where those Ki-21 wing tanks just refuse to burn, for example!

So I'd wager on funny DMs being the problem, not the .50s themselves... just my $000.2, though.

PS. Turns out I grew an opinion about this after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HellToupee
01-24-2007, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
By 1940 and the Battle of Britain RAF pilots were often frustrated that 15 seconds of 8 .303 guns would sometimes fail to bring down an He-111 with armour.

BoB raf pilots where often frustrated in trying to hit anything with 15seconds of 303s, the wide convergance default and no gunnery training at all, but they still shot many down. In game we shoot probly far better and closer than they did.

Theres some guncam posted many times of a emil shooting at a spit while its shooting at a far off he111.

msalama
01-24-2007, 04:12 AM
Nearly impossible to set on fire.

The Heinkel has always been like that IIRC.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I mean we have mutual agreement that .50cal are not capable to set some of the E/A on fire (fuel tanks) like they were capable IRL, aren't we?

Not quite sure I agree with you. Try fiering at planes on the ground from the back tower of a stationary A-20G. You'll see plenty of fires. Having bout planes standing still removes much of the random factors we othervise encounter in these tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But you must... just shoot at Yak-1 and shot it down 10/10 times and let me know the results about setting wing fuel tanks on fire. You may try with Beaufighter as well.
There is nothing to agree or disagree here if we are talking about facts.

I'll check the IL-2's too but I can say, preliminary tho, that it is also incorrect.
Earlier versions (perhaps later ones too) had fuel tank located behind pilot and Luftwaffe guys knew that, so they suggested that it should be aimed at that point.
I have picture of one such occasion (Osprey source)...

You can not rely to shoot down IL-2 by setting it on fire, that simply wont happen.
With so many fuel leaks (of an extremely flammable fluid) one would expect at least just a small local fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif...
Anyway I'll check it out. Again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pinker15
01-24-2007, 05:23 AM
It has being proven before that all problems with low cal guns are because DM of particular plane.

ploughman
01-24-2007, 05:31 AM
I set a 190A on fire with a quick squirt of .303 once. Suprised me too.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 06:09 AM
So, Faustnik posted tracks.... any comments?

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2007, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
But you must... just shoot at Yak-1 and shot it down 10/10 times and let me know the results about setting wing fuel tanks on fire. You may try with Beaufighter as well.
There is nothing to agree or disagree here if we are talking about facts.

When I get home from work, I'll try to set Yaks-1s and Beaufighters at fire using my methode (i.e. not in a random air-to-air combat). So far I can with certainty say that the4 .50'ies are more than capable of lighting up a P-47.

In fact I think I'm going to try it out on various planes, and see what I come up with.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
So, Faustnik posted tracks.... any comments? Comment is hm. Hard to say from very few tracks.
Structural damage is awesome yes.
That is honestly, what I'm counting to inflict online. Setting on fire is nice, but I know that I can't rely on that.
Still I'm under impression that in those cases when bomber is set on fire, he already received heavy punishment that will usually prevent him for making it home. Another words by the time you set him on fire, he's usually already doomed. http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/gm_shrug.gif


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
But you must... just shoot at Yak-1 and shot it down 10/10 times and let me know the results about setting wing fuel tanks on fire. You may try with Beaufighter as well.
There is nothing to agree or disagree here if we are talking about facts.

When I get home from work, I'll try to set Yaks-1s and Beaufighters at fire using my methode (i.e. not in a random air-to-air combat). So far I can with certainty say that the4 .50'ies are more than capable of lighting up a P-47.

In fact I think I'm going to try it out on various planes, and see what I come up with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've saved you from part of your work by making the following 60 tracks:
http://rapidshare.com/files/13166583/50calv4071.zip.html

Realistic setup QMB, me behind E/A at very close range, I've used nose MG solo only vs. Spit on most of the tracks. Vs. other planes tested I've used 4xHMG.
My plane was B-239. I didn't used time acceleration/deceleration.

Tested planes (10 tracks each): LaGG-3, A-20C, Spit V, Yak-1, IL-2_LATE, Beaufighter.

Conclusion.
Reason why they went down in most cases is heavy structural damage/engine/PK/control failure.
Fire as cause for annihilation was observed in at most 10 cases (counting both engine + wing tank fire).

**As I see important to mention here; results weren't artificially tuned, I flew only 10 missions for each plane and recorded one after another, I didn't skipped any.

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 07:32 AM
Ok, I repeated Fritz test. I took a B25 as a target since it has great structural strenght, but is very easy to light up. This time I'm posting clips.

Shooting twin 7.62mm ShKAS from Pe2:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Test_ShKAS1.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Test_ShKAS1.flv)

Shooting twin .303cals from SBD-5:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Test_303cal.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Test_303cal.flv)

Shooting a SINGLE (!!!) light mg from VAL tail:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Test_Type96.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Test_Type96.flv)

Shooting twin .50cals from B25 tail:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Test_M2-50cal.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Test_M2-50cal.flv)

Diablo310th
01-24-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
I cut all kinds of opponents in half with one pass,on hard settings, and not with mk108 or the P-39s 37mm!


My convergence is set to 150m.


I think guns are much stronger in 4.071m than in 4.05. I notice more planes blowing up now, and being taken out in one pass.

This is contrary to what the thread starter is saying, maybe I am just a better shot......


No offence...but thats very very doubtful..especially if your post count reflects your flying time.

Tigertalon has been testing aspects of IL2 for years.

How long have you been playing this sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Xio, post count doesnt indicate anything. And i can confirm that 50 cal in the current verstion is more powerful then ever. And i can provide you 1000 tracks that will show what 50 cal is capable of now and what it was back in 4.05 etc. Is my post count credible enough? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ivan...do we know you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DKoor
01-24-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Tests
Nice tests. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Diablo310th
01-24-2007, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, if these info are still in use in the gameengine

Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0



Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


you can imagine why it is easier to flame a plane with .303cal than with .50cal ..........

Another reason why the argument for a different loadout on US 50 cals. A long time ago there was an argument for US 50 cal loadouts to be APIT-APIT-APIT-APIT-APT. If there is a problem with the incindeary ammo imagine how effective this loadout would be. Alot of people have been argueing for this loadout for a very long time now. Look at the power ratings too...that would make 50's even better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably should be APIT, API, API, API as the 't' stands for tracer and I think that'd be too many tracers for anyones tastes. Otherwise agreed...although it might make the weapon too good in the 1943 or earlier scenarios.

Ahh bring on Storm of War and user configurable ammo belts.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice...your right. I got it backwards. I knew something didn't look right when i typed it. thanks for catching my mistake. If waht Gibbage is saying is right..which honestly to me it looks like from the screen shots then there may be 2 problems with teh 50's. power at a distance over 200m and teh effect of tracer and APIT ammo. I do agree that teh 50's are hitting much harder now but there does appear to be a problem still.

BrewsterPilot
01-24-2007, 08:13 AM
TT, wow, that is a HUGE difference. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Get me on the phone to Oleg... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

drose01
01-24-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
I do agree that teh 50's are hitting much harder now but there does appear to be a problem still.
I can't say I see that they are hitting any harder in the current patch at all. If anything, just less nose wobble improving gunnery, IMO. In online servers, I have two strategies, one for planes with .50s (practically ignore them) and one for the rest.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Online DM test ntracks:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/HMG_DM_TEST.zip

Looks like we wasted our time Faust, 50s are still SERIOUSLY porked. Oh well.

PBNA-Boosher
01-24-2007, 11:03 AM
Oh well. Fly with a wingman, practice until you're gunnery's precise. If it takes two passes it takes two passes. I don't fly allied because it's easy.

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

Looks like we wasted our time Faust, 50s are still SERIOUSLY porked. Oh well.

Or are we waisting our time. Did you at all look at our testing? Just because things seem to be working for you does NOT mean that there is not a problem. This game has had some odd bugs that only effect some computers. The recent wobble bug is the best example. That existed, right?

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 11:37 AM
Here`s my problem Gibbage. Before i report something in question i have to confirm it. Since i cannot confirm it, whether you like it or not... problem doesnt exist for me.
Here`s another problem, you seem to be getting stuck on 50 cals. If you look at the tracks that posted, you`ll see that dual UBS performs very close, if not the same to dual 50 cal. Also, you might see that German heavy MG is teh sorry shadow of 50 cals. Maybe we should raise the bar and talk about ALL heavy MG? Not just 50 cal? Or maybe we should talk about hitting power of all guns in the sim? Maybe planes should go down faster, and fires start quicker then they are for ALL MG? No?

Ugly_Kid
01-24-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Starting MV of a .50 cal AP 45" varrel is 2935 f/s.

At 200M, its still traveling at around 2700 f/s.

Thats not much lost of velocity from the berral.


Yet it's 10% loss of speed and that's 20% loss of kinetic energy as Max wrote.

Beware of the Tiger's vengeance...
"If people are going to abuse animals by putting them in circuses they should expect to be bummed." - so be careful what you ask, you might actually get it...

http://www.scriptdaddy.net/uploads/tiger.jpg

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Oh well. Fly with a wingman, practice until you're gunnery's precise. If it takes two passes it takes two passes. I don't fly allied because it's easy.

Well, Boosher, we talk about a simulator here. Yes, everybody could learn how to fly and shoot down enemies effectively even if P47D had only a single light MG mounted somewhere. However, right now in PF it takes at least 10 times more .50 cal hits than hits from any other light MGs we have in game to set a fuel tank on fire. IMO this is way wrong. It's like saying: "Learn how to fly! Don't dive with it!" in case a zero would have greater terminal velocity than P47.

faustnik
01-24-2007, 11:54 AM
Test results after several days of online and offline testing:

- Kinteic energy for the .50 cal in PF is excellent. Significant damage is inflicted out to .50+ on the icon distance.

- Penetration is excellent out to .60+ on the icons with PKs, control destruction, wing loss and engine destruction occurring with only a few strikes. Firing platforms used were P-47D, P-51D, P-51B, P-39Q-10.

- Fires are started in engines and fuel tanks out to .40 on the icons. Tests online were conducted against G4Ms, JU88s and HE111s. Tests offline were conducted against G4Ms and Fw190A4s. Firing platforms were the P38J and P-39Q-10. Fire effects seem to have some random element??? They started very easily sometimes and are more difficult to start at other times. Rounds passing through the tail section lose their incendiary effect (reason might be rounds stopping in the tail??)

- The .50 tested similar to the UBS and significantly stronger than the MG131.

- Convergence settings had significant effect. Best results were always at convergence. The P-38 was particularly deadly at all ranges due to tight grouping. Proper trimming or rudder use are required to maximize number of hits.

Mysticpuma2003
01-24-2007, 11:58 AM
Okay, my two-pence worth!

If this thread is about the fact that the .50's cannot set planes on fire (I pretty much fly the P-47 exclusively when I can), I have to agree. I cannot remember the last time I saw a plane in flames from my guns.

I would disagree that the .50's are porked though, as I am certainly killing more bandits than I ever did before, including the FW-190's which used to smoke (lightly) and get the odd fuel leak, and then I'd have to wait a couple of minutes for the 'Enemy Aircraft Destroyed' message to appear, after hoping no-one else lower than my 24,000ft had picked off the damaged plane.

I have to be honest and say, I never used to get these results before 4.07, and now have my cannons at 300m and my MG's at 250m (I know they are all .50's!), and the results are startling. Planes Smoke (Black smoke), wings get shot off, PK's...I mean I'm getting everything!

I have also shot down JU-88's and He-111's, but always from a front pass on the cockpit area and then climbing high above before starting again.

I will definitely try the 100m setting and see if this sparks some fires as-well, but I have to say that I am currently enjoying some great kills at 250/300 setting, so .50's (P-47) porked? Yes for fires, no for damage.

BTW I was watching a documentary a couple of days ago called P-51's Target Berlin, in which the P-51 pilots talk about the fact that they loaded an incendiary every 4-8th bullet, because they new they could light the enemy planes up much easier.

However watching guncam footage of P-47's, the damage that the .50's did,was amazing and planes often burst into flame, whether this was the ammo or just the effect of the .50's devastating
gunpower, I have no idea.

Cheers, MP.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 12:01 PM
Quick overview;

- UBS(UB) and .50cal are close thing now. Yes.
- .50cal packs a good punch. Yes.
- .50cal do set on fire aircraft as they are supposed to. No.
- Other HMG's set aircraft on fire as they are supposed to. No.
- .50s and all weapons in general are hitting
harder because aircraft are (for whatever
reason) more stable in 407(1). Yes.*
__________________________
<sub>*we are actually hitting them more</sub>

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 12:14 PM
Faustnik, CrazyIvan, ty for the effort and time for testing.

However, I got a feeling you didn't even review the tracks I posted on the first post. This thread is about ability of M2 weapon to setting fuel tanks of planes on fire. I agree they have the kinetic energy. They do penetrate armour, they do rip wings off, they do cause structural damage, they do all kinds of damage. Still, they don't set fuel tanks on fire like they should. On the tracks you posted you always used only .50cals against a target, so it's hard to judge. You have to compare them with something. Also, you are attacking only one target, so it can be a 'lucky one'. On my initially posted tracks, I flame 12 targets in a row in an uninterrupted track to reduce the chances of lucky hits. Also look at the 3 B25s I posted clips about above. Look at the amazing easiness to set 3 of them aflame with any light MG, and compare wiht it the .50 cals! Hell they even sawed the wing off in two oout of 3 instances!

Now imagine a P47 armed with 8 light instead of heavy MG. Oh, wait, we can do that! We just have to pretend a hurri is a P47! Here:

Hurri (well, I used MkII version with 12 LMgs here, blame it on me):

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Hurri_IIb.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Hurri_IIb.flv)

and a Jug:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_Thunderbolt.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=Thunderbolt.flv)

In case somebody accuses me of missing my target with a jug, the hits looked like this:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/H8K_hits.jpg

As it is in PF now, I'd not be surprised if USN actually kept .30 as their main calibre. Way WAY easier to burn things.

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Maybe we should raise the bar and talk about ALL heavy MG? Not just 50 cal?

You dont read much, do you? I am talking about all HMG's and stated that many times in this thread and in the thread I stated in Olegs Ready Room!!!!!

This sort of BS shows your reading this with a closed mind thinking im just whining about the M2's and trying to get an un-fair edge. What size are the UBS? 12.7MM, and that = .50 cal. I even stated HMG's as to not confuse people. If I am refuring to the M2, I say M2, not .50 cal.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 12:31 PM
Now i am really confused tt. So you are saying 30 cal lights up planes faster then heavy MG (50 cal aside)

I didnt check which tracks Faust posted for download... but one of the recordings was Hurricane struggling with Betty, trying to get it on fire... i think eventually it did. But took quiet some time comparing to 50s and UBS.

Am i understanding you right?

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I didnt check which tracks Faust posted for download... but one of the recordings was Hurricane struggling with Betty, trying to get it on fire... i think eventually it did. But took quiet some time comparing to 50s and UBS.

Am i understanding you right?

I get the same results from the Hurri IIb. hundreds of rounds. If I have arrows on, my computer crawls from the ammount of arrows in the Betty and it still wont burn.

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2007, 12:34 PM
I have performed my little test, here's my results.

.50 calibre MG
One A-20G firing from the back tower at target plane.

Position of planes
Bout planes are in start-position on the ground, 150 meters apart (a typical firing distance), the twin .50 of the tower fire at 7 o'clock position of the target (again, a typical angle).

Length of burst
Using zoom view, I gave each target plane a 4 second squirt to simulate a 1 second burst (that actually hit!) from a P-47. Aim point was wing root, unless otherwise noted.

Targets
Several singe engine and multi engine aircrafts where tested, P-47 D-27, Spitfire IXe, Bf 109 G-6, Yak 1 and 9, Beaufighter, H8K1 Emily flying boat, Ki-21 and He-111. Each plane was given ten tests.

Results

P-47: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in a fire. Mean time to start fire was 3 seconds.

Spitfire Mk. IXe: 4 tests resulted in fire, 3 in outright explosions, 3 in structural failure (wing breaking off). Mean time was less than 2 seconds.

Bf 109 G-6: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in a fire. Mean time to start fire was 3-3,5 seconds.

Yak 1: 1 test resulted in a fire, the remaining 9 in the plane exploding. Mean firing time was in excess of 3 seconds.

Yak 9: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in the plane exploding, mean firing time was in excess of 3 seconds.

Beaufighter: 1 test ended in a fire, the remaining 9 ended in a damaged plane, but the targets where in a condition that could be nursed home, if airborn and distance home is not too great.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/Beaufighter.jpg

H8K1 Emily: Several tests at firing at wing roots produced only leaks. Changing aim to engine produced fire 8 out of 10 times, the remaining 2 got the engine smoking. Aim-point as such:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/H8K1-Emily.jpg

Ki-21: All tests produced ugly damage, but no fire. Fire could be started by 8 second burst.

He-111: By aiming at engine, fire was started on 10 of 10 tests by a 2 second burst.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/He-111.jpg

My impression is that the .50 has ample, if not excessive damage power, but that the damage model in some two-engine planes are lacking. Tigertalons test seems to indicate that this is probably an over-simplistic view, more testing is needed.

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 12:38 PM
Indeed Gibbage, tested a little bit, and found out for myself that all heavy MGs seem to have the problem. Tested them all without exception (for japanese navy HMG a german Mg131 seems to be used: same tracer colour, same bullet sequence, same kind of damage) and none set things on fire (neary) as easily as light MGs do.

Mysticpuma2003
01-24-2007, 12:39 PM
TT, I hope your work pays off and we get the .50's with the hitting power they have now, along with the 'fire' power that they seriously missing.

I have to say, I didn't realise the images you posted further up were video links, until I saw the 'hand' appear to click on them.

Wow! What a difference it would make if the .50's were capable of setting planes on fire like the .303's!

I see why you have raised the issue,and hopefully the video will hit the point home hard for your campaign to improve them.

I think that the thread name is slightly misleading in that it is about the ability to set planes alight rather than the stopping power, so maybe revise the title to .50's incendiary effect porked please view videos here:

or something like that?

Anyway, I'm on your side, keep the hitting power, but at least give us the chance of seeing an incendiary effect please!

BTW, why not post a link to this thread in ORR?

Nice one, MP.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Maybe we should raise the bar and talk about ALL heavy MG? Not just 50 cal?

You dont read much, do you? I am talking about all HMG's and stated that many times in this thread and in the thread I stated in Olegs Ready Room!!!!!

This sort of BS shows your reading this with a closed mind thinking im just whining about the M2's and trying to get an un-fair edge. What size are the UBS? 12.7MM, and that = .50 cal. I even stated HMG's as to not confuse people. If I am refuring to the M2, I say M2, not .50 cal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, cool down your tone. I am talking to you as a normal person, i am trying to get somewhere. My reply was not directed at you, it was for all participants of this thread. This thread is about inability of 50 cals start fires, if you want to start one about HMG not able to start fires, be my guest.

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I have performed my little test, here's my results.

.50 calibre MG
One A-20G firing from the back tower at target plane.

Position of planes
Bout planes are in start-position on the ground, 150 meters apart (a typical firing distance), the twin .50 of the tower fire at 7 o'clock position of the target (again, a typical angle).

Length of burst
Using zoom view, I gave each target plane a 4 second squirt to simulate a 1 second burst (that actually hit!) from a P-47. Aim point was wing root, unless otherwise noted.

Targets
Several singe engine and multi engine aircrafts where tested, P-47 D-27, Spitfire IXe, Bf 109 G-6, Yak 1 and 9, Beaufighter, H8K1 Emily flying boat, Ki-21 and He-111. Each plane was given ten tests.

Results

P-47: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in a fire. Mean time to start fire was 3 seconds.

Spitfire Mk. IXe: 4 tests resulted in fire, 3 in outright explosions, 3 in structural failure (wing breaking off). Mean time was less than 2 seconds.

Bf 109 G-6: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in a fire. Mean time to start fire was 3-3,5 seconds.

Yak 1: 1 test resulted in a fire, the remaining 9 in the plane exploding. Mean firing time was in excess of 3 seconds.

Yak 9: 10 out of 10 tests resulted in the plane exploding, mean firing time was in excess of 3 seconds.

Beaufighter: 1 test ended in a fire, the remaining 9 ended in a damaged plane, but the targets where in a condition that could be nursed home, if airborn and distance home is not too great.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/Beaufighter.jpg

H8K1 Emily: Several tests at firing at wing roots produced only leaks. Changing aim to engine produced fire 8 out of 10 times, the remaining 2 got the engine smoking. Aim-point as such:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/H8K1-Emily.jpg

Ki-21: All tests produced ugly damage, but no fire. Fire could be started by 8 second burst.

He-111: By aiming at engine, fire was started on 10 of 10 tests by a 2 second burst.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/He-111.jpg

My impression is that the .50 has ample, if not excessive damage power, but that the damage model in some two-engine planes are lacking. Tigertalons test seems to indicate that this is probably an over-simplistic view, more testing is needed.

Good test! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'd only suggest aligning target aircraft perfectly so you are on his dead 6. Shoot ONLY where the fuel tanks are, not the engines or fuselage.

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I'd only suggest aligning target aircraft perfectly so you are on his dead 6. Shoot ONLY where the fuel tanks are, not the engines or fuselage.

I made the "deflection angle" to produce results more relevant to air combat. Fiering at dead 6 is known not to work in a number of instances.

I also tried fiering at the wing root. For all the multi engie planes, no fire could be produced. It appears the damage box producing fire for .50 M2s are the engines. This may be a bug or a limitation of the damage model.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2007, 01:01 PM
tigertalon wrote:

BTW, I found during my testing He111 damage model is another issue. Nearly impossible to set on fire.

They are tricky from dead six. It's the underside of the wing roots that seems particularly vulnerable and they can burn (or simply explode) if you hit them there. I don't know how this relates to reality.


UBS(UB) and .50cal are close thing now.

JtD did some testing right at the start of FB, I think, and they came out pretty close even back then round-for-round.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 01:04 PM
I have conducted more tests.

Around 100 test/missions with various planes and targets.
At close range 100-200m both M2 and .303 flame G4M easily, but...

This obviously indicates one problem: DM. Following logic that if it isn't white, then it must be black. .303 are perhaps more incendiary, but .50s rawk too (little less than .303s regarding fuel tank flammability), at close range against G4M.

Is there any chance that DM of some planes gets reviewed?

That is the winning question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DM and weapon strength/characteristics are un separable.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 01:46 PM
http://rapidshare.com/files/13220157/flametest-4071.zip.html

Here it is 50 test missions more.
IAR 80, Hurricane, F2A, F4F, P47 all vs. G4M.
Every aircraft xept IAR had no major problems to down G4M via setting it on fire. Even IAR sets it on fire after prolonged burst.
All results are from (historically) close range.

So if guns are good, DM's are obviously lacking in this regard. Some aircraft are practically unflammable.

Why we don't set E/A on fire has other background too.
Due to pilot non-restrictions and some other factors we are shooting out of range and thus .50s and other MG's are lacking real killing power (that is if we are talking about target planes that are actually normally flammable).

So... it's not really one sided story like it appeared at first sight.

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:

He-111: By aiming at engine, fire was started on 10 of 10 tests by a 2 second burst.



Not engine fires. Those are doable. We are talking fuel tank fires.

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2007, 02:51 PM
Yeah, I tried going for the fuel tanks, no joy.

I did the same test with the double .30 Brownings of the SBD. I used the same missions (150 meters, 4 second burst, 10 tests), just changing the fiering plane. Here's what I found:

P-47D: Some damage and leaks, no fire in 10 of 10 tests. With M2s, all tests produced fires.

Spitfire Mk.IXe: 5 tests produced fires, 2 heavy smoke and 2 produced only leaks, against fire, explosions or structural damage in all M2 tests.

Bf 109 G-6: / tests produced only leaks, 1 heavy smoke and 2 fire, against fire in all 10 tests with M2.

Yak 1 and 9: Leaks, but no fire or smoke in all tests, against exploding planes with M2.

Beaufighter: Only leaks produced, lighter damage than made with the M2 (no fire in M2 tests either).

H8K1 Emily: Only leaks in 4 tests, heavy smoke in 4 and fire in 2, against only leaks with the M2.

Ki-21: Heavy smoke, but no fire in 10 out of 10 tests, against heavy damage but no smoke with M2.

He-111: Only leaks produced, same as with M2s.

Obviously this is not a clear cut situation. It appears that the two engine planes have very diferent damage modells from single engine planes. The difference in damage and ability to set a plane on fire show no clear trends across the planes tested.

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 02:59 PM
It's plane dependant. EVERY twin/multi engine plane in PF (apart from some exceptions like Ki-21, He111, Pe8 or beaufighter) can be set on fire extremely easy with just a few light mg hits. Check tracks I posted in my initial post in this thread. You only have to aim for fueltanks, which are differently located on different planes. Just as an example, B25 has them only inside of the engines:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/4071%20Fire%20Testing/B-25_1.jpg

while G4M has them also outside:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/4071%20Fire%20Testing/PatternG4M.jpg

tigertalon
01-24-2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Now i am really confused tt. So you are saying 30 cal lights up planes faster then heavy MG (50 cal aside)


Exactly. The tracks I posted in the initial post in this thread, more than obviously point out, that it's needed at least 10 times more .50cal hits to burn a fuel tank than .30cal hits.


Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I didnt check which tracks Faust posted for download... but one of the recordings was Hurricane struggling with Betty, trying to get it on fire... i think eventually it did. But took quiet some time comparing to 50s and UBS.

Am i understanding you right?

As I understand it, you didn't review the tracks (http://s29.quicksharing.com/v/9975519/50cal_testing.zip.html) I posted initially. All is answered there I guess, as I used only planes with nose mounted guns and aimed specifically to fuel tanks from closest possible distance. I do not understand how this (reposting) (twin 7,62mm ShKAS only):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Light.jpg

compared to this (twin M2 only):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Heavy.jpg

is not eye opening.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 03:36 PM
Somehow, I don't think that range is an issue here.

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Somehow, I don't think that range is an issue here.

I must agree with that, considering the muzzle flash is leaving scorch marks on the B-25's flaps.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 05:24 PM
Something I am not seeing in this thread that I think would be required before any change is
historic ammo loads and documents on 50 cal incendiary rounds, no matter what we have had in
the series before. If a change was made it could be accident or done with reason, right?

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Something I am not seeing in this thread that I think would be required before any change is
historic ammo loads and documents on 50 cal incendiary rounds, no matter what we have had in
the series before. If a change was made it could be accident or done with reason, right?

The problem is there is no historic .50 cal M2 loadout. It was all up too the CO's and sometimes the pilots. In the PF, a lot of pilots went all API, and in the ETO, some with all AP so the enemy would not see the tracers and be alerted.

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2007, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
So you are saying 30 cal lights up planes faster then heavy MG (50 cal aside)


Exactly. The tracks I posted in the initial post in this thread, more than obviously point out, that it's needed at least 10 times more .50cal hits to burn a fuel tank than .30cal hits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not quite that simple. Multi engine planes (with some exceptions, I'll try to find exactly who) catch fire very easily from light MGs, but only reluctantly burn when hit by heavy MG (.50'ies). In single engine aircrafts the situation is reversed! All fighters I have tested burn readily from .50 hits, but only reluctantly from light MG hits, with the exception of the Yaks, which seem to be very hard to set on fire at all.

This is not a simple question of adding incendiary properties to the .50ies. This is a more complex question of the difference in damage models between single and multi engine aircrafts, and their reaction to light and heavy MGs. Before we make demands to change the .50ies, we need to consider their effect on single engine fighter planes, which most often will be the planes on the receiving end

Gibbage1
01-24-2007, 11:45 PM
There is something VERY wonky with the DM. Its not a simple answer, thats for sure. But there is no way at all that you should be able to get screenshots like this.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Its sort of hard to ignore proof like this, but I guess its possible. I guess we need to wait till BoB to get a good DM system. IL2 has been patched to death, and I think the wonky DM is the result. Maybe with a fresh start we can get some reliable DM systems. Like un-protected fuel tanks that catch on fire like they should (Betty) and protected fuel systems NOT catching on fire easy (B-17 and B-25).

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Something I am not seeing in this thread that I think would be required before any change is
historic ammo loads and documents on 50 cal incendiary rounds, no matter what we have had in
the series before. If a change was made it could be accident or done with reason, right?

The problem is there is no historic .50 cal M2 loadout. It was all up too the CO's and sometimes the pilots. In the PF, a lot of pilots went all API, and in the ETO, some with all AP so the enemy would not see the tracers and be alerted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One reason they don't usually load a lot of tracers in MG's is because they heat the barrel
badly. White phosphorous burns at over 3000F, I dunno the temperature red phosphorous burns
at but it's wicked-hot.

Two is a number.
Too means the same thing as also.
To is for all the other times.

tigertalon
01-25-2007, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
In single engine aircrafts the situation is reversed! All fighters I have tested burn readily from .50 hits, but only reluctantly from light MG hits,

I'm eager to see the tracks. PLEASE post them. Results of my testings are perfectly consistent with what we have learned on multi engine planes - heavy MGs are much more likely to saw off the wing before they set wingtank on fire. Just a couple of clips to back up my claims (note please, I hit 4 fighters in a row on them, again, to eliminate the likelyhood of 'lucky hits'):

Firstly, yak1 using only two cowling ShKAS 7,62mm guns:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_ShKAS_fighters.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=ShKAS_fighters.flv)

and here with P-39Q-10, twin nose mounted .50 cal M2s:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_M2_fighters.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=M2_fighters.flv)


Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:with the exception of the Yaks, which seem to be very hard to set on fire at all.

Yeah, and P51s too. Speaking exclusively about wing fuel tanks, not the engine.

Trigger_88
01-25-2007, 02:15 AM
Ok I have a few questions and comments. Is this situation also a problem with 46' weather it be dm or the hmgs? Can it be fixed? Ok ive seen guncam footage of mustangs shooting down bf 109s in eto, on one of them the .50s hit the 109 and cause a fuel leak you clould see the fuel trail coming out of the wing, when the pilot hit the 109 the second time the fuel iggnited and caused an explosion immeadiatly blowing the wing off, the damage was caused by the explosion of the fuel tank, not structural damage from the .50s sawing the wing off. In the game if you cause a fuel leak and keep shooting it it has touble igniting, and if it does ignite it burns for a while and might explode, shouldnt it explode immediatly after being ignited if it is a major fuel leak? Like gushing fuel and very flammable vapor? Also there are other guncams where this happened. When the fuel explodes it can look as if the .50s did all the work of sawing the wing off while in reallity the fuel ignition blew the wing off. This could lead people to believe the 50s do more structural damage than they really do. Maybe in the game a plane leaking major fuel and vapor should explode almost instantaniously after bing hit while planes with small leaks just catch and bur for a while then explode as it is now. Could the fuel tank explosion have somethng to do with self sealing tanks? IF im wrong dont flame me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Its just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

tigertalon
01-25-2007, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Trigger_88:
Ok I have a few questions and comments. Is this situation also a problem with 46' weather it be dm or the hmgs? Can it be fixed? Ok ive seen guncam footage of mustangs shooting down bf 109s in eto, on one of them the .50s hit the 109 and cause a fuel leak you clould see the fuel trail coming out of the wing, when the pilot hit the 109 the second time the fuel iggnited and caused an explosion immeadiatly blowing the wing off, the damage was caused by the explosion of the fuel tank, not structural damage from the .50s sawing the wing off. In the game if you cause a fuel leak and keep shooting it it has touble igniting, and if it does ignite it burns for a while and might explode, shouldnt it explode immediatly after being ignited if it is a major fuel leak? Like gushing fuel and very flammable vapor? Also there are other guncams where this happened. When the fuel explodes it can look as if the .50s did all the work of sawing the wing off while in reallity the fuel ignition blew the wing off. This could lead people to believe the 50s do more structural damage than they really do. Maybe in the game a plane leaking major fuel and vapor should explode almost instantaniously after bing hit while planes with small leaks just catch and bur for a while then explode as it is now. Could the fuel tank explosion have somethng to do with self sealing tanks? IF im wrong dont flame me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Its just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

My personal opinion about .50 cal is pretty much the same, I'd leave their ability to do structural damage untouched (or maybe decrease it just a little bit), but would greatly increase their power to set things on fire and to cause explosions. Still, that's just IMHO.

DKoor
01-25-2007, 02:29 AM
The real question is/was:
HMG and LMG = same incendiary power IRL or not?
If they had same incendiary power (I think that HMG had even more incendiary power since of the sheer size of it vs. LMG bullet) that what we see in the game is wrong.

Or if you want to look at it this way; it isn't wrong it is just that some MG's have very efficient bullet belt loading in game, while others have less efficient regarding incendiary power.

Historically both were, from what I was able to pick up, random.
So bottom line; it was up to the creator of the game to decide what the belt loading should look like (and of course other characteristics of the MG).

So take your pick.

MrMojok
01-25-2007, 02:57 AM
Nice shooting there, TT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Diablo310th
01-25-2007, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Okay, my two-pence worth!

If this thread is about the fact that the .50's cannot set planes on fire (I pretty much fly the P-47 exclusively when I can), I have to agree. I cannot remember the last time I saw a plane in flames from my guns.

I would disagree that the .50's are porked though, as I am certainly killing more bandits than I ever did before, including the FW-190's which used to smoke (lightly) and get the odd fuel leak, and then I'd have to wait a couple of minutes for the 'Enemy Aircraft Destroyed' message to appear, after hoping no-one else lower than my 24,000ft had picked off the damaged plane.

I have to be honest and say, I never used to get these results before 4.07, and now have my cannons at 300m and my MG's at 250m (I know they are all .50's!), and the results are startling. Planes Smoke (Black smoke), wings get shot off, PK's...I mean I'm getting everything!

I have also shot down JU-88's and He-111's, but always from a front pass on the cockpit area and then climbing high above before starting again.

I will definitely try the 100m setting and see if this sparks some fires as-well, but I have to say that I am currently enjoying some great kills at 250/300 setting, so .50's (P-47) porked? Yes for fires, no for damage.

BTW I was watching a documentary a couple of days ago called P-51's Target Berlin, in which the P-51 pilots talk about the fact that they loaded an incendiary every 4-8th bullet, because they new they could light the enemy planes up much easier.

However watching guncam footage of P-47's, the damage that the .50's did,was amazing and planes often burst into flame, whether this was the ammo or just the effect of the .50's devastating
gunpower, I have no idea.

Cheers, MP.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Mystic....that is exactly my convergence and my findings too. I think the 50's are doing alot more damage or i'm landing more rounds on target. Whichever...i'm getting better results. But like you...I rarely ever see any fires started unless it's an engine hit. Faustnik....thanks for the testing.

Recon_609IAP
01-25-2007, 07:15 AM
I can drill a 190 over and over again, leaving it lightly smoking. Next engagement, I'll get some lucky long range and get it on fire.

Some of it is convergence, some of it is where you are hitting, and then on top of that, certain aircraft's armour differs from ac to ac.

The one thing in this thread that is worth investigating is the incendary effects of the 50 cals at certain distances - which actually is the main point of the original post.

Diablo310th
01-25-2007, 07:26 AM
recon...I thought the same thing too at first. But after watching the videos range doesn't seem to be the overiding factor. It still appears that it's either the amount of incendiary in the 50 cal rounds or the lack of sufficient modeling of it's effect on fuel tanks. Watch the videos and see the difference. I know the small cal MG's have more API rounds than the laodout on the 50's but there are still enough hits from 50 cal rounds to cause fires. After watching these I'm not sure that even changing the belt loadout would fix this problem.

Friendly_flyer
01-25-2007, 10:14 AM
If only I knew how to make these nice little videos Tigertalon makes...

Gibbage1
01-25-2007, 11:10 AM
Thats a very interesting video. 5 of 5 aircraft are lit up with 7.62's, and 1 of 5 lit up with .50 cal. There is a problem.

Matz0r
01-25-2007, 11:25 AM
.50 cals are SERIOUSLY porked in PF

I dunno, im getting mixed results when testing it. Seem like it depends alot where I'm shooting and what type of plane it is - sometimes your target breaks apart before being lit up, sometimes they catch fire instantly. Strange how very few of the planes lit up in the movies above compared to my results:

A20 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/a20.WMV)
B25 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/b25.WMV)
Betty (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/betty.WMV)
Bf110 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/bf110.WMV)
Ju87 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/ju87.WMV)
Ju88 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/ju88.WMV)
Ki27 (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/ki27.WMV)

(I get some strange synchroization problem when playing my tracks, it looks like I'm aiming far to the right where I'm actually amining later in the tracks but you can see where the actual damage is done.)

faustnik
01-25-2007, 11:57 AM
Matz,

Gibbage is talking about something very specific. HMGs (Heavy machine guns 12-13mm) vs. fuel cells. So, engine hits don't count. Some of the hits in your testing look like genuine fuel cell hits, others are engine hits. Our results obtained in testing so far are inconsistant on the subject. Your tests are great though, thank you.

BUT, .50M2 rounds are definately hitting harder than ever in PF 4.071. They kill very efficiently through structural damage, engine fires, PKs, and control loss out to long ranges. Penetration and general kinetic energy damage are much improved. Fw190s, considered the toughest target in previous patches are going down easy now, with .50 rounds penetrating all the way to the engine from dead six. The thread title ".50s are PORKED" is a little confusing. There is very a specific area of question. ".50's are better than ever! But, there is still an area question" would be a better title.

Brain32
01-25-2007, 12:15 PM
Fw190s, considered the toughest target in previous patches are going down easy now, with .50 rounds penetrating all the way to the engine from dead six.
First please note that: I AM NOT TROLLING OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT, BUT:
I personally see no difference between now and v405, if they actually managed a hit I would be screwed now and in v405.
I'm very, no, I'm extremely happy, that people think the way you wrote above as I hope the BS will finally stop now.

DKoor
01-25-2007, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fw190s, considered the toughest target in previous patches are going down easy now, with .50 rounds penetrating all the way to the engine from dead six.
First please note that: I AM NOT TROLLING OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT, BUT:
I personally see no difference between now and v405, if they actually managed a hit I would be screwed now and in v405.
I'm very, no, I'm extremely happy, that people think the way you wrote above as I hope the BS will finally stop now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 this is true.
IMO. Planes are more stable so player can get more hits on E/A. Thus inflict more damage...

To claim that .50s are better now than in 4.05 more testing is needed than just a feeling that they are better than ever or something like that.

Gibbage1
01-25-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
BUT, .50M2 rounds are definately hitting harder than ever in PF 4.071. They kill very efficiently through structural damage, engine fires, PKs, and control loss out to long ranges. Penetration and general kinetic energy damage are much improved. Fw190s, considered the toughest target in previous patches are going down easy now, with .50 rounds penetrating all the way to the engine from dead six. The thread title ".50s are PORKED" is a little confusing. There is very a specific area of question. ".50's are better than ever! But, there is still an area question" would be a better title.

I agree. Im very very happy with the hitting power in general of the .50's. In the ETO, they feel dead-on. Im getting more kills easier with them now then early versions. I never got many fuel tank fires in the ETO anyways so I never noticed anything wrong. Then I started playing Zero vs Wildcat servers. After PUMMELING many many Japanese fighters, I noticed a trend. Nothing seemed to be catching fire! So I went up in a few QMB's vs. Betty and Zero's and 9 times out of 10 the kill was something other then fire!!!! This is just un-acceptable, and makes the Japanese aircraft almost as strong at the ETO birds! Thats my big gripe here. There have been many threads about this and I think its a real issue. Go into QMB and shoot down 14 Betty's or Zero's and you will notice the trend real quick that the fuel tanks dont burn.

Considering the reputation of both of these aircraft, thats a significant bug and historical blimish on a game that try's to be as historical as possible.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Thats a very interesting video. 5 of 5 aircraft are lit up with 7.62's, and 1 of 5 lit up with .50 cal. There is a problem.

Depends on if the 30 cal has incendiaries, explosives and the 50 cals have less or none, not
just by size or balance for players.

If the 50's have 1 in 4 API or APIT that is 3 a second and ought to do the trick.

As for streaming fuel outside the plane, don't forget the wind. Lit fuel being blown back by
200+ mph wind, the flame ain't gonna trace back inside cause even either don't burn that fast.
Consider flamethrowers spit much slower the yes thicker stuff but *much slower* and it don't
trace back. Have any idea how hard it'd be to light off a fuel stream outside a plane IRL?

Flame needs to be inside the plane. What I don't think we have that I've written about is
leaks from shot-up tanks making fuel and fumes inside the wings and fuselage. That is real.
Fire inside the fuselage got quite a many WWII pilots and some still lived. Ever see fire
in your virt cockpit except maybe the second the plane blew up? AVGAS fumes inside the hollow
space of a wing, the next spark should be boom-time. Well, maybe SOW will have that modelled. Did even the self-sealing tanks let some fluid out on hits?

Gibbage1
01-25-2007, 03:17 PM
Even at 1 of 4, the M2 is pumping 14 rounds per second. 3-4 of them being API. Look at my screen shot of the Betty. Out of those 200 hits, at least 50 of them are API. Or do you think I missed every 4th round?

Also, once fuel hits the air at that speed, it turns to vaper almost instantly. Vaper does not burn but explode. That will catch up with an aircraft.

Viper2005_
01-25-2007, 04:18 PM
Fires are rather harder to start than many would like to think. Watch what happens with cannon IRL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x_Oxkqf9Zg

There are a few fires, but given the firepower involved, fewer than you might expect.

Now, let's look at .50s...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=gun+camera+color

I see rather more smoke than fire, unless the aeroplane is parked and there's no airflow to blow the fire out before it can take hold...

IMO people expect too much of their weapons (perhaps as a result of Hollywood B/S?). The game is actually pretty good when stacked up against gun camera footage. It certainly isn't perfect, but in this case I would be more inclined to suggest that the .303 is too good than that the .50 isn't good enough...

For example, I actually consider the frequency of structural failure to be "optimistic", but then again, since the 15 g structural strength assumption is also "optimistic" (in the opposite sense), it probably balances out.

Likewise, on the western front, thanks to self sealing fuel tanks, AFAIK the majority of fires were engine fires rather than fuel tank fires, with drop tanks being the exception that proves the rule.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Even at 1 of 4, the M2 is pumping 14 rounds per second. 3-4 of them being API. Look at my screen shot of the Betty. Out of those 200 hits, at least 50 of them are API. Or do you think I missed every 4th round?

Also, once fuel hits the air at that speed, it turns to vaper almost instantly. Vaper does not burn but explode. That will catch up with an aircraft.

Honest Gib I did state that 1 in 3 should do the trick.

As to the vapor lighting off, you can try it and the flame front will not move as fast as
the plane. The gas atomizes before vaporizing and by then is meters away. I've played
with vapor from pressurized cans and fire back when I was young and the velocity was lower.
Even starting either was not so fast. What it takes is a source of spark or flame and
the trail downstream of that has the fire only, unless you let the can pressure get low
which I was never so dumb as to do. Dumb enough to try it in the first place though!

Viper there are movies where the fires on planes are by reality. 1968 MGM BoB for instance.
Check the list of technical advisors. They also held to historic stats. But ALL the fires
were started internally and many resulted in plane explosion quickly to several seconds.
Yes, 1940, before self-sealing tanks time.

tigertalon
01-25-2007, 05:17 PM
Viper, while I tend to agree with what you posted above, one question remains: does the fire starting power of any HMG compared to any LMG we have in PF seem realistic? IMO, it is way off.

Matz, great test! Using multiple planes, shooting (mostly) fuel tanks. Some of them catch fire pretty nicely and fast.

To avoid confusion: I get my .50cals to start fueltank fire immediately also, but it's rather an exception than a rule, while with LMG it's vice versa.

If you are in a mood, do the same tests again, simply for comparison purposes, this time using twin shkas from Pe2_series1, or twin .30cals brom SBD.

Friendly Flyer, I use FRAPS to take clips, resize them with Virtual Dub, and host them on photobucket.com.

Next logic step would be, I guess, counting an average number of hits from different type of weapons needed to start fire. If I find some more time I might get on it.

DKoor
01-25-2007, 05:38 PM
You can also post the test missions so anyone can duplicate them on their machines and see if they get the same results.
Thank you again for doing this.
It's a lot of work.

Gibbage1
01-25-2007, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Fires are rather harder to start than many would like to think. Watch what happens with cannon IRL:


Its interesting that you picked only gun cam video's from the ETO to demonstrate your point, even though the most flamable aircraft like the Betty is from the Pacific and had unprotected tanks. Most of the stuff in the ETO had protected tanks, so fuel leaks were a lot more rare.

Take a look at this video from the Pacific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE

The shots of all the Betty's in the beginning are the late model Betty's that carried the Oka bomb. I think the later G4M3's had protected fuel tanks. But watch the fighters later on.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-25-2007, 08:37 PM
Oh man I swear if you guys get my fifties screwed up in 4.08 Im paying you all a visit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Gibbage1
01-25-2007, 08:50 PM
Here is another good guncam video. This one shows that the API has some very good range! Well beyond the 200M or so I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kmUwp1TKk

Watch the airfield strafing. The German bombers are being lit up one after another after another. Even one shot has a field of 5-6 bombers on fire, and a 7th gets lit up by the guns! These bombers are being strafed at around 500-700M distance, yet they are still catching on fire. Also, most if not all German bombers had protected fuel tanks.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 01:14 AM
Leaking fuel from parked planes goes exactly where?

Gib, if I can know and think this much then how you get Team Maddox to believe?

Really I think there is overkill on proofs offered. What happens is that the bad ones tend
to make those guys much less receptive to others as I am sure you have seen too. So maybe
best to get the good stuff, wrap it up and present once the way that the 151/20 ammo issue
was, and TY TTalon for the goods on that one! Short, straight and sweet like a 5'2" virgin
is by far preferable to old, loud and nasty like a nagging housewife with 8 kids joining in.

Gibbage1
01-26-2007, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Leaking fuel from parked planes goes exactly where?


Well if you watch the video, the fire originates from the wings. Its still ample proof that API's and such can light up aircraft very well.

Matz0r
01-26-2007, 03:58 AM
You can also post the test missions so anyone can duplicate them on their machines and see if they get the same results.

Here is (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/DE.rar) the mission I used for my test, it's easy to just replace the target plane used in FMB.

tigertalon
01-26-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can also post the test missions so anyone can duplicate them on their machines and see if they get the same results.

Here is (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/m2/DE.rar) the mission I used for my test, it's easy to just replace the target plane used in FMB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I edited only the shooting plane in your mission, and got these results:

1. .50 cals - flamed up all three planes, after substantial pounding:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_50cal.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=50cal.flv)


2. ShKAS flamed fuel tanks rather easily:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_ShKAS.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=ShKAS.flv)


3. As did the .30 cals:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_30cal.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=30cal.flv)

Matz0r
01-26-2007, 07:41 AM
I noticed you aimed halfway between the engines and the fuselage with the .50 cal. The fuel tank seem to be located pretty close to the fuselage in the B-25.

I do however agree that it seems somewhat easier to light up a fuel tank rifle caliber machine guns. If that is right or wrong, I don't know. Could just be the belt order and ROF difference.

Viper2005_
01-26-2007, 10:31 AM
Those .30s are scary!

Tator_Totts
01-26-2007, 10:40 AM
I was laughing from the crew bailing out on second and third plane before you hit them. Like WTF lets get out of here.

Tater-SW-
01-26-2007, 10:49 AM
The 30 cals are far far easier to set planes on fire with than the 50s in my experience as well. That's just wrong.

On the flip side, I'd be fine with the F2A and F4F-3 being loaded with straight ball ammo except for tracers. (big problem for US early war was that they were shooting ball ammo. That alone probably counts for a decent % of the "zero ruled the skies" nonsense.

Blutarski2004
01-26-2007, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its an on-going topic. Not only .50 M2's, but most all HMG's dont light up things they should.



..... Gibbage, how did you get your P38 to fire all those carrots ????

Gibbage1
01-26-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Gibbage, how did you get your P38 to fire all those carrots ????

Edit the config.ini and find arcade=0 and change it to arcade=1

It will track all hits with arrows or dots for ground objects. It will also show you what the AI is thinking like "Im bailing out" or "Im on fire" over the aircraft.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Gib, I am on a 45k (not the best phone lines) dialup here.
I don't tend to click on video links if I don't have a spare hour to days handy.

Gibbage1
01-26-2007, 09:56 PM
Wow. I though dialup only still existed in 3rd world country's.

Tipo_Man
01-27-2007, 03:32 AM
Bump...

It's absolutely obvious it's a bug.
A good one, easy to reproduce and respectively to fix.

HuninMunin
01-27-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. I though dialup only still existed in 3rd world country's.

I once met an American who asked me wether we had cars in Germany or not...

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2007, 04:21 AM
If he was that stupid you could have smiled and said, no we all have personal jetpacks,
don't you?

EDIT: then you ask where his six-shooters are....

HuninMunin
01-27-2007, 08:02 AM
ROFLMAO

I actualy said that we'd use kind of a magnetic guiding system for our plasma-hovercraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tigertalon
01-27-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. I though dialup only still existed in 3rd world country's.

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

DIRTY-MAC
01-27-2007, 09:11 PM
a sealfsealing tank can seal A bullet hole, but not many in the same spot.

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2007, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. I though dialup only still existed in 3rd world country's.

It does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And new world countries too. There's a special on DSL again, I should jump on it.

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2007, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
ROFLMAO

I actualy said that we'd use kind of a magnetic guiding system for our plasma-hovercraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Can't BnZ in a hovercraft. Sure that thing is not made by Supermarine?

HuninMunin
01-28-2007, 06:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif