PDA

View Full Version : 0,50 cal. - something was changed in 4.0?



Kwiatos
06-13-2005, 12:15 PM
HI!

I just wonder if 0,50 cal. effectivity was changed in 4.0? I feel big different between 3.04 and 4.0. In 4.0 0,50 seemed to be much more weaker expecially when shoting to Bfs 109 or Fw190. I use 150m converange and always shoting from close distance. In 4.0 is very hard to shoted down bfs or fw190 if there is no lucky PK there is very hard to shoot them down. Maby something with DM was changed in bfs and fw190 i dont know but im quit sure that 0,50 are wekaer now.
Its good that 20mm mg151 was fixed but i dont know why 0,50 was changed to worse? Other hand yesterday i tried shooting from Fw190A4 to Lagg3 and found that Laggs are very tought again???
Maby there are some changes in DM of planes?

I know that there will be many blueguys posts that there are no differnce but I and many my friends feel it very clear.

new-fherathras
06-13-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
HI!

I just wonder if 0,50 cal. effectivity was changed in 4.0? I feel big different between 3.04 and 4.0. In 4.0 0,50 seemed to be much more weaker expecially when shoting to Bfs 109 or Fw190. I use 150m converange and always shoting from close distance. In 4.0 is very hard to shoted down bfs or fw190 if there is no lucky PK there is very hard to shoot them down. Maby something with DM was changed in bfs and fw190 i dont know but im quit sure that 0,50 are wekaer now.
Its good that 20mm mg151 was fixed but i dont know why 0,50 was changed to worse? Other hand yesterday i tried shooting from Fw190A4 to Lagg3 and found that Laggs are very tought again???
Maby there are some changes in DM of planes?

I know that there will be many bluegays posts that there are no differnce but I and many my friends feel it very clear.



first of all, It is not smart calling someone a "bluegay"

clearly breaking the forum rules.



on the other hand, it does not seem that the 50 caliber guns are weeker,

my opinion on the matter is that the Damage models of the Fw-190 and perhaps the 109`s have been made stronger.



regarding the Lagg-3`s, I agree with you, it seems like they have always had a "├╝ber" DM.



anyways, learn to shoot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
06-13-2005, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
HI!

I just wonder if 0,50 cal. effectivity was changed in 4.0? I feel big different between 3.04 and 4.0. In 4.0 0,50 seemed to be much more weaker expecially when shoting to Bfs 109 or Fw190. I use 150m converange and always shoting from close distance. In 4.0 is very hard to shoted down bfs or fw190 if there is no lucky PK there is very hard to shoot them down. Maby something with DM was changed in bfs and fw190 i dont know but im quit sure that 0,50 are wekaer now.
Its good that 20mm mg151 was fixed but i dont know why 0,50 was changed to worse? Other hand yesterday i tried shooting from Fw190A4 to Lagg3 and found that Laggs are very tought again???
Maby there are some changes in DM of planes?

I know that there will be many bluegays posts that there are no differnce but I and many my friends feel it very clear.

Ay first I thought there had been a change in the .50 ...but after playing awhile with various planes I think it is the damage models which have been changed a bit. The FW-190 certainly seems to be a somewhat different.

Blackdog5555
06-13-2005, 01:20 PM
I,ve notice change too. The Lagg is really tough. Even against 20s. The Mustang still has its one hit engine but the 109s dont flame as easy. I dont see the 50 API flashes like the ole days and zeros rarely flame. maybe its the ammo type..using ap instead of api...i just go for a 10% deflection shot into the cockpit or engine..

LLv34_Stafroty
06-13-2005, 01:26 PM
We been flin at war clouds on both sides extencively, and what we noticed, .50cals bite well. hard is to hit at same spot with .50cals to make some structure failures to planes like dewingin em, its possible but u need more than 10 rounds to dewing AC. I Dewinged some 5 FW:s and some 109:s with pony.

Pony has really sensitive rudder and elevator, which most of the cases leads to over maneuvering, so u wobble with ur stick maneuvers and cant hit a ****. Secondly, .50 cals doesnt have any deviation or recoil, rounds go exactly where u aim, so it makes hittin harder as well cos of elevator /rudder. But when u do hit target at convergence range, damage inflicted is huge. I think PPl has some odd and weird expectations about .50cal machineguns when comparing to MG151/20 CANNON When calculated in tables which include muzzle velocity,Mass= KE and Chemical energy due He content, we can count that .50 cals is 3-4 times weaker than 20mm cannon, so, does it then mean, that those 3-4 machineguns should make as big holes on aircraft skin or deform its structure as well as cannon???
Is that what u ppl think?

http://img274.echo.cx/img274/1070/kittyhawkbattledamage2km.jpg

in this pic u propably can see 20mm cannon hits on wing rear edge and on aileron, and machinegun hits on all around on wing,

http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/12.jpg
there 20mm holeagain.


compare on those cannon holes on these:

http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/13.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5496107

lil Holes from machine gun..

when aircraft is hitted with Armour piercing round, if it comes directly from above on wing, it might only do one clean little hole and nothing more, Most of that Ammo kinetic energy stayed with that round after it passed thru wing, or what ever, so, in this case, its really clear already, that cannons and machine guns are not comparable witht tables of Ke etc calculations, cos damage what CAnnon HE round and .50cal AP round makes is so different. .50cal penetrats quite well pilot armour and engine, as does 20mm AP round, machinegun damage in bases on penetration, while cannon ammo leans on wider scale of ammo, like High explosive, which deforms structure heavily and peels of panelling of aircraft which causes lots of drag etc.

**** my hands are tired.. Well, hope u get the pic.
so, compare those cannon hits to these:

Cragger
06-13-2005, 01:44 PM
LAGG3s still have the simple damage model from IL2 original hence why their so tough.

Nubarus
06-13-2005, 02:05 PM
The .50 was not only loaded with AP rounds Stafroty.

So they should not only make little holes and hope you can hit the pilot.

I think you should take a real good look at WWII .50 guncam footage and then come back here and still claim they should only making little holes.

Oh and btw, this picture:

http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/13.jpg

Looks more like flak schrapnel damage then bullet holes to me.

Vipez-
06-13-2005, 02:18 PM
is .50 weaker ? I really can't tell.. however, im having more difficult time to aim like i used to in 3.04m.. which is only a positive thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hristo_
06-13-2005, 02:51 PM
.50 cal is probably the same. What has changed is that gun platforms do not fly on rails anymore.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-13-2005, 02:52 PM
those holes almost like .50cal anyway, u get the pic.

Vipez-
06-13-2005, 04:17 PM
incase LS have something to say:

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 04:23 PM
Well if the .50's was Nerfed, you would see me raising all sorts of hell about it. I dont think they are! I think they are the same, if not a little better!!! They seam to cut through armor rather well.

The problem is, a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacular! Aircraft wont always explode into bits. Wings wont always detach, or tails come off. I have many many times did a high speed B&Z on a 109 or 190, thought that I did not even hit to only be credited later on with a kill. Because I killed his pilot, damaged his controles, got his fuel tank, or is engine. A kill is a kill. Weather they explode like an over-inflated balloon, or wide up bailing from lack of aileron or belly in the grass 50 feet from his runway.

MEGILE
06-13-2005, 04:24 PM
Hey Nubarus, what's the story about that pic? Very cool shot

Grey_Mouser67
06-13-2005, 04:50 PM
cannon shells explode when they hit leaving big holes.

.50's don't explode, but penatrate (API) and damage parts on the inside of an aircraft when they strike something solid.

You know how a bottle of water explodes when you shoot it? Imagine a .50 penatrating through a tail section and through both sides of a fuel tank and lodging in the pilot armor...the hydrostatic shock on the fuel tank.

The DM on the Fw was definitely altered. .50's don't light things up like they did...they did in real life...even with self sealing fuel tanks. Structural failures did occur in real life but I think there are limitations to modelling.

Seems like I waver back and forth, but if the 151/20 is going to be left at its current strength, then I'd like to see a bit less recoil from the hispano and the .50's to be upgraded in damage strenght. This is a relative comparison, so leave the .50's if the 151/20 is going to find a place between where it currently is and where it was.

fordfan25
06-13-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
HI!

I just wonder if 0,50 cal. effectivity was changed in 4.0? I feel big different between 3.04 and 4.0. In 4.0 0,50 seemed to be much more weaker expecially when shoting to Bfs 109 or Fw190. I use 150m converange and always shoting from close distance. In 4.0 is very hard to shoted down bfs or fw190 if there is no lucky PK there is very hard to shoot them down. Maby something with DM was changed in bfs and fw190 i dont know but im quit sure that 0,50 are wekaer now.
Its good that 20mm mg151 was fixed but i dont know why 0,50 was changed to worse? Other hand yesterday i tried shooting from Fw190A4 to Lagg3 and found that Laggs are very tought again???
Maby there are some changes in DM of planes?

I know that there will be many blueguys posts that there are no differnce but I and many my friends feel it very clear.

eather the .50s are weaker or planes D<M is incresses. sept for the hellcat wich lights up like a zero now. for a plane that was so well known as a tough damege absorbing fighter IRL it sure is made of glass in this sim.

VW-IceFire
06-13-2005, 06:06 PM
My feelings?

The .50cals are maybe a bit stronger than before. I think they have been rebelted with a new ammo belt containing more API. The Japanese planes burn alot easier than before and they also structurally disintegrate better than before. The 109 is a bit tougher than the 190 has lost its flame-prone fuel tank. You now have to hammer a FW190 to get it to go down...it may be a bit strong but its a godsend after the fuel tank was so easily punctured before.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-13-2005, 06:26 PM
fordfan, if plane was tought it didnt mean that it was unbeatable, of course EVERY plane has weak points, every, u cant have armour plating everywhere to cover it.

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2005, 06:29 PM
If this is about online then remember that for a long time now there's been discussion
about shots and server-client packets, sometimes getting lost or the timing makes the
shots miss on target PC when shooter sees hits -- those sort of things. So possibly
4.0 includes changes to rectify that, and maybe a tradeoff had to happen?

Jetbuff
06-13-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The problem is, a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacular!
Worth emphasizing. Unless you're in the PTO, (where even .303's are deadly) Hollywoodish plane destruction is unlikely with .50's. Mind you 9 times out of 10 your target is disabled (pilot dead/wounded, controls shot, engine killed and/or stability seriously compromised) rather than out-right destroyed but same-difference - plane's going down.

PS: no idea how this compares to historical events, I'm only commenting that the perceived weakness may be an incorrect appreciation of less spectacular shoot-downs.

Fennec_P
06-13-2005, 06:42 PM
The problem is, a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacularThe problem is, a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacular

Amen. Applies to all weapons, really.

One mission (in FB, but still relevant), I shot down 2 FW-190 and a 109G6 in a mission, using P-47.

At the end, I checked my user stat, and I had 200 fire bullets, and 5 hit bullets.

With those 5 hits I had accomplished a pilot kill on the first focke, an engine kill on the second, and a de-winging on the G6.

Which proves you can kill FW engines, pilots, and de-wing 109s with average 2 bullets or less.

Of course, these results are not typical, but shows that it's all about what you hit, not how many hits you get.

Gibbage1
06-13-2005, 09:17 PM
Amen. Applies to all weapons, really.
[/QUOTE]

Well all but the Mk-108 and the 37MM in the P-63. Those are very satisfying when they hit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Guard4891
06-14-2005, 02:39 AM
.50cal is evena a bit stronger,it can set anything except 109 and 190 on fire easily.Shoot P47 and F4U with the .50cal,u will see how deadly it is.

The DMs on 190 and 109 have changed.The 190 has an undamageable fuel tank,which make it looks incredible tough.U can put dozens of hits from all kind of weapons on a 190a9 and find out that he doesnt leak fuel at all.If u are interested,use a dora and shoot friendly 190A9,and see whether u can get him leaking fuel.

The 109 does leak fuel to enemy fire,however it is way harder to set the fuel tank of 109 on fire than to set the fuel tanks on other ACs like P47 and F4U on fire.

I have post this in that bug reporting thread,and I hope Mr.Maddox and his team will check the fuel tanks of 109 and 190 and see what is going on.

Hristo_
06-14-2005, 03:25 AM
Maybe a time for "Best of the breed" by Col. Kit Carson. As an Allied ace, he had something to say about Fw 190 ruggedness.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html

He mentiones Fw 190 with 200 .50 cal holes and still flying.

Before this patch, Allied types used to spray .50 cals from far away at Fw 190, knowing well enough that even smallest of hit will likely cause fuel leak or severly hinder the performance of Fw 190. Now, how realistic is that few slugs cripple a 4.5 ton well armored plane ?

It is my belief that poor shooting practice continues in this patch, but with adequate results. Planes do not fly on rails anymore and hits are not always concentrated in one spot.

Fw 190A-9 is a poor example of a typically armored plane. It was a late war bomber killer, adequately armed and armored.

Kwiatos
06-14-2005, 04:23 AM
Other hand i flew D-9 in Warcalouds server and it was very funny when many p-51 try to shot me in 1 flight. I was not very much care about their 0,50. After many burst from 0,50 cal. which i got i have not many damages in my D-9. The worst thing was injury of pilot. i still able to fight and land at my AF. Dont think that its realistic.

VF-29_Sandman
06-14-2005, 06:46 AM
it isnt the 50's that's the problem. their shooting at wrong convergance. i tested the 50's in the cats, corsair, jug, pony, and p-40's. if their flying the new mustang, that 1 doesnt have 6 mg's...only 4. i tried different conv. ranges from 200 up to 500; and it seems that in the 300 meter range, i put a pounding on the fw's, including snapping wings off with a small burst. roughly from the center of the wing and out is where its weak spot is from what i noticed, and if their dead 6, the fw will soak up alot of ammo. if they are close tho at a 300m convergance, it will act a tad like a shotgun and will take critical parts off; stabilizer trim tab/airleons for 1.

at close range...and i do mean close, 1 small burst in the engine of any of the 190's i've tested including the '45 dora, they will puff thick black smoke.

in the case of the p-38, just 1 small burst of concentrated fire will put u down in a hurry. the wing gun mounts require alot of precision based on what i've done in qmb. i dont think the 50's were messed with; the engine torque is throwin off their aim. the fusalage of the 190 is an armored beast; but ur engine and wings are 2 critical areas u'd be best to protect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
06-14-2005, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
When calculated in tables which include muzzle velocity,Mass= KE and Chemical energy due He content, we can count that .50 cals is 3-4 times weaker than 20mm cannon

I'd like to see those tables. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Some of the best experts out there say 2.5 - 3 times, depending on range. Longer range and the effectiveness of the 20mm actually drops in relation to the .50

I don't know why people want to knock the HMGs, they were more than aduequate for fighters and light to medium bombers. The US (the main user of .50 cal equipped a/c) didn't face any foe with a significant number of heavy bombers. Vs. fighters, a bank of 6 (most common) to 8 was almost overkill. In the case of the P-47, it's putting out 100 rounds a second on the low side of the scale. Any one of those can disable an engine, kill the pilot, set fuel tanks on fire and a host of other nasty things that would be considered unhealthy to the operation of an aircraft. Combined with excellent balistics, reliable operation and good armor penatration, the .50 cal HMG is an effective and deadly weapon.

Figures like those quoted above generally seem to mean that some just want 20mm Mk 108's, when the Mk 108 was about 6 times more effective than the 20mm, at least in regards to heavy bombers.

FatBoyHK
06-14-2005, 09:36 AM
50cals is much less effective against 109 and 190 now, but it is not because of the poor aiming, nor convegnence setting. Seem to me that oleg has beefed up the DM for 109 and 190 a little bit too much.

In v4.0 they can eat up more than 50 hits (they are hits, not just shots fired) from convegence range and still flying well, and there are many incidents that they rtb successfully after receiving more than 100 hits... especailly when being attacked from dead six.

I am sorry to say that, but those people who think 100 hits from dead six are not enough to bring down a single engine plane in most cases should play another game.

Deflection shot seem to be OK as far as I can see, may be a little bit weaker than v304 but I can take that. But shot from dead six couldn't be that weak.

It is more difficult to punch the fueltank of a 109, and it is impossible to do so on a 190. Seem to me that it is the major cause of the problem. Let's think about it: 50cals won't cause structural damage as easily as cannons, but it is still lethal because it can punch hole on fuel tanks, and hence set them on fire. You can still be able to shoot at the fuel tanks from dead six, because they are located on the rear fuseage and the wings. But if the fuel tanks are harder to damage, it will seriously affect the effectiveness of the 50cals.

another way of the killing with 50cals is control damage. I am not sure on this one, but I feel that control of the 109 and 190 are beefed up too. During the weekend on warclouds I damaged quite a bit less control surface than before, significant enough to arise my concern... just a feeling, by no mean I am sure, but it may be a good direction to follow.

FliegerAas
06-14-2005, 10:06 AM
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.

Sharpe26
06-14-2005, 10:48 AM
so just try firing the .50s in arcade mode and see what happens.

I think the .50s have been changed for the better. In one of the first tests of 4.0 that I did after dl I took a p51 up against a rookie 109.

After one rather good burst (say 3 seconds worth of fire)that 109 went down with a severe fuel leak and a lot of holes in the airframe.

so yeah it's changed very probably for the better. Now the only thing that remains for me is better shooting and flying.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-14-2005, 10:57 AM
i dont know what is the matter in your flying, cos i shot 109 down with 30 rounds, seized its engine, puffed thick black smoke out of it and cut its wing, only 30 rounds to do that. you just have to hit those at right distance at convergence range and better than just one hit or two. Keep the reticle over so u all the time hit at target, better results right away.

Like i heard some 4 years ago when complained about german vs russian weapons: Learn to shoot, same now applies to you. And, u really should learn to shoot this time.

FliegerAas
06-14-2005, 11:02 AM
From Hristos link:

"
[...]
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.
"
Col. "Kit" Carson about the FW 190
Should make some people think...

LLv34_Stafroty
06-14-2005, 11:33 AM
Cajun, those tables are williams tables etc.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

there u see how its calculated, notice, its calculated and it doesnt mean its just that simple as numbers show it on tables.

http://img274.echo.cx/img274/1070/kittyhawkbattledamage2km.jpg
http://www.il2center.com/Reference/Damage/12.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5496107

there u look at that 109 wing, u see .50cal hits as what 20mm has made on kittyhawk wing or spit fuselage?
as big hole in skin? Does those pics give u any hint that those tables doesnt tell accuratelly how damage per different style of guns/ammo is made, it only gives u number values.

Example: u got AP ammo and API ammo on .50cal, would AP be more dangerous to fighter if u shoot at fuel tank than with API ammo?

Then, if i got 20mm cannon and i hit enemy plane on wing at high angle, only one shot, which one of round u believe makes more damage, AP or HE on wing, if main support bar isnt hit?

AP makes only hole on fuel tank while incendiary could ignite fuel possibly or even explode it if hit comes over fuel surface level.
with 20mm He would definatly make much more damage, cos it breaks surface of the wing big way (loosens and departs skin panels) and damages internal structures as well due Blast effect and fragments. AP only damaegs what it touches and penetrates while going thru the wing.

Now look again on those tables, lets see take this one as example:
Cartridge 20x82
API round makes damage some 110 points according tables
HET round makes damage some 109 points according tables

So, other round is armor piercing incendiary, other is High Explosive Tracer, so, with these u hit wing, both have almost same damage value. so should these rounds makes as much damage to wing when it hits?
no, cos API round goes totally throught the wing and it only delivers little part of its Kinetic energy to wing, all that much how much its needed for penetration(skin, structures if hitted and skin at other side), not all while HET delivers it all to wing. So how u think how accurate those tables are when we just look at the numbers? If round has penetration cabability, it has it, but it has to hit something critical in its pathc inside aircraft to do any damage, otherwise it just leaves little holes in it. of course, when wing or fuselage gets many many hits from such rounds, strure comes bit like cheese and starts to break as well, when cannon eats the structures like englanders eats bacon for breakfast.

when using .50cal, u cant expect it to cut wings or fuselages just with 3-4 times more ammo hitted on them than with Cannon which uses HE ammo. U can cut wings of course, but u have to hit critical parts or you have to SAW wings off. and some 15 rounds hitted on wing above doesnt sound like sawing wings..

There was interview at simHQ, it was Russian Veteran tellin about war times, he used Skash(4 of them) on I-16 fighter against 109:s and said it was possible to saw wings off, but you needed to hit him almost with all the ammo you had aboard.


(Skash uses 7,62mm and .50cal is 12,7mm, (only 5,08mm bigger than 7,62) .50cal makes 40% bigger hole on target than 7,62mm.
20mm is 7,3mm bigger than .50cal and 12,38mm bigger than 7,62mm. 20mm is 36,5% bigger than .50cal and 62% bigger than 7,62mm. So, your belowed .50cal is closer to 7,62mm than 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifLike many said, its ONLY heavy machine gun.

Grey_Mouser67
06-14-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.


Many in here have never fired a weapon at all let alone a military weapon.

Been doing alot of thinking about this...and don't use offline results as a measure of weapons effectiveness cause the ai is doing weird things after being damaged...like flying into the ground.

Anyways, we all know that cannon ammo is much heavier, explosive etc and much more powerful. Anyone who says otherwise needs go back to la la land. This has been an argument of relativity for the most part. If a 20mm produces 3x more energy should it do 3x more damage? That is where I get hung up because in real life HMG's were excellent weapon systems and very effective. Statistics, trials, ballistics, gun cam film all bare this out...anyone who says aotherwise can follow the person above.

So what is the difference? I have shot many weapons over my lifetime and I know if I go shoot a jack rabbit with a .223 it will be dead. If I shoot it with a .308 it will be equally dead but if I were hunting mule deer I'd be at a severe disadvantage with the .223.

Now I'm only drawing a conceptual analogy...there are anti-conceptuals out there that will not understand the relationship i'm drawing here...but it is possible, maybe probable that even though from an energy standpoint the .50 is much less powerful than the 20mm, they both are more than adequate to down an enemy single engined fighter.

Both will penatrate clean through and aircraft, both will penatrate through a fuel tank, penatrate many mm of pilot armor, crack an engine block, destroy a wing spar, radiator, oil resevoir and kill a pilot. I have the belief that the relative difference between cannons and hmg's on single engined fighters was less than is modelled...the differences between the weapons systems showed up at longer ranges and against heavy bombers with redundant engines, pilots and control systems.

Something to think about...for the record I don't think the .50's were downgraded, but the DM of the Fw was definitely upgraded...too much. put it back the way it was and I'd love to see an upward tweak in the HMG power, but not move it to uber status...we now have the 151/20's for that...down with the hispanos!

I love this game...and every patch is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're going to get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.


Many in here have never fired a weapon at all let alone a military weapon.

Been doing alot of thinking about this...and don't use offline results as a measure of weapons effectiveness cause the ai is doing weird things after being damaged...like flying into the ground.

Anyways, we all know that cannon ammo is much heavier, explosive etc and much more powerful. Anyone who says otherwise needs go back to la la land. This has been an argument of relativity for the most part. If a 20mm produces 3x more energy should it do 3x more damage? That is where I get hung up because in real life HMG's were excellent weapon systems and very effective. Statistics, trials, ballistics, gun cam film all bare this out...anyone who says aotherwise can follow the person above.

So what is the difference? I have shot many weapons over my lifetime and I know if I go shoot a jack rabbit with a .223 it will be dead. If I shoot it with a .308 it will be equally dead but if I were hunting mule deer I'd be at a severe disadvantage with the .223.

Now I'm only drawing a conceptual analogy...there are anti-conceptuals out there that will not understand the relationship i'm drawing here...but it is possible, maybe probable that even though from an energy standpoint the .50 is much less powerful than the 20mm, they both are more than adequate to down an enemy single engined fighter.

Both will penatrate clean through and aircraft, both will penatrate through a fuel tank, penatrate many mm of pilot armor, crack an engine block, destroy a wing spar, radiator, oil resevoir and kill a pilot. I have the belief that the relative difference between cannons and hmg's on single engined fighters was less than is modelled...the differences between the weapons systems showed up at longer ranges and against heavy bombers with redundant engines, pilots and control systems.

Something to think about...for the record I don't think the .50's were downgraded, but the DM of the Fw was definitely upgraded...too much. put it back the way it was and I'd love to see an upward tweak in the HMG power, but not move it to uber status...we now have the 151/20's for that...down with the hispanos!

I love this game...and every patch is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're going to get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both wil penetrate most things on a fighter, exception of engine block and the armor at high obliquity angle. But when .50 penetrates it wil lmake a hole... in steel this hole will not be much bigger than 2 times bullet caliber. A 20 mm HE or MG shell will explode.. and aluminium sheets will get a HUGE hole with this... much much bigger than 40 mm. That is why cannons are still more effective. .50 are only deadly to planes if they hit criticval components.. explosive rounds torn apart surface and structure, so more areas in plane are critical targets for it.

A .50 bullet that penetrates cockpit gall may not kill the pilot.. it may miss it and get stuck in the armor from inside. But a MK108 will explode the whole side of cockpit....

This is the kind of effect that ensures that almost all explsive rounds will make hell on target, while any AP rounds need some luck.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 12:02 PM
190 fuel tank is NOT undamageable. I got 2 fuel leaks yesterday. But they suer are much harder to make now, and are not that kind of 1 minute 200 liters flow leak. They leak as easily as most other planes do.

FatBoyHK
06-14-2005, 12:05 PM
well, there is also a well-known story about a p47 went home after a 190 emptied its entire load of *20mm* ammo on it.... so shall we change the power of 20mm according to this story??

Isolated story means little.

StellarRat
06-14-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. You're pretty funny. A weapon that can go through an inch of steel armor plate is not going to bounce off the thin aluminium on a plane at any angle. It will cut slices out of it like a can opener.

F19_Ob
06-14-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

...... a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacular! Aircraft wont always explode into bits. Wings wont always detach, or tails come off........

So true.

For anyone who want to study the damage more , arcademode is still a good way to see where the bullets hit.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 12:12 PM
Urban legend based on real incident.

Johnsons plane was hit by 20mm but not from the FW. See if the 20mm was not flak.
21 20mm holes. The FW that shot it up had no 20mm left from earlier fighting so
pumped 100's and 100's of 7.92mm into it. Johnson made it home barely with oil
covered windshield and he was wounded as well first and most by the 20mm. That
plane never flew again with almost nothing of it salvageable.

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.

and your doing the same thing. just on the other side.

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. You're pretty funny. A weapon that can go through an inch of steel armor plate is not going to bounce off the thin aluminium on a plane at any angle. It will cut slices out of it like a can opener. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


but...but...but...ummm its an US weapon so it just cant be effective. it doesnt matter what was recorded in history or what was captured on film or what piolets who actully flew in WW2 combat have said. its all propaganda. yea thats it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FatBoyHK
06-14-2005, 12:23 PM
I really feel sick of those people who told me to improve my aim or to shoot at convegence when I say 50cals is less effective again 109 and 190 in thsi patch. My aim has nothing to do with this discussion because the number of round I quoted are those which landed on the target. And I shoot close enough, otherwise there is no way to land 100+ hits before I emptied my ammo.

Think about what you felt when you guys were being treated in the exactly same way, back in the days of the bugged MG151/20.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
(Skash uses 7,62mm and .50cal is 12,7mm, (only 5,08mm bigger than 7,62) .50cal makes 40% bigger hole on target than 7,62mm.
20mm is 7,3mm bigger than .50cal and 12,38mm bigger than 7,62mm. 20mm is 36,5% bigger than .50cal and 62% bigger than 7,62mm. So, your belowed .50cal is closer to 7,62mm than 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifLike many said, its ONLY heavy machine gun.


Ohhhh, silly Stafroty! You were doing -so- good up until that part! But your math is silly!

7.62mm is diameter only. Hole is area, PI x 2 x radius squared.
12.7 / 7.62 = 1.66666667 so not 40% wider but 2/3 wider.
1.6666667 squared is 2.7777777 .... that is as many times bigger the hole is.

But the 12.7 bullet is also longer. How much I don't know so compare bullet weights as
that means more anyway, much more especially when it comes to damage hey?

Well at least I can regard you as silly, it erases some of that awful picture!
Really you should not post things like that, I was stunned with disgust for 30 minutes!

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
He mentiones Fw 190 with 200 .50 cal holes and still flying.


Here is a good example of anicdotal evadence. In P-47 threads people say the same thing. Many many P-47's comming back with hundreds of bullet holes, and people like Hristo say "those are exceptions, and cant be used as proof of how a P-47 takes hits" but here they come in with 1 case that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a FW-190 should take 200+ .50 cal's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fordfan25
06-14-2005, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
I really feel sick of those people who told me to improve my aim or to shoot at convegence when I say 50cals is less effective again 109 and 190 in thsi patch. My aim has nothing to do with this discussion because the number of round I quoted are those which landed on the target. And I shoot close enough, otherwise there is no way to land 100+ hits before I emptied my ammo.

Think about what you felt when you guys were being treated in the exactly same way, back in the days of the bugged MG151/20.

even off line you can tell. just go into cinfig and enable arcademod. it will show you were and at what angle you rounds hit. iv tried to post pictures in the past but thay never show up. what really gets to me is do a quick mission fly a sair or hellcat stang and go aginst a friendly ai hellcat. notice how the hellcat seems to be made by zippo. now fly aginst a 109 or 190. even the sair falls apart. thses were big heavy well built fighters whos main claim to frame was there abilty to take tons of damege. dont let some people get to you man. there are some people who dont belive the US could have built tough fighters or guns. some must think the p-47 is so heavy do to the fact that it had a realy fat guy flyn it lol.

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
There was interview at simHQ, it was Russian Veteran tellin about war times, he used Skash(4 of them) on I-16 fighter against 109:s and said it was possible to saw wings off, but you needed to hit him almost with all the ammo you had aboard.


The same interview the same pilot said 2 .50's was more then enough. When he flew P-40's, they stripped 4 of the 6 .50 cal's and flew with just 2. Also he stated they did the same with the P-39 and flew with just 2 .50 cal's and the 37MM and removed the 2 .50's in the wing. He states twice that the 2 M2's was more then enough to bring down any Luftwaffe fighter.



(Skash uses 7,62mm and .50cal is 12,7mm, (only 5,08mm bigger than 7,62) .50cal makes 40% bigger hole on target than 7,62mm.
20mm is 7,3mm bigger than .50cal and 12,38mm bigger than 7,62mm. 20mm is 36,5% bigger than .50cal and 62% bigger than 7,62mm. So, your belowed .50cal is closer to 7,62mm than 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifLike many said, its ONLY heavy machine gun.

This has GOT to be the most STUPID thing I have ever seen posted on this forum. Your math is very wrong, BE SURE!!! A .50 cal was in order of 3-4X the power of a 7.62 and a 20MM was 3X more powerfull then a .50 cal.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 01:30 PM
Well I have been shot by .50 and in several ocasions I asked how manyhits. Common values are around 20. That is not too much.... there was one time that the guy needed 57 or something like that. Also ther were times were I was hot with 2 or 3 bullets!

100 bullets is not the comon value that you will need to shot down a FW190. Common value will be around 30 hits (to put it out of fight)

The main reason I think of innefectuveness is exaclty the syncronization issue. Or you hit soemthing important with all 3 bullets from a bank (6 if in convergence).. or with none at all. Just changing that probably would be enough. The .50 should be just something slightly weaker than russian 12.5 (If I am not wrong, Russia used heavier ammo).

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 01:33 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 LLv34_Stafroty:
There was interview at simHQ, it was Russian Veteran tellin about war times, he used Skash(4 of them) on I-16 fighter against 109:s and said it was possible to saw wings off, but you needed to hit him almost with all the ammo you had aboard.


The same interview the same pilot said 2 .50's was more then enough. When he flew P-40's, they stripped 4 of the 6 .50 cal's and flew with just 2. Also he stated they did the same with the P-39 and flew with just 2 .50 cal's and the 37MM and removed the 2 .50's in the wing. He states twice that the 2 M2's was more then enough to bring down any Luftwaffe fighter.



(Skash uses 7,62mm and .50cal is 12,7mm, (only 5,08mm bigger than 7,62) .50cal makes 40% bigger hole on target than 7,62mm.
20mm is 7,3mm bigger than .50cal and 12,38mm bigger than 7,62mm. 20mm is 36,5% bigger than .50cal and 62% bigger than 7,62mm. So, your belowed .50cal is closer to 7,62mm than 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifLike many said, its ONLY heavy machine gun.

This has GOT to be the most STUPID thing I have ever seen posted on this forum. Your math is very wrong, BE SURE!!! A .50 cal was in order of 3-4X the power of a 7.62 and a 20MM was 3X more powerfull then a .50 cal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well LW aces also said their 13mm guns were also enough. It seem the game GENERICALLY underestimates damage from lower caliber projectiles. It happens to both german 13 mm and .50 (that should be somehow stronger than german 13mm)

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 01:37 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 Hristo_:
He mentiones Fw 190 with 200 .50 cal holes and still flying.


Here is a good example of anicdotal evadence. In P-47 threads people say the same thing. Many many P-47's comming back with hundreds of bullet holes, and people like Hristo say "those are exceptions, and cant be used as proof of how a P-47 takes hits" but here they come in with 1 case that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a FW-190 should take 200+ .50 cal's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreee... Anedocte just become anedoctes exactly because they are OUT OF NORMALITY cases. If there is such anedocte.. be sure that FW sould most of time be shot down with far less than 200 shots. Anedoctes are only usefull for discovering when things start to get absurd.

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:

Well LW aces also said their 13mm guns were also enough. It seem the game GENERICALLY underestimates damage from lower caliber projectiles. It happens to both german 13 mm and .50 (that should be somehow stronger than german 13mm)

I did some testing way back in 3.0 or so compairing the 4 main HMG's in the game. The M2, UBS, MG13 and Ho-103. All of them did about equal damage. UBS doing slightly more. The MG13 is a bigger round, but had a much lower velocity and very bad ballistics. I think 109 pilots are just missing or firing from to far from the target. At anything more then 400M, the MG13 starts to arc a LOT.

Here is a gun table so people can understand the differances a bit better.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

As you can see, a 7.62 Browning M2 is 10.6 grams. A .50 cal M2 is 43.3 grams! Thats more then 4x the weight!!!! Plus that 4x weight is moving at a slightly higher muzzle velocity. So much for "only 40% bigger" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 02:01 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 OldMan____:

Well LW aces also said their 13mm guns were also enough. It seem the game GENERICALLY underestimates damage from lower caliber projectiles. It happens to both german 13 mm and .50 (that should be somehow stronger than german 13mm)

I did some testing way back in 3.0 or so compairing the 4 main HMG's in the game. The M2, UBS, MG13 and Ho-103. All of them did about equal damage. UBS doing slightly more. The MG13 is a bigger round, but had a much lower velocity and very bad ballistics. I think 109 pilots are just missing or firing from to far from the target. At anything more then 400M, the MG13 starts to arc a LOT.

Here is a gun table so people can understand the differances a bit better.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

As you can see, a 7.62 Browning M2 is 10.6 grams. A .50 cal M2 is 43.3 grams! Thats more then 4x the weight!!!! Plus that 4x weight is moving at a slightly higher muzzle velocity. So much for "only 40% bigger" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can make the Armor penetration result from Krupp armor formulae for both weapons later (am at work now). But for sure .50 is more than twice the strenght of .303.

But important to notice. Caliber is very relevant for damage. On AP two round with same weight but different caliber, the smaller one will have better AP capabilitie, but worse damage

Aaron_GT
06-14-2005, 02:15 PM
Here is a good example of anicdotal evadence. In P-47 threads people say the same thing. Many many P-47's comming back with hundreds of bullet holes, and people like Hristo say "those are exceptions, and cant be used as proof of how a P-47 takes hits" but here they come in with 1 case that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a FW-190 should take 200+ .50 cal's.

It does show the range of variability. The same does go for P47s - some returning with lots of holes does not prove much without statistical analysis.


The same interview the same pilot said 2 .50's was more then enough. When he flew P-40's, they stripped 4 of the 6 .50 cal's and flew with just 2.

Wasn't this done with early P40s (P40C?) 2 nose .50s are probably worth at least 6 .30s in the wings, so it probably represented removing 40% of the armament, so it probably isn't as dramatic as you suggest. Losing 40% of the armament was worth the extra performance, much as some other Soviet units also removed armour. Apparently the P39Q wing guns were marginal due to wing flex and convergence issues when manouvering so the VVS didn't consider them worth the weight of the mountings.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-14-2005, 02:31 PM
Ah, the 'but the LW have had their guns upgraded so why haven't we?' threads have begun....

Yep..I'm repeating myself but I have to say that, if you whine enough, you'll get something that isn't historically correct...just like last time....

You never know, you might even get it sorted out again even though you have no evidence to present. Oh, ok, that's just like last time, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TBH, I think the 190 DM has been made stronger since 3.04; in particular, the fuel tank doesn't empty in less than 30s and it's also flyable with minor wing damage. Interestingly, I've actually SEEN some external damage effects on 190s in 4.0; previously, they were either on fire or were chopped in half before that happened. As to the 109, I've not flown it much but from some tests made in shooting at it, I've not noticed any difference. It still smokes easily/is easy to get a pilot kill/is easy to damage the engine especially with high deflection shots. Just try QMB with externals on and zoom in on a plane you've hit NOT from dead 6 with .50s - I bet you a pound to a pretty penny that you'll hear the bearings scraping etc or you'll see the pilot vacating the building because it's unflyable.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

Wasn't this done with early P40s (P40C?) 2 nose .50s are probably worth at least 6 .30s in the wings, so it probably represented removing 40% of the armament, so it probably isn't as dramatic as you suggest. Losing 40% of the armament was worth the extra performance, much as some other Soviet units also removed armour. Apparently the P39Q wing guns were marginal due to wing flex and convergence issues when manouvering so the VVS didn't consider them worth the weight of the mountings.

The soviet fighter pilot only said that two .50's were more then enough to take down any Luftwaffe fighter. He did not say anything about the outer guns being removed because they were less effective.

StellarRat
06-14-2005, 02:45 PM
The couple 190's I've hit with .50s have gone in pretty fast. I didn't see any smoke or leaking gas though. Maybe some of the pilots that fly them can tell what's going when they are hit with .50s?

FliegerAas
06-14-2005, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
blah


I've seen the .50 in action and yes! The mighty .50 can bounce off at a flat angle!
Have you ever seen a stone jump over water? How can that be when the stone is so much harder? Bullets could even bounce off human skin. Think about it. I did not say that the .50 is too strong or too weak. I just said that many of you take examples that do not fit the real life.... Now go back to your mom and cry...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

hawkmeister
06-14-2005, 03:23 PM
I think the issue is with the new FM, dispersion has increased alot due to plane movement. This is what I've noticed, anyway. I'm primarily a US aircraft flyer so use the .50s a good bit, too. So I don't think there was any change to the gun itself or damage models. I've noticed this with all planes and weapons I've tried (not just US).

-Bill

Cajun76
06-14-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.


Excellent. So would you be willing to hold a sheet of a/c aluminum at a about a 5-10 dergree angle and test that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kit Carson assumed he was getting 10% hits, and calculated his "hits" from that. As an ace, he has to get ace percentages every time he fires, eh?

Stafroty, you've convinced me. 36.5% is a bigger percentage than 40%, according to your numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
Bullets could even bounce off human skin.


So your saying that a .50 cal can bounce off of human skin?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

StellarRat
06-14-2005, 03:28 PM
A few might bounce off, but not many. They would have to hit at almost zero degrees at the top of a curve and not dig the nose in. Since every significant structure on an airplane is curved upward (from the rear) it would be like shooting into a shallow mound of dirt. Most are going to cut right through and keep going.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From dead six most of the bullets hit at a very flat angle and a big number of the 100bullets you mention will bounce off. The .50 is a good weapon but "only" a HMG.
All the whining makes me sick. I don't see a single proof in this thread, only "I think", "I feel" etc. and enough complaints by people that maybe never fired a real military weapon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.


Excellent. So would you be willing to hold a sheet of a/c aluminum at a about a 5-10 dergree angle and test that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kit Carson assumed he was getting 10% hits, and calculated his "hits" from that. As an ace, he has to get ace percentages every time he fires, eh?

Stafroty, you've convinced me. 36.5% is a bigger percentage than 40%, according to your numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW.. ) degree is a flat hit. 90 degree is paralle to plate (that is how impact angle is used in ballistics)



As have been discussed in other thread. a 12mm Hardened face armor can deflect a .50 bullet at > 40 degrees angle. At 60 degrees no bullet ever made (bullet.. not sabbot stuff etc..) was able to penetrate a plate of armor of same tickness as its own caliber (penetrate as pass completely by it).


But the alluminium on plane would NOT deflect a .50. The armor of pilot could in certain angles.

FliegerAas
06-14-2005, 03:48 PM
So Cal .50's only bounce when they have to kill king tigers...right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The only thing I tried to say is that you can not compare tests against static armor with the effects that result from shooting at a fast moving target where a big amount of the bullets do not hit the target under the same optimal conditions. And yes Gib. a bullet could even bounce of skin. The target would be dead anyway, but...it could bounce off....

Aaron_GT
06-14-2005, 04:22 PM
The soviet fighter pilot only said that two .50's were more then enough to take down any Luftwaffe fighter. He did not say anything about the outer guns being removed because they were less effective.

If you dig around you'll find information that suggests that is why it was done. Two nose mounted .50s constituted 60% of the firepower, but only about one third of the weight of the 4x.30, 2x.50 set up. So when performance was so important that even armour was removed then losing the .30s was a reasonable compromise that still allowed decent hitting power (and enough to down a LW fighter if you were a decent shot).

Information from the Battle of Britain fed back to US aircraft designers indicated that the fairly standard 1x.50, 1x.30 or 2x.50 1930s USAAC armament was insufficient and US planes were quickly upgunned, which suggests that the USAAC didn't consider 2x.50s sufficient armament (apart from some high altitude prototypes) in 1940. But if you need the extra performance to stay competitive then it might be worth trading the extra guns for performance.

To be honest in 4.0 I am having more success with the P51B guns than in 3.04. Whether this is because longitudinal stability makes up for comparatively low dispersion or something else I am not sure, but I just took out a 109 online with a 1/2 second burst. It wasn't a spectacular kill, but it went down.

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 04:28 PM
I still think its that the .50's are more able to penetrate armor. Im not getting critical failures in targets, but system failures.

Grey_Mouser67
06-14-2005, 04:58 PM
There was a post awhile back and I can't remember the author, but I really think he came across something significant with regard to HMG modelling...the basic concept is that ingame, the .50's all fire at once instead of randomly.

Now I don't know all the calculations and concepts around Oleg's damage modelling, but computers being what they are I am sure it is based on probabilities, damage boxes of some sort or another, tied to effects with different damage values for different weapons ets...all math anyways.

So imagine you are programming away and you test your new P-40 and when you fire your guns at a 109...not one bullet hits, but rather 3 hit at all the same time in a small area! Well obviously there is going to be a lot of damage in that area, the guns are going to vibrate/recoil like He!! since six are going off at the same time and you get structural failures in the enemie's plane that you don't think should be there based on your view of reality...which of course is not garnered from actual combat experience...we are virtual pilots, programmers etc.

One might look for ways to minimize the effect especially if the fix was hard or maybe not even realizing what the problem is...you might think about dispersing the rounds as a way to keep too many rounds from impacting one spot at a time....you might have to lesson the damage, you might have to assign probabilities to the particular plane part to make it survivable.

I just wanted to bring this up because these problems dont exist with one or two machine guns or cannons but poor gun synchronization in the programming might just have a bigger impact on how the HMG's perform than we realize. Do the math...if a 20mm is 3x more powerful than a .50 but you have 2 or 3 .50's landing at a time, then you'd get effects similar to that of a cannon...right? Can't have that!

I suspect the HMG's are underpowered ever so slightly and of course damage modelling is very complicated and not perfect...I've seen plenty of photos and gun cam along with pilot testimonials to know that sometimes planes just smoked or rolled over and crashed while others exploded, caught on fire or ammo boxes were detonated blowing off wings.

The Fw needs a dm fixing and the hmg's need a little bump...it is really a matter of relativity...if our cannons are going to stay this strong...I like them stronger as opposed to weaker, personally...then other weapons should be kept close as well.

In real life, there was no handicap using .50's against enemy fighters...very capable weapons platform. They are marginal ingame and frankly speaking they are probably the hardest of all weapons systems to master...in real life, the US liked them cause they were effective and easier for the average pilot to use...maybe the M2 won the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cajun76
06-14-2005, 05:23 PM
Don't get me wrong, in typical fighter installation, and not comparing 1 20mm to 1 .50cal, I'm not saying the .50 is more effective than the 20mm. Far from it, I think they get both the job done, but in different ways.

As far as WWII armament for fighter vs fighter, 12.7mm - 20mm seems ideal.

If your not sure, and need convincing:

The .50cal won the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

AlmightyTallest
06-14-2005, 06:59 PM
I don't know about version 4.0, I don't have it, but in regards to my thread a few months back here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5671...671059482#5671059482 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5671059482/r/5671059482#5671059482)

Has any of this .50 cal info been addressed in the latest patch? Did we get more incindiary rounds or Armor Piercing Incindiary for the .50 caliber guns in PF in this latest version? I sent in what proof I had, as well as two tracks where a total of 14 zero's were shot down and only one actually caught fire.

Also, unsynched guns threads are here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4061...061082362#4061082362 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4061082362/r/4061082362#4061082362)

and here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9411...621094113#2621094113 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9411052113/r/2621094113#2621094113)

Gibbage posted photographic evidence of the gaps in the various guns in the sim, including the .50 cal gaps, I think it's in the 11 page thread above.

These issues keep coming up it seems.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Now I don't know all the calculations and concepts around Oleg's damage modelling, but computers being what they are I am sure it is based on probabilities, damage boxes of some sort or another, tied to effects with different damage values for different weapons ets...all math anyways.


We were told how every hit is modelled. Relative speed of bullet to target, weight of bullet,
angle of strike. The only randoms seem to be in the directions that fragments take and I
doubt those are generated as it would slow the process down.
We have been shown the models on development updates and just Oleg posting about the level
of detail early after of release. Not just in pride but partly I think because speculation
of the boards. The spars and other parts inside the wings are modelled. Even the landing
gear inside which btw, if your shot goes in and hits the leg of the gear it had better be
something major to damage that! At the same time, I don't think that I've ever seen or
heard of a flat tire messing up a landing... the part is either destroyed or not, the
details only go as deep as the hardware can store and keep up with. Try shooting the
engines of a Tu-2 out from directly behind the pods... it takes heavy guns because the
gear is there behind the engines as was shown to me in screenshots from underneath when
it was lowering it. No hit dice with damage mods in any of the series.
One example of the lack of randomness is that if a shot penetrates into a part and destroys
it, the shot continues on but only in a straight line. Calculating deviation is too much
load so the original path is followed as default. But find another sim that goes that far!

Some day we may have PC's that can micro model such details. There is already a first
generation chip that processes physics modelling to some level and very usable. I don't
know how many things it can do for starts, but it's enough for I believe the makers of
Half Life 2 and some people doing serious design work as well. The gap is filling at a
rate that's pretty incredible, some of us olders may be around to see what we only dream
of now.

OldMan____
06-14-2005, 08:40 PM
I mae some weapon test runs here. Quite intersting. It seem that with 2 nose mounte .50 from p63 I get almost same effectivness from 6 ones in P51.


Lookint o find out why I watched all tacks at 1/4 arcade etc.. On average.. FWa8 took 10 or 12 hits do go down.. if hits on same area!!! If you spread your hits very well on plane I neded in some ocasions more than 60 bullets!

When I managed to get hits in same are (for example in fuselage front from same side etc...) I could get a PK quite easily and a damaged engine not uncommon. But watching common firing.. I noticed I usually hit a few bullets on wing left, others on tail, other burst on under fuselage etc... This way is very very innefective.


Think cannons are more effective because you miss.. or hit wiht all your firepower in same are.. (since 1 cannon shell >3 .50 hits).

When I was able to hit about 8 bulelts on same wing area (in aregion about 1 meter or so wide) I got it cutted. Otherwise only holes and more holes.

Same results could be get from german .13mm but was much more difficult to PK with it (think it cannot penetrate armor of pilot). Avout same with UBS.


In other words.. .50 might use a little power improvment, but donÔ┬┤t think that would change much, since this weapon class seems to look for silent kills. PK and engine as favorite. Increased hit per bulelt would not change much since it already can pass on armor, and any extra power would not remove the need for concentrated hits (unless increasign lots the hitting power).

P47 seem to be easie to hit multiple bullets on same area since you have two different sync fire groups. So you usually hits with one and other exactly after it on same place.

BTW.. also testes FW resistance.. nothing too much against cannons, took 3-4 hits most of time from hispanos. Just the leak that is very hard to make now.

Grey_Mouser67
06-14-2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Now I don't know all the calculations and concepts around Oleg's damage modelling, but computers being what they are I am sure it is based on probabilities, damage boxes of some sort or another, tied to effects with different damage values for different weapons ets...all math anyways.


We were told how every hit is modelled. Relative speed of bullet to target, weight of bullet,
angle of strike. The only randoms seem to be in the directions that fragments take and I
doubt those are generated as it would slow the process down.
We have been shown the models on development updates and just Oleg posting about the level
of detail early after of release. Not just in pride but partly I think because speculation
of the boards. The spars and other parts inside the wings are modelled. Even the landing
gear inside which btw, if your shot goes in and hits the leg of the gear it had better be
something major to damage that! At the same time, I don't think that I've ever seen or
heard of a flat tire messing up a landing... the part is either destroyed or not, the
details only go as deep as the hardware can store and keep up with. Try shooting the
engines of a Tu-2 out from directly behind the pods... it takes heavy guns because the
gear is there behind the engines as was shown to me in screenshots from underneath when
it was lowering it. No hit dice with damage mods in any of the series.
One example of the lack of randomness is that if a shot penetrates into a part and destroys
it, the shot continues on but only in a straight line. Calculating deviation is too much
load so the original path is followed as default. But find another sim that goes that far!

Some day we may have PC's that can micro model such details. There is already a first
generation chip that processes physics modelling to some level and very usable. I don't
know how many things it can do for starts, but it's enough for I believe the makers of
Half Life 2 and some people doing serious design work as well. The gap is filling at a
rate that's pretty incredible, some of us olders may be around to see what we only dream
of now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt Oleg has the most complicated DM around...I'd never argue that.

I only point out that there are serious ramifications of all the guns firing at once...Imagine swooping in in your P-47 on an unsuspecting enemy and letting loose at extremely close range...8, 16 or maybe even 24 bullets find their mark in 2 areas no larger than a yard stick.... 8 .50's pack more energy than 2 hispano's (I think)....16...just two rounds in each gun concentrate maybe 8 rounds in an area a little bigger....

Well under current damage modelling...obviously the aircraft would fold up...so something has to be changed...I don't know what, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the Mustang lands a flurry of ammo with the same striking power of 1 20mm round.

The implications of this are big...and we're not even looking at an aircraft's ability to fly through that kind of pattern without taking any damage.

I think the lack harmonization has caused Oleg to compromise...it may have even lead to the whole dispersion issue as that may have been a way to deal with the "too many bullets in a small area" problem...of course this is just speculation on my part so don't read anything into it.

The point is, the sync of the guns alone would cause a programmer an issue around modelling weapons strength and the in order to avoid structural failurs and such, the rounds might actually be decreased in strenght or some other mathmatical algorithm introduced so as to minimize the affect...only Oleg knows and I'd reiterate that I'd like to see the Fw damage model brought back to where it was and see the .50's unharmonized and notched up a bit in strength...not uber status but If I make a good pass in B&Z for example, the enemy should go down most of the time.

Had an example where I snuck up behind an opponent...Bf109G2 in a Yak1B and one small spurt detailed him and sent him down in flames...I had the same thing in a P-38L late vs. Bf109K and while I got the kill, I landed way more bullet strikes and got him smoking and that was it...and I kinda like the strength of the P-38 now...I get an occassional snap shot kill from time to time.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-14-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
well, there is also a well-known story about a p47 went home after a 190 emptied its entire load of *20mm* ammo on it.... so shall we change the power of 20mm according to this story??

Isolated story means little.

So you say your memory doesnt work well right?

in story was it 21 hits from 20mm cannon, and writer himself said he picked off those ammo from his plane after he landed, so in case its AP ammo or such. So you say FW.s were carryin some 20 pieces of cannon ammo? and about machinegunhits, it was some hundred or two hundreds, its also shows up for you that machinegun doesnt always bite as you guys seem to expect it to work.
Lets see, can you find us another P47 combat report or pilot account, where P47 or P51 took more than that many hits from 20mm cannon, i bet not.

Quote from Grey_Mouser67:
"Both will penatrate clean through and aircraft, both will penatrate through a fuel tank, penatrate many mm of pilot armor, crack an engine block, destroy a wing spar, radiator, oil resevoir and kill a pilot. I have the belief that the relative difference between cannons and hmg's on single engined fighters was less than is modelled...the differences between the weapons systems showed up at longer ranges and against heavy bombers with redundant engines, pilots and control systems.

Something to think about...for the record I don't think the .50's were downgraded, but the DM of the Fw was definitely upgraded...too much. put it back the way it was and I'd love to see an upward tweak in the HMG power, but not move it to uber status...we now have the 151/20's for that...down with the hispanos!

I love this game...and every patch is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're going to get" Is it so hard to understand what is Blast effect and how it works againt stuff. So, u been firing some handguns and maybe that so called Mighty .50cal too, they still are small arms mate, 20mm is cannon you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Pic of MG151/20 cannon:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallin...i2002/h_BK_mg151.jpg (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/h_BK_mg151.jpg)

Heres another hole of 20mm:
http://www.web-birds.com/12th/57/sterling0017.jpg
One of the most famous photographs taken during the war. This spectacular scene shows the engine that was shot off by a German fighter with its propeller still turning. This plane is about to flip over on its right side and go into a dive that would freeze the crew inside due to acceleration. They had just seconds to bail out or perish. (Note... the turret gunner and waist gunner were the only ones who bailed out and survived.)

http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/siteb...ictures/talflakx.jpg (http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/talflakx.jpg)
Tail damaged by an enemy fighter's 20mm cannons. The above photo illustrates the ruggedness of the B26 and how it was often able to survive great battle damage. The pilot of this aircraft deserves the highest praises for his courage and skill in saving his crew and plane. Unfortunately the tail gunner was killed in this attack by enemy fighters.

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 09:23 PM
Oh yeah, the modelling does have it's own dynamics that lead to "phenomena".

Get into the workings of the strength based joystick sometime, but once you have then
try and come up with something better or with fewer drawbacks. I haven't and I'm not
real new to that kind of stuff.

All the guns firing at once has disadvantages as well as advantages. Add some salt
though, they fire 13 shots a second, they only come together at convergence and the
spread is a bit more than you seem to think but yes much less than original FB/AEP.

Some things have to be or the framerate goes way down. You have to decide maybe on
shades of grey and which things are more important as a customer. And at 1C they do
too, as artists of a kind.

GR142-Pipper
06-14-2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
From Hristos link:

"
[...]
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.
"
Col. "Kit" Carson about the FW 190
Should make some people think... It makes me think that this 190 driver was one VERY lucky guy....he won the lottery of a lifetime that day. 200 50 caliber hits in ANY aircraft would normally shred it.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The point is, the sync of the guns alone would cause a programmer an issue around modelling weapons strength and the in order to avoid structural failurs and such, the rounds might actually be decreased in strenght or some other mathmatical algorithm introduced so as to minimize the affect...only Oleg knows and I'd reiterate that I'd like to see the Fw damage model brought back to where it was and see the .50's unharmonized and notched up a bit in strength...not uber status but If I make a good pass in B&Z for example, the enemy should go down most of the time.

Whoops, I missed answering this part! Simple answer is no. The wrote the engine that runs
the models so when they want to test, they have tools better than we do. The actually run
tracks sent in and examine step by step what happens in detail with full control. We have
a bit of that as well if you set up the config file ARCADE=1 instead of 0, you will see the
paths of every hit as arrows (but beware, if the bullet stops, the line arrow keeps going
to show the direction but doesn't mean the shot passed clear through and does not show
ricochets) and any HE bursts shows arrows for spawned fragments as well. If you make a
full mission track with ARCADE=0 (off) and run it through Playback with ARCADE=1 then you
can see the hits even though you didn't have to put up with them while flying and shooting.
It's better using playback anyway since you can vary the time speed, change your POV and
pause the action to get the best views like check the sight picture and ball and then see
where the shots go. Great training tool but be sure Maddox has more for company use.
That's why I don't worry so much about gun strengths, 1C can be sure what happened on
tracks sent in. And they don't take stories alone!

I'd rather the 50's were not "synched" to each other because it would make a more homogenous
bullet stream. 13 a second, 850 a minute really... and in a BnZ the range on target is
changing fast and far so you're only at convergence a very short time. The rest of it,
the shots aren't all so close on impact. It's really something to WISH for. Maybe we'll
get lucky and they'll come up with a way to have a spread pattern that doesn't violate
the other realisms.

Buzzsaw-
06-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Salute

Starfroty finds ONE quote which he claims indicates the firepower of the .50 calibre.

Here's a few more:

Major Bill Chick, P-47's 325th Fighter Group, Italy

".. a P-47 flicked past me, and a Me109 was coming on his tail, right in front of me, from my left side. I gave the Me109 a quick squirt as it passed me, and he flew right into my bullets. He just came apart right in front of me. Poof! There was no more airplane."

Lieutenant Bob Welden P-51b, 354th Fighter Group, Britain.

"...the 190 snapped and went into a flat spin. He had completed about two turns in the spin before I could lower my nose and fire a burst, which hit his cockpit from above. Instantly, the 190's canopy came off and and the pilot jumped out..."

"...I closed to approximately 200 yards while the 109 was making a firing pass at the B-17. As the German broke away from the Fort, I fired a burst and saw strikes on the canopy and engine. Large pieces of the aircraft flew off. The 109 continued a slow turn to the left, trailing black smoke. I was out of ammunition so I rejoined Goodnight. Lieutenant Mitchell saw my 109 crash..."

Major Tom Hayes, P-51b, 357th Fighter Group, Britain.

"...the 109 was flying so slowly and I was approaching it so quickly that I was only 200 yards away when I opened fire. I no sooner squeezed the trigger than I had to drop my nose to duck under the 109. I don't think the pilot ever saw me. The 109 fell straight into the ground and burst into flames."

Lieutenant Ed Heller, P-51b, 352nd Fighter Group, Britain.

"...another 109 was lining up on Cutler. I was behind Cutler and his wingman. As luck would have it, I was in the perfect position to draw a 0 deflection bead on he Jerry closing up on Cutler's element. I fired a one second burst right up his six, from about 500 feet. It was an easy shot and he obviously never saw me. I saw strikes all over the plane. I must have hit his engine, because he caught on fire, broke off to the left, and went down."

Lieutenant Dave Thwaites, P-47, 357th Fighter Group, Britain.

"...I got hits on both wings from above and behind him. Then he straightened out, which gave me an even better shot that produced more hits. With that, the 190 flipped over, the canopy flew off, and the pilot bailed out."

Lieutenant Jim Starnes, P-51b, 339th Fighter Group, Britain.

"I fired intermittent bursts at the 190 in front of me. I was pulling all the lead I could without blanking him out under my nose, but most of my bullets went behind him. As we approached treetop level, however, I began to score some hits. The FW190 was pulling wingtip streamers in his desperate low altitude struggle. Finally he reversed his turn, which was a fatal mistake. I hit him hard during the reversal. The pilot decided to jump out at minimum altitude, and he jettisoned his canopy, and jumped over the side of his cockpit."

Lieutenant **** Lampe, P-51D, 52nd Fighter Group, Italy.

"...When I started getting in range, about 250 yards, I pulled my nose up to where he was just under it, and cut loose with my guns. I got him dead center... He practically blew up right in the sky. Pieces of him went everyplace. As I was going around, I saw the corpse of the pilot in the air and the plane spinning in."

I could go on.

You will notice many of this are single bursts, and from the 4 gun P-51b.

Gibbage1
06-14-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:

http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/siteb...ictures/talflakx.jpg

Tail damaged by an enemy fighter's 20mm cannons.

You must be the worst poster ever. First you say the 12.7MM round is only 40% bigger then the 7.62, then you say "Tail damaged by an enemy fighter's 20MM cannons." even though the pic is labled "talFLAKx.jpg"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-14-2005, 11:18 PM
http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=http://pages.zdne...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.giffficial_s%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tailflak.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/b26tailgunner/id12.html&h=352&w=450&sz=17&tbnid=dB8E-p7pqEcJ:&tbnh=96&tbnw=124&hl=fi&start=59&prev=/images%3Fq%3D20mm%2Bcannon%26start%3D40%26hl%3Dfi% 26lr%3D%26newwindow%3D1%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:fi-FIhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.giffficial_s%26sa%3DN)

Just there u find that picture and that same picture. i dont mind at all what names they give to their pictures. or does the name tell what there is in every pic?

LLv34_Stafroty
06-14-2005, 11:37 PM
Buzzav, what is quick burst? can u define? lets see what u quoted here will we, seems like u didnt even urself understand what u quoted.

".. a P-47 flicked past me, and a Me109 was coming on his tail, right in front of me, from my left side. I gave the Me109 a quick squirt as it passed me, and he flew right into my bullets. He just came apart right in front of me. Poof! There was no more airplane."

Where the plane did go?



"...the 190 snapped and went into a flat spin. He had completed about two turns in the spin before I could lower my nose and fire a burst, which hit his cockpit from above. Instantly, the 190's canopy came off and and the pilot jumped out..."

FW in Spin, pilot in panic and bails. cant see anywhere mention about teared wings or flames or mushroom clouds.

"...I closed to approximately 200 yards while the 109 was making a firing pass at the B-17. As the German broke away from the Fort, I fired a burst and saw strikes on the canopy and engine. Large pieces of the aircraft flew off. The 109 continued a slow turn to the left, trailing black smoke. I was out of ammunition so I rejoined Goodnight. Lieutenant Mitchell saw my 109 crash..."

large pieces means what? skin panels? cant be wings or such cos he still flies after that atomic bombing. engine hit= trailing smoke.. same as in sim.

"...the 109 was flying so slowly and I was approaching it so quickly that I was only 200 yards away when I opened fire. I no sooner squeezed the trigger than I had to drop my nose to duck under the 109. I don't think the pilot ever saw me. The 109 fell straight into the ground and burst into flames."

So what is here about power of .50cals? PK?? u can kill ppl with luger as well. Plane burst in flames when it hit ground, flames because .50cals hit it? u think that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"...another 109 was lining up on Cutler. I was behind Cutler and his wingman. As luck would have it, I was in the perfect position to draw a 0 deflection bead on he Jerry closing up on Cutler's element. I fired a one second burst right up his six, from about 500 feet. It was an easy shot and he obviously never saw me. I saw strikes all over the plane. I must have hit his engine, because he caught on fire, broke off to the left, and went down."

again, PK and engine hit, can make same in sim now, whats new? plane still intact after hits.


"...I got hits on both wings from above and behind him. Then he straightened out, which gave me an even better shot that produced more hits. With that, the 190 flipped over, the canopy flew off, and the pilot bailed out."

hmm, no PK, no wing tearing or fire, pilot bailed after he got hit. so whats so special in this case? i can also bail out from FW190 if it get hitted, and i would if things go worse for me. was he alone there with FW or was there many US planes around there as well?


"I fired intermittent bursts at the 190 in front of me. I was pulling all the lead I could without blanking him out under my nose, but most of my bullets went behind him. As we approached treetop level, however, I began to score some hits. The FW190 was pulling wingtip streamers in his desperate low altitude struggle. Finally he reversed his turn, which was a fatal mistake. I hit him hard during the reversal. The pilot decided to jump out at minimum altitude, and he jettisoned his canopy, and jumped over the side of his cockpit."

what about this one? nothing about power of .50cals, pilot noticed that he got hitted and saw better that to bail than go down with his plane. cant see any mention about teared wings or such.


"...When I started getting in range, about 250 yards, I pulled my nose up to where he was just under it, and cut loose with my guns. I got him dead center... He practically blew up right in the sky. Pieces of him went everyplace. As I was going around, I saw the corpse of the pilot in the air and the plane spinning in."

First plane goes apart just second later plane is again in one piece dead pilot there too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif yea, i bet u can go on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, now THIS MAGNIFICENT PROOF didnt prove nothin in case. .50cals are like what those pilots accounts says, exactly like that, so why you still cry??
You dont have skills to aim like they did?

I think you want same kind of Damaeg model as i want, more realistic, but now, game engine seems not to be able to model damage to that extend.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 12:06 AM
Made some target practice wiht P51 against 109s and FW:s in QMB. 109 Dm seemed to be ok but FW has almost total immunity from direct 6 shots, is armour plate modelled too thick or what? when i got little angle, i can hurt FW really bad. Talkin about fuselage hits at convergence range. Wings does suffer from hits much it seems, at least when im in FW and if my wings would look like what AI FW.s wings looked like, i would bai right away.

anyway, when shoooting FW.s at angles 50cals bite, not just from dead 6.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 12:56 AM
Lookint o find out why I watched all tacks at 1/4 arcade etc.. On average.. FWa8 took 10 or 12 hits do go down.. if hits on same area!!! If you spread your hits very well on plane I neded in some ocasions more than 60 bullets!

Sounds totally reasonable.

And Buzzsaw, in the game some people are seeing dramatic effects from the 50 cal sometimes, and at other times not. Sounds to match real life on the whole from what I've read. The main issue is the gun synch one, and that's about it as far as I can tell. Planes are going down with about the same average number of hits in the game as in real life.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 12:57 AM
You will notice many of this are single bursts, and from the 4 gun P-51b.

I shot down a 109 with a 1/2 second burst in warclouds in a mustang III last night...

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 01:20 AM
well, i was flying last nite at WarClouds40 with P51 latest model, not that monster mustang III. So, my first Pray was FW190D9, put it fulla holes and got thick black smoke out from it just bit later it crashed. second kill was 109 who i attacked front of it belowe his nose and gave short snap op fire to its nose and belly, it went down. then came HE-111 attakced it first at high speed (like always) fomr 8oclock position, got some leaks and smokes from it, extended front of it and made long decending turn and attacked it below at headon, hitted good burst on its cockpit area and killed pilot rightaway, HE111 went down. Then long time later was many times surrounded by germans,but i just kept my speed over 500kmh all the time,so 109s didnt get on my tail, bounced one from level side attack and made some leaks and thin smoke, propably pilot wounded cos it didnt make any hard maneuvers after that. It as well went down after little more teasin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
Got one late model 109 in my tail had to make it towards home cos he as well was pretty fast and stayed in my 6 for good long time, came near own field and he was gone and i went to landing.
Checked how many rounds ive used and at what accurary, i was bit like O_O !!
1500 rounds used on which some 300 hitted so it makes 20% accuracy, it makes avg 75 per plane but bomber sucked most of those ammo cos it took 2 good bursts from me.

What is teasin me is that how much ammo i had left after that mission?

FatBoyHK
06-15-2005, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
Made some target practice wiht P51 against 109s and FW:s in QMB. 109 Dm seemed to be ok but FW has almost total immunity from direct 6 shots, is armour plate modelled too thick or what? when i got little angle, i can hurt FW really bad. Talkin about fuselage hits at convergence range. Wings does suffer from hits much it seems, at least when im in FW and if my wings would look like what AI FW.s wings looked like, i would bai right away.

anyway, when shoooting FW.s at angles 50cals bite, not just from dead 6.

That is the observation we quoted here for many many times, glad you get it finally.

The question is, should a FW have "total immunity" toward 50cals from dead 6? I hope you understand the real problem we are facing.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 04:48 AM
The question is, should a FW have "total immunity" toward 50cals from dead 6? I hope you understand the real problem we are facing.

Seems to be a different issue from the original one. What is the effect of 13mm guns and Soviet 12.7mm guns on the 190 from dead six? If there is an issue (I haven't caught a 190 online from dead six as yet) then it's likely to be a DM issue, not a 50 cal issue as I doubt the code says:

if ((enemy == Fw190) and (gun == 50cal)) {
donothing();
}

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 04:50 AM
Fatboy, you are whining for more power for .50cal, not to decreace armor plate in rear tail section of both LW fighters. Armor seems to be really good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe at last Germans find use for old Russian plane depris(deltawood chunks) and they put those deltawoods inside rear fuselage, could this be it???

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 04:52 AM
and hey fattie, .50cal still bites HARD from angles, really hard.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that a .50 cal can bounce off of human skin?

There are reports of even shells from battleships bouncing off from thinner plates, if the angle`s right.. the RAF had installed thin aluminium plates over the fuel tank during BoB to serve as deflection plates.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 05:28 AM
Seems like 109s are ok in DM, FW.s sure take hits from 6 much wihtout fuel leaks or anything. with angle dirreretn story. How much there was armor plating in different planes, would be really nice if we could see where each plane had armor and other stuff what is modelled in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 05:35 AM
Gotta say, i just wonder that "Hypemania" with .50cals on US players. Hey US players, our armies as well have .50cal in use, and we dont find it so special as you do. It is just heavy machine gun.

FatBoyHK
06-15-2005, 06:11 AM
I am not whining for more power for 50cals, if it is actaully the same as in v304. It seem to be the case, because I can shot down Ki100 and betty without any problem (they are now available in Warclouds 400 server).

After some confusion at the start, now we seem to be able to confirm that, it is the DM of the 190 (and may be 109 too) that has been changed, not the 50cals. So if they are toned down a bit, there will be no more legitimte reason for complaint.

And yes I agree that 50cals are still very effective in deflection shot. But, as it is soooo weak from dead six, and blue players know this trick, they just fly straight when being attacked. It is not a realistic way of flying, and I would like to have this tatcics elminiated.... That is all I want, nothing more.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 06:24 AM
Me 109 G:
"The weaponry was good when compared to the planes I'd flown earlier, Fokker D.XXI and Brewster."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.



Brewster had 4 x .50cal machineguns which according the tables is as effective as 20mm cannon. Again one proof that those tables doesnt tell whole truth.

Me 109 G:
"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Finnish pilots did kill many pilots as well with brewster, .50cals penetrated pilot armor etc. but about catashtropic damages they dont much talk about as with 20mm cannon.

VVS-Manuc
06-15-2005, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
Me 109 G:
"The weaponry was good when compared to the planes I'd flown earlier, Fokker D.XXI and Brewster."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.



Brewster had 4 x .50cal machineguns which according the tables is as effective as 20mm cannon. Again one proof that those tables doesnt tell whole truth.

Me 109 G:
"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


Finnish pilots did kill many pilots as well with brewster, .50cals penetrated pilot armor etc. but about catashtropic damages they dont much talk about as with 20mm cannon.

Does this mean that 4 x 0.50 are as effective as 4 x 20mm or that 4 x 0.50 are as effective as 1 x 20mm ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 07:34 AM
it clearly says: one .50cal bullet is same as one hiroshima A-Bomb. u just got to think it bit of time.

OldMan____
06-15-2005, 08:19 AM
One thing that must be kept in midn is that the definition of "enougth" or " capable" in RL was different from ours in game.


IN RL when a P51 hit a FW, and it started a thin trail of smoke, oil etc... It was enough. It was considered a success!! In game you usually see that people is not happy until plane disapears!


LW planes had to shot B17! These things were not going hoem just because a few AP rounds cutten ther skins. They had to be REALLY shot down! That is why heavy cannosn were needed.

And of course a weapon made to shot down a B17 will make any fighter become dust!


Is the same idea on that you can use an M16 rifle to stop a car or make it change his mind. It is effective.. but it is not effective at all againt a tank. When you use a weapon capable of damagind a tank on a car.. obviously it will be more destructive than a M16. But who in hell would bring a 120 mm cannons to keep a civilian car at bay when a M16 is enough? That is the main difference in .50 and Mk108 ideas.... The .50 was enough to fight fighters, that does not mean it made them disaper. if it was capable to do so, LW would have used them against the B17.

Buzzsaw-
06-15-2005, 08:36 AM
Salute

Funny coincidence how its always the Luftwhiners who claim while they are flying American planes, that they are able to shoot down countless numbers of German aircraft with single bursts of .50 cals... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
06-15-2005, 08:41 AM
Those evil Luftwhiners again, they never stop with their conspiracies ! I should have known.

The whole community thanks for your warning.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 08:47 AM
got again today morning FW190 Dora down with just 30 rounds on it.first short burst didnt bire from 6, so kicked rudder for good side slide and got side angle, tap on trigger, thin smoke, second tap, fire and blacksmoke. This was also at Warclouds and i got only 4 .50cals with me.

fordfan25
06-15-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Funny coincidence how its always the Luftwhiners who claim while they are flying American planes, that they are able to shoot down countless numbers of German aircraft with single bursts of .50 cals... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

well its nice to see im not the only one who notes that sorta thing lol

Blutarski2004
06-15-2005, 09:11 AM
I think that, in general, Oleg has the 50cal sorted out pretty well as regards its effect upon fighters. Some time ago, I posted an analysis of about 100+ fighter vs fighter action reports filed by US 8AF fighter pilots. The damage effects observed by these pilots were, in order of frequency -

> fragments of airframe knocked off the target.

> loss of a/c control (control damage a/o Pk).

> Heavy black smoke from the engine area (penetration of engine block a/o damage to oiling system).

> Fire.

> Explosion.

> Loss of a major airframe component (loss of a wing, etc).


The last two effects were rare.


Average ammunition expenditure per kill was 200-300 rounds. The action reports were all filed by "ace" 8AF pilots. So, assuming a better than average shooting accuracy of 10 pct, 20 to 30 50cal hits was more or less the average number required to score a kill against a single engine German fighter of later WW2 design.

Based upon the comments here, it sounds like Oleg has pretty much reproduced that effect in the game.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Funny coincidence how its always the Luftwhiners who claim while they are flying American planes, that they are able to shoot down countless numbers of German aircraft with single bursts of .50 cals... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

well its nice to see im not the only one who notes that sorta thing lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


it just cos someones have to get some realistic way of these things. You here are victin of hype, and that way act like spoiled lil kids http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 09:25 AM
Funny coincidence how its always the Luftwhiners who claim while they are flying American planes

I'm not a Luftwhiner (I rarely fly the LW planes ) but I find the 50 cal works for me sometimes, and not others. There may be issues with the DM, but I think a lot comes down to what angle you come in on the other plane and so on. A subtle difference in approach can lead to big differences in damage. And that seems to have been the case in WW2, DM issues notwithstanding.

fordfan25
06-15-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Funny coincidence how its always the Luftwhiners who claim while they are flying American planes, that they are able to shoot down countless numbers of German aircraft with single bursts of .50 cals... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

well its nice to see im not the only one who notes that sorta thing lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


it just cos someones have to get some realistic way of these things. You here are victin of hype, and that way act like spoiled lil kids http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

funny hearing a blue talk about things being relistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
06-15-2005, 10:36 AM
Dear God, look at all these expertens.

Blue players cried loudest, blue players now have a blue sim.

http://www.rarebeatles.com/sheetmu/smcrybab.jpg

FliegerAas
06-15-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well if the .50's was Nerfed, you would see me raising all sorts of hell about it. I dont think they are! I think they are the same, if not a little better!!! They seam to cut through armor rather well.

The problem is, a kill with a .50 cal is not always going to be spectacular! Aircraft wont always explode into bits. Wings wont always detach, or tails come off. I have many many times did a high speed B&Z on a 109 or 190, thought that I did not even hit to only be credited later on with a kill. Because I killed his pilot, damaged his controles, got his fuel tank, or is engine. A kill is a kill. Weather they explode like an over-inflated balloon, or wide up bailing from lack of aileron or belly in the grass 50 feet from his runway.

Reading this I remember an incident that has happened online. I was cought by a P51 and he managed to get some good hits. My engine was smoking so I decided to head back to the airfield. I tried to get as much out of my engine as possible and managed to keep the P51 at a distance. The Mustang sprayed short bursts at me, most of the bullets did not hit my plane. Nevertheless every now and then I heard .50's hitting my plane. In the end my screen was almost completely red because my pilot was heavily injured. My rudder was unusable because the cable was cut. One of my ailerons was shot away. My engine was smoking heavily and I hardly was able to maneouvre because my plane had so many holes. In the end I managed to land (don't ask me how I managed to do so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
I was cursing the darn overmodelled 50's because a few hits shot me up like hell and the US pilot was cursing the darn undermodelled 50's for not being able to bring me down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Thinking back I'm sure the next .50 would have finnished me off. IRL it could easily have been, that I had died after landing due to my heavy injuries.

I was flying with P38 and A20 yesterday and the 50's feel right to me. everytime I got a good shot at 109 they were seriously damaged or going down. I think the .50s are great as they are now. And they are definitely a very deadly weapon.

S^

geetarman
06-15-2005, 12:22 PM
As a dedicated Mustang pilot on WC these are my empirical observations since 4.0

- seem at bit easier to flame with (6).50's from any angle;

- 190's are definately harder from any angle.

- I think US-plane pilots are missing more with the .50s due to the lateral instability of the 51/47. I know I spend almost as much time keeping the ****ed ball centered at the various speeds I'm at than I do aiming! If you line up a good shot in a Mustang and don't skid, the .50's are fine. 190's do seem a "tad" too strong now.

BigKahuna_GS
06-15-2005, 12:37 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
The DM on the Fw was definitely altered. .50's don't light things up like they did...they did in real life...even with self sealing fuel tanks. Structural failures did occur in real life but I think there are limitations to modelling.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Hmm you maybe right. We had a squad fly night and I was chasing a 190A-6 putting burst after burst into it. Finally I commented how long it took to bring the 190 down. The 190 driver who flys the blue side in FS Missions pulled the stats. It showed I had 44-.50cal hits and what was funny is that he had thought that I shot another plane down before his. I said no, your plane is the first kill of the night--so all 44-.50cal hits went into 1 FW-190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif before it went down.


___

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 01:20 PM
44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
06-15-2005, 02:03 PM
Salute

Here is what the 109G6 manual says about this aircraft in the way of armour:

"...the windshield of the canopy is reinforced with a 60 mm plexiglass head protection armour, the rear part of the of the opening canopy is fitted with a 60mm plexiglass head protection armour (in the older type of canopy, 11mm steel), and the rear wall of the cockpit with 11mm back armour. To protect the fuel tank there is a two part light metal armour behind the tank. The fuel tank is entirely made of rubber and has a wall thickness of 8mm. Hence, it can be compressed together for e.g. installation. The tank wall will seal small calibre bullet holes."

Taken from page 3 of the manual at this location:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/bf109g6_english.pdf

Note that the fuel tank has only light metal 'IN THE BACK', no metal at the sides. The tank itself will only withstand small calibre MG's, not Heavy MG's. And the tank's light metal armour does not extend to the side, so any rounds from there will have no impediment. Also the rubber tank will only seal light MG rounds.

The pilot armour is better, able to withstand light MG's, but a HMG will go through it at ranges under 200 meters.

The issue is whether or not the effect of a .50 calibre round on the 109 is correctly modelled. From the above, it seems likely that any kind of hit at all, from any angle is going to cause an immediate fuel leak. And any hit from the side which enters the cockpit is going to either wound or kill the pilot. Any hit from behind at less than 200 meters has a very good chance, if it does not hit any structural members, of killing the pilot.

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thats the exception, not the rule. You have ONE FW return with a lot of holes, and the US had many many P-47's return just as damaged.

BTW, were IS this story of the FW with 200 holes? I have heard it regurgitated over and over and over on this forum. Does anyone have a link?

FliegerAas
06-15-2005, 02:42 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 LLv34_Stafroty:
44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thats the exception, not the rule. You have ONE FW return with a lot of holes, and the US had many many P-47's return just as damaged.

BTW, were IS this story of the FW with 200 holes? I have heard it regurgitated over and over and over on this forum. Does anyone have a link? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html
It's at the end of the first paragraph about the 190A.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 02:43 PM
u sure about .50cal is not small calibre http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
and, you dont take in account that if .50cal gets bounced off its flight path and starst to fly sideways, its penetration value drops significantly, also fuel tank, AC skin and struts slow down and affet flying style of round as will light metal alloy armor behind fuel tank.
Why should .50cal round when enterin cockpit kill or wound pilot?, it would do that, IF it hits the pilot, if not, pilot would be 100% OK, different thing would be, if cockpit is hit with HE, then thereÔ┬┤s big chanses that PK is imminent in that case.

Buzzav, Make little survey on other aircrafts on this sim, check how their armor is made, compare it to 109 or FW.

FliegerAas
06-15-2005, 02:44 PM
uups, wrong button....

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:

This one?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html
It's at the end of the first paragraph about the 190A.

"On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine"

So THIS is proof that the FW-190 can take 200 holes? 1 quote from a pilot who was in how own words Assuming? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif If I pulled the same BS with the US aircraft you Luftwhiners would be all over me like a wet rag saying that 1 quote does not make fact.

Also, there are two sides involved. Did the German pilot report this merical?

FliegerAas
06-15-2005, 02:54 PM
I never said it was a proof, did I?

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
I never said it was a proof, did I?

"44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits"

Other people are.

FliegerAas
06-15-2005, 03:11 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 FliegerAas:
I never said it was a proof, did I?

"44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits"

Other people are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And other people take stories of the same kind to proof that either german weapons are too effective or that the US planes are too weak etc... I wouldn't give too much on the stories, no matter which side tells them.
Never the less I think that 44 hits can down a fighter only when they are concentrated on one spot. Sprayed over the wings and fuselage doesn't necessarily mean a kill.

Cragger
06-15-2005, 03:19 PM
I ran many many tests today and one thing that can be definately said is the FW190s damage model is buggged. You cannot damage the fuel tank(s). Not once in over 20 FW190 A-8,9 and D-9s that I shot down did the fuel tank even begin to leak, Not once did the FW190 catch fire unless major structual failure occured with it (loss of tail from repeated 37mm hits). This is what is making the FW190 so tough. I used Mustang MKIII, P-63, P-47 and a Yak-9U in the tests. The Yak for comparison to the UBS guns.

As for the 109, I did several tests on it and though it seems it may be alittle tougher in that the engine is harder to get 'black smoke' from than before as long as I hit it at convergence it was generally going down eventually. Its just critical that you get that first burst at convergence now.

Right now LW planes are dominating online DF servers mainly because every one of them is late war and late war every LW plane comes with the option or only cannon of Mk108 and this is unrealistic as there where hardly enough Mk108s to outfit the entire LW with them. Flying 'blue' with that gun you don't have to be a good shot just a lucky one, no offense.

Cajun76
06-15-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
44 aint so much if u ask me, remember one FW from real life which took some 200 50cal hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Good grief, this is somehow proof? Carson assumed he was getting 10% hits. It could even be more, but to quote this blurb over and over about his assumption is just ridiculous.

Of course, you seem to imply that every single 20mm round is explosive, and fuses properly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Even using the statement (which seems biased and higher than other similar conclusions) that 20mm is 4 X the power of a 12.7mm, I'd rather have 8 x 12.7 than 2 x 20mm. Chances to hit, ballistics, weight of fire and rounds per second all come into play here.

BTW, what is 127 divided by 200? Just curious....

bazzaah2
06-15-2005, 04:00 PM
I like the 0.50s now. I used to sigh a little when I'd give a 190 at high deflection a 1 second burst from 200m and watch it burst into flames.

Earlier tonight I played around with QMB and apart from loving the fact that I no longer black out following an AI plane's evasive manouevres, I did discover that a well placed 1 second burst will take the wing off a 109. 190s are harder to take down now though a well placed burst still gets the engine smoking nicely. Much more of a challenge and it feels right. Just my 0.02 but things are a lot better now, but that's nothing more than a feeling.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 04:04 PM
I'd rather have 8 x 12.7 than 2 x 20mm. Chances to hit,

Remember, though, that the chance of hitting is most dependent on accuracy and the additional number of guns has a smaller effect than most imagine on the chance of at least one hit, and mostly increases the number of hits (it sounds contradictory but isn't). 1x20mm is too low to have a really good chance of hitting in most situations where a target crosses your sights. 2x20mm is on the edge of acceptable chances to score at least one hit, 4x20mm (or 4x.50 for that matter) is plenty.

The USN reckoned one 20mm was worth 3 .50s in terms of hitting power, so the cross over there is 6 50 cals to 2 20mm, but the nod would just go to the 6 50 cals due to a slightly improved chance of landing at least one hit. 8 50s should tend to pack more punch than 2 20s, but rather less than 4 20s.

Of course there are so many variables and chances of lucky hits and so on that it's just the averages here. Anything can happen when the bullets start flying.

fordfan25
06-15-2005, 05:33 PM
on war clouds earlyer to day i was in a mark3 stang and tangled with a FW. it ended with me blowing up from being hit by my own base's AAA. after i typed <gunstat and it showed i hit him 38 times. he never got a fuil leak,smokeing engien nothing in fact he hardly tried to dodge. he did not even lose a control serfec. i can hit a hellcat with 5 rounds and a wing will be on fire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 05:49 PM
I will try to do a test tonight on the DM. Fw-190 vs F6F and P-47. All 3 birds are very well known for taking damage.

Question. Whats the command to get hit stats? Can I do that in QMB or do I need to set up a local multi-player game?

Hunter82
06-15-2005, 06:12 PM
MP game

Gibbage1
06-15-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Hunter82:
MP game

Thanks. Whats the console command?

Grey_Mouser67
06-15-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I think that, in general, Oleg has the 50cal sorted out pretty well as regards its effect upon fighters. Some time ago, I posted an analysis of about 100+ fighter vs fighter action reports filed by US 8AF fighter pilots. The damage effects observed by these pilots were, in order of frequency -

> fragments of airframe knocked off the target.

> loss of a/c control (control damage a/o Pk).

> Heavy black smoke from the engine area (penetration of engine block a/o damage to oiling system).

> Fire.

> Explosion.

> Loss of a major airframe component (loss of a wing, etc).


The last two effects were rare.


Average ammunition expenditure per kill was 200-300 rounds. The action reports were all filed by "ace" 8AF pilots. So, assuming a better than average shooting accuracy of 10 pct, 20 to 30 50cal hits was more or less the average number required to score a kill against a single engine German fighter of later WW2 design.

Based upon the comments here, it sounds like Oleg has pretty much reproduced that effect in the game.


This is a great way to analyze how the game translates relative to real life...thanks Blutarski you may be making the most sense of anyone...

So lets do some math: I don't know how many rounds a Mustang carried...but it seems to me it was about 1800 rounds...lets assume the average pilot above takes 250 rounds/kill. 1800/250= 7.2 kills per complete ammo load.

Now lets assume these kills stated above are confirmed kills...that is planes that are observed by more than one person crashing or those that gun cam film deem to be unflyable.

Now lets compare that to ingame results...anyone averaging 7.2 kills per sortie if you could empty your ammo on enemy targets every time you flew? I'm not...and while I don't claim to be a great ace, I'm no slouch either! And don't count the smokers that land back at base that 10 minutes later you get credit for...those wouldn't likely count in real life unless gun cam film said otherwise.

I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic. Of course my 1800 rounds may be wrong... but either way, I doubt any pilots out there average more than 3 real kills per sortie in a P-51 in an online environment.

I'd say there is room for improvement.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2005, 10:49 PM
I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic.

Your logic is backwards, though. You have to think in Bayesian terms. The correct way to think is the average number of rounds fired, given that a kill occured, is 200-300. This does not mean the same as 200-300 rounds fired means that a kill, on average, occurs. It may sound counterintuitive, but this is why there is a job called satistician as this stuff is sometimes counterintuitive.

Gibbage1
06-16-2005, 01:17 AM
BRAKING NEWS!!!!!!

Its NOT the .50 cal in IL2 thats porked. Its there TARGETS!!!!!!! I have proof. I just did about 3 hours of extensive testing. Im assembling the data now. Lets just sat the FW is a TANK and the P-47 and F6F's are flaming buffballs. BRB.

FritzGryphon
06-16-2005, 01:35 AM
Arnie did a nice test of some guns in PF. He shot lots and lots of planes, and recorded how many hits it took to kill each. Gives nice ballpark figure of relative weapon effectiveness.

On average, he found that it only takes 20-30 hits to kill most planes. Interestingly, Zero only took average of 6.8 hits to kill.

Like Gibbage said, most durable was FW-190. Even still, it only took average 37 hits to kill.

Strangely, when it came to machine guns, the P-47 is mediocre. From cannon, it is most durable of all.

Just like RL, most of the M2 kills were pilot kill, loss of control or fire. The cannons have more tendancy to blow off major airframe components. So a person using machine guns might end up pouring bullets into a plane that's already finished.

For every MG151 hit, it takes about 4-5 M2 hits to equal. Slightly more for hispano. This seems perfectly reasonable.

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

Gibbage1
06-16-2005, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Arnie did a nice test of some guns in PF. He shot lots and lots of planes, and recorded how many hits it took to kill each. Gives nice ballpark figure of relative weapon effectiveness.


I was testing critical damages and found some VERY interesting things.

FW-190's engine took on AVERAGE 70 hits to stop. Thats shooting in between the spinner and coweling.

P-47 engine took on average 6 hits.

F6F engine took on average 6 hits.

Both the P-47 and F6F's were very well known for how durable they were.

FritzGryphon
06-16-2005, 01:52 AM
Average 70? Lol. How many trials, I wonder?

Has anvil under the hood.

Gibbage1
06-16-2005, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Average 70? Lol. How many trials, I wonder?

Has anvil under the hood.

I tried about 10 times each aircraft. I have tracks I WILL post. Multiple tracks for each aircraft.

I posted my notes here. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=631109...791038033#1791038033 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=1791038033&r=1791038033#1791038033)

RS_Half_PInt
06-16-2005, 06:15 AM
This is just another peg in the preponderance of evidence from an expert witness testifying to the devastating firepower of the P-47 and its ability to absorb damage along with the armour piercing capabilities of the 50 caliber.

John Houston Oliphint is a Command Fighter Pilot with over 6,000 flight hours in props and jets; fighters, helicopters, sea planes, twin and four engine aircraft. He flew combat and was a covert agent active in WW II, Korea, The Cold War, and Vietnam. He holds 43 decorations and awards, including the Silver Star, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, Air Medals, Bronze Star, Purple hearts, and many more.

Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.


Example: after an escort, I arranged to "get lost," went to treetop level to avoid flak and followed a railroad track between two cities. Gun-camera film shows 14 railroad engines destroyed before I ran out of ammunition on my way back to base. Another example: returning from a mission, I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. He fired; I fired. Neither of us would move, and how we didn't crash still mystifies me. When he passed under me, he was dead-plane shredded, on fire and going down. My Thunderbolt's left gun and ammo covers had been blown away, its left wheel and engine cowl had gone, there were numerous one-foot holes in both wings, the number seven and eight cylinders had been blown away, the prop blades had holes, the tail was shredded and pieces of my plane were coming off all over. I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me


http://www.madrebel.com/index2.html

Half_Pint

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2005, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
This is a great way to analyze how the game translates relative to real life...thanks Blutarski you may be making the most sense of anyone...

So lets do some math: I don't know how many rounds a Mustang carried...but it seems to me it was about 1800 rounds...lets assume the average pilot above takes 250 rounds/kill. 1800/250= 7.2 kills per complete ammo load.

Now lets assume these kills stated above are confirmed kills...that is planes that are observed by more than one person crashing or those that gun cam film deem to be unflyable.

Now lets compare that to ingame results...anyone averaging 7.2 kills per sortie if you could empty your ammo on enemy targets every time you flew? I'm not...and while I don't claim to be a great ace, I'm no slouch either! And don't count the smokers that land back at base that 10 minutes later you get credit for...those wouldn't likely count in real life unless gun cam film said otherwise.

I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic. Of course my 1800 rounds may be wrong... but either way, I doubt any pilots out there average more than 3 real kills per sortie in a P-51 in an online environment.

I'd say there is room for improvement.

In addition to what Aaron wrote, you also assume that you are a match for an 8th AF Ace!

And for what Aaron wrote -- how many times did these guys come back with little or no ammo
left? How many times did these guys claim 5+ kills in one sortie? If all the claims were
true then the LW would have had to have made as many planes as they did many times over!
US allowed grounded planes destroyed (or thought to be) to be counted too, those go to the
average as 8th AF fighters went down after the bombers were safe (enough) and shot up what
they could on the ground as collateral damage to the raid. There were a lot of LW planes
on the ground not shot up at the end of the war, too. It says a lot about claims and
averages.

Gee, can I just count the ammo used by 8th AF fighters and divide by 250 to get total kills?

Or do I say that the first and biggest room for improvement is outside the sim itself?

Blutarski2004
06-16-2005, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
This is a great way to analyze how the game translates relative to real life...thanks Blutarski you may be making the most sense of anyone...

So lets do some math: I don't know how many rounds a Mustang carried...but it seems to me it was about 1800 rounds...lets assume the average pilot above takes 250 rounds/kill. 1800/250= 7.2 kills per complete ammo load.

Now lets assume these kills stated above are confirmed kills...that is planes that are observed by more than one person crashing or those that gun cam film deem to be unflyable.

Now lets compare that to ingame results...anyone averaging 7.2 kills per sortie if you could empty your ammo on enemy targets every time you flew? I'm not...and while I don't claim to be a great ace, I'm no slouch either! And don't count the smokers that land back at base that 10 minutes later you get credit for...those wouldn't likely count in real life unless gun cam film said otherwise.

I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic. Of course my 1800 rounds may be wrong... but either way, I doubt any pilots out there average more than 3 real kills per sortie in a P-51 in an online environment.

I'd say there is room for improvement.



..... GM, I think that my analysis is probably good for understanding (a) the principal types of damage inflicted by 50cal, and (b) the number of hits required to bring down a fighter. But it is important to keep in mind that all the cases which I analyzed involved victories by "aces". IIRC, I thinki that the AVERAGE shooting accuracy for a WW2 fighter pilot was about 2 pct. If so, then an average pilot might require his entire ammunition load to make a single kill.

As far as multiple kill potential is concerned, the governing factor would probably be the number of times a pilot could spring a surprise attack over the course of a single mission. 80 pct or more of kills were the result of surprise "bounces".

One other thought comes to mind. Without being able to say so definitively, my impression is that most "ace" type pilots aimed for the forward fuselage (engine & pilot). If so, then this would explain the prevalence of observed engine smoking, loss of power, and loss of control. But it may also explain the apparent rarity of airframe destruction (wing loss, for example); hits on the wings might have been a good deal rarer in the cases of these "ace" pilots than in the cases of less talented pilots. It is possible that that my data base is not fully representative and that a multi-gun 50cal battery was capable of taking off a wing with a good burst by a shooter who was less selective in his targeting.

Just a thought.

OldMan____
06-16-2005, 10:29 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 FritzGryphon:
Arnie did a nice test of some guns in PF. He shot lots and lots of planes, and recorded how many hits it took to kill each. Gives nice ballpark figure of relative weapon effectiveness.


I was testing critical damages and found some VERY interesting things.

FW-190's engine took on AVERAGE 70 hits to stop. Thats shooting in between the spinner and coweling.

P-47 engine took on average 6 hits.

F6F engine took on average 6 hits.

Both the P-47 and F6F's were very well known for how durable they were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from behind? Side or front? On the front FW is tougher than any plane, and it WAS in RL since it was only plane tought to sit behind a B17 and shot it. Other planes were armored from shots from behind.


My average number of hits required to get a FW190 engine out from under, side or up.. is < 10.

Grey_Mouser67
06-16-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
This is a great way to analyze how the game translates relative to real life...thanks Blutarski you may be making the most sense of anyone...

So lets do some math: I don't know how many rounds a Mustang carried...but it seems to me it was about 1800 rounds...lets assume the average pilot above takes 250 rounds/kill. 1800/250= 7.2 kills per complete ammo load.

Now lets assume these kills stated above are confirmed kills...that is planes that are observed by more than one person crashing or those that gun cam film deem to be unflyable.

Now lets compare that to ingame results...anyone averaging 7.2 kills per sortie if you could empty your ammo on enemy targets every time you flew? I'm not...and while I don't claim to be a great ace, I'm no slouch either! And don't count the smokers that land back at base that 10 minutes later you get credit for...those wouldn't likely count in real life unless gun cam film said otherwise.

I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic. Of course my 1800 rounds may be wrong... but either way, I doubt any pilots out there average more than 3 real kills per sortie in a P-51 in an online environment.

I'd say there is room for improvement.



..... GM, I think that my analysis is probably good for understanding (a) the principal types of damage inflicted by 50cal, and (b) the number of hits required to bring down a fighter. But it is important to keep in mind that all the cases which I analyzed involved victories by "aces". IIRC, I thinki that the AVERAGE shooting accuracy for a WW2 fighter pilot was about 2 pct. If so, then an average pilot might require his entire ammunition load to make a single kill.

As far as multiple kill potential is concerned, the governing factor would probably be the number of times a pilot could spring a surprise attack over the course of a single mission. 80 pct or more of kills were the result of surprise "bounces".

One other thought comes to mind. Without being able to say so definitively, my impression is that most "ace" type pilots aimed for the forward fuselage (engine & pilot). If so, then this would explain the prevalence of observed engine smoking, loss of power, and loss of control. But it may also explain the apparent rarity of airframe destruction (wing loss, for example); hits on the wings might have been a good deal rarer in the cases of these "ace" pilots than in the cases of less talented pilots. It is possible that that my data base is not fully representative and that a multi-gun 50cal battery was capable of taking off a wing with a good burst by a shooter who was less selective in his targeting.

Just a thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your logic is right on and I'm applying my averages to ace online pilots...I'd expect them to be as good ingame as were the real pilots.

I have a buddy who is learning to fly and frankly speaking he can't hit much of anything and is shot down repeatedly...makes sense since he is new.

I've been flying for five years and many of the folks I fly with are online "aces"....so the comparison fits with them....so I would expect them to average 200-300 rounds per kill if the virtual, subjective reality was a close proximation of the real, objective reality of 1944.

Based on what you posted...either it is too hard to hit our ingame targets or if we do, it doesn't do much damage. I think it is the kind of data you posted that helps all of us think about the game and its accuracy. I'm sure there are extenuating circumstances....most of my online kills with .50's occur when the pilot loses track of me too...I have a very hard time killing an opponent if he is aware of me, with energy and evading...mostly I just move on to another target lest I become dead. I'd also speculate that there are way more 1 pass kills in real life than ingame with HMG's.

Lets do some more math...at 6 guns firing at 850 rounds per minute we are getting 85 bullets per second. 250 rounds divided by 85 bullets/second means the average pilot fired off a 2.9 second burst or two for every kill and I'd agree that maybe 10% of the rounds actually hit the target on average...closer being higher and longer being lower hit %.

That certainly makes sense...If I am closing on my target and I'm say 60mph faster and I begin to fire at say 300 yards I will have traveled 264 ft closer to the target at the end of my 3 second burst or be about 212 yards away.

Seems logical to me.

Grey_Mouser67
06-17-2005, 03:39 PM
This thread has gone suddenly silent...

Is there any good reason that if real 8th airforce pilots averaged 200-300 rounds per kill that our virtual aces shouldn't be able to do that as well?

I would think we'd have a perfect match...maybe the mode of failure/effects might be different but that would be a match in terms of realism.

Gibbage1
06-17-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Is there any good reason that if real 8th airforce pilots averaged 200-300 rounds per kill that our virtual aces shouldn't be able to do that as well?



I would think that us virtual pilots would need less. We dont have G-forces to deal with, or the real fear of being killed. So we take our time, and fire more accuratly.

Also, the average IL2 player has a LOT more "seat time" in there virtual aircraft then real pilots had in there real aircraft. He have flown them too and beyond there limits, and found our aim better then any WWII counterpart. Im NOT saying that any of us would be better in WWII then real pilots, im just saying we know our game better.

For example, a good online pilot will score 30-40% hits. The average asumed hit % in WWII is 10%. That says a lot.

It takes me no more then 100 rounds of ammo to down anything but a FW in IL2. Mostly less. Sometimes a lot less.

Grey_Mouser67
06-17-2005, 04:29 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 Grey_Mouser67:
Is there any good reason that if real 8th airforce pilots averaged 200-300 rounds per kill that our virtual aces shouldn't be able to do that as well?


I would think that us virtual pilots would need less. We dont have G-forces to deal with, or the real fear of being killed. So we take our time, and fire more accuratly.

Also, the average IL2 player has a LOT more "seat time" in there virtual aircraft then real pilots had in there real aircraft. He have flown them too and beyond there limits, and found our aim better then any WWII counterpart. Im NOT saying that any of us would be better in WWII then real pilots, im just saying we know our game better.

For example, a good online pilot will score 30-40% hits. The average asumed hit % in WWII is 10%. That says a lot.

It takes me no more then 100 rounds of ammo to down anything but a FW in IL2. Mostly less. Sometimes a lot less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I assume you are talking rounds hitting and I would agree with that number, but if you meant otherwise...then you should be able to kill say 18 Me109's with an 1800 round ammo load on a P-51?

The statistics I'm stating are rounds fired...these include hits and misses. These are aces...and yes, while I am not a statistician by trade, I have a working knowledge of statistics and yes there are many players that have ammassed many more hours, shots fired etc in the virtual world as those aces in WWII....this is all about how reality translates to the sim.

If it requires an ace 200-300 rounds fired, hits and misses, in real life to down a single engined fighter than a virtual pilot of similar skill should be able to do the same if programming does a reasonable job of duplicating reality...that is my argument...some folks went to the thesaurus to argue the point, others...well they are going to resist cause its not in the best interest of their egos to have the HMG's improved.

I find it hard to argue that logic...reality tranlating to programming is what we're after. Programmers can not duplicate fear, adreniline, cold, g-forces, the fog of war etc... they can only simulate the outcome...old trim vs new trim is a good example of that....

So...if there is good data stating that 4 mk 108's knock down a B-17...wouldn't you want that in your sim? I would.

If it takes 200-300 shots fired to knock down an opponent...then it should translate too. Argue the logic or argue the facts...but no emotion or "baffle you with bull" tactics.

Weapons strength and damage modelling are some of the most subjective programming challenges, but they directly affect gameplay.

I know gib you are working on the Fw thing, but this latest information has changed my thinking on the .50's. I felt for awhile they have been on the weak side, but tolerable...I now think they are actually very weak...the Mg151's I thought were too strong...but they just might be right now.

I remember flying Janes thinking..oh my these weapons are too strong...I think they were but it is possible they were closer than what we have here.

Grey_Mouser67
06-17-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd say there is a discrepency in game vs. real life based on this line of logic.

Your logic is backwards, though. You have to think in Bayesian terms. The correct way to think is the average number of rounds fired, given that a kill occured, is 200-300. This does not mean the same as 200-300 rounds fired means that a kill, on average, occurs. It may sound counterintuitive, but this is why there is a job called satistician as this stuff is sometimes counterintuitive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would respectfully disagree with this...I beleive there was no way to tell which bullets were fired at targets that were killed vs which were fired at targets that were not killed.

I think what happened is when planes returned, ammo was counted and looked at vs the kills. It is possible that some planes came back with ammo fired and no kills, i'm not certain about that but I don't think that changes the logic at all... when I fire upon a targe ingame...assuming from a relative standpoint I am a virtual ace for example, I would expect similar results.

Neither I nor any person I know online is getting those kinds of results pre or post patch...fw or 109....now zekes are another story but we're not looking there.

The kills must be the equivilant to "confirmed" kills. I get lots of online kills that I never see..I'd say as much as 50% with Mustangs.

Skalgrim
06-17-2005, 05:07 PM
real,

had the pilots over own country fast use the chute when his plane was damage, sure much faster as over enemy country.

In game fly most too with heavily damage plane that is almost not to maneuver and even too with burning engine to attempt to land, chute use not many.

seem the most from us are virtual tired of living

that is probable reason you need more hits as average was need real

ther reason, average online pilots make probable better defensive maneuver as the average real pilots, look of the guncame




Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
This thread has gone suddenly silent...

Is there any good reason that if real 8th airforce pilots averaged 200-300 rounds per kill that our virtual aces shouldn't be able to do that as well?

I would think we'd have a perfect match...maybe the mode of failure/effects might be different but that would be a match in terms of realism.

Gibbage1
06-17-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

I assume you are talking rounds hitting and I would agree with that number, but if you meant otherwise...then you should be able to kill say 18 Me109's with an 1800 round ammo load on a P-51?


I bet you I can do it. In a QMB with 16 109's I bet I can shoot down all of them without unlimited ammo.

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2005, 05:31 PM
The FM we have now is different and more exacting to fly and shoot with than before let
alone for the last 5 years. It's a whole new game and online aces from before are not
going to achieve the same results now. Ego carries its own load, seems it makes it
harder to learn on a "can't improve me much" and "must be the game that's wrong" way.

It's not just hits but where you hit and with wing guns, hits at convergence too.
I doubt that Marseilles used as many shots as many other LW Aces, on average.

Aaron_GT
06-17-2005, 05:35 PM
I would respectfully disagree with this...I beleive there was no way to tell which bullets were fired at targets that were killed vs which were fired at targets that were not killed.

This is true. It is just that the testing some people are doing (firing at a target and seeing how many bullets are fired for the plane to be downed) is not the same as the 200-300 statistic. The former statistic is the number of hits given that a plane has been downed in that particular engagement, whereas the latter is an average over all engagements including unsuccessful ones within a mission that includes at least one successful engagement.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-17-2005, 08:36 PM
Sorry if this has been covered but I couldn't be bothered to read all the posts beforehand....

I'll contradict myself now and say that I don't see what is gained from the real life statistics because this game isn't really comparable. To say that someone should average n hits per kill, as they did in real life, assumes that the kill figures were accurate in the first place and we know very well that these numbers could be far from correct. We also know that we have the benefit of consistently accurate recording of hit data with the game.

i.e. We know that in a real combat engagement, a downed aircraft may be hit by 3 or 4 attackers who didn't see someone else attack that aircraft (increasingly likely as pilots would prefer to go after damaged planes). In that respect, we may have 3 pilots claiming to have downed an aircraft with 200 hits each..when, in fact, it took 600 hits to down it (and that's if they saw it go down). Immediately, we have large margins of error (not an acceptable +/- 30% but, possibly, +/- 300%) being factored in.

There is no easy way to make an assessment of this but something which may be more represenative of finding if .50s are more or less effective, is to look at longer term statistics from online servers for comparison. Kills against aircraft are recorded and trends should be relatively easy to spot. Also, if people have been 'sturmologging' or similar, they (assuming they are not doctored) could be used to build up a bigger picture.

Regardless, this would have to be done prior to every single patch because we know that DMs and WMs change almost constantly.

I also think it's much more likely to be increased strength of certain DMs that are to blame and a lot of people are not seeing the 'Lagg3' effect manifested with the 190's lack of fuel tank fire.

Of course, it would be unwise to discount a little bit of psychology and not a small amount of 'bias' in some claims...no one is exempt from that.

Ta,
Norris

Grey_Mouser67
06-17-2005, 09:44 PM
The unfortunate thing is that neither Oleg nor I or any one posting here has flown a Mustang and fired upon and shot down 109's.

We do, therefore, use whatever we can dig up to make the best assessment of the situation. I felt like the .50's were actually closest in one of those leaked beta patches...3.02 or something like that which was only a slight bit more powerful than what we have now.

Given what was written and the study done...they are averages and don't depict the variation...it is the most tangible evidence I have encountered to judge what we currently have. I don't and won't fall into the "there are too many variables to possibly understand" notion. The game must be programmed to what is our best understanding of what happened 60 years ago.

This is the best way I have come across to think about the power of the .50's. To dismiss it outright would be to evade a possible truth. I will keep searching and until I find a more tangible bit of evidence to again change my mind...I am now, recently, under a new belief around the killing power of the .50's.

Like I said before, I felt they were ever so slightly underpowered....I now feel they are substantially underpowered and/or the game is such that it is too hard to hit.

Take the statistics for what they are worth and try not to read too much into them...understand the context with which they were derived and understand the math...statistics can lie they can drive you mad especially when you try to rationalize what they are telling you.

8th army aces shot down about 100 planes during the study and used about 25000 rounds to do it...or about 250 rounds...this is hits and misses.

If I compare my own statistics and those of good pilots I fly with they don't come close to this....if I take out the smokers that land later to be counted it is way, way off.

Many of the folks I fly with...including Norris are pretty good pilots and I would put them in the upper quartile and as far as I'm concerned are a good group to compare to 8th AF aces in a virtual sense of course...as there is no real comparison to be made...only that the best virtual pilots should score like the best real pilots....looking at the upper 30%, I see a big difference.

That is all really...I would want all weapons strength, and damage models...even those of my enemy to be as close as possible and right on relative to the different aircraft

Fennec_P
06-17-2005, 11:41 PM
Just a thought.

Since the IL-2 damage system uses specs directly from the real weapon (mass, velocity, explosive, etc), the relative effectiveness of these weapons will always be the same.

So say one figures 50cal should be better, all the weapons get better along with it, and vice versa. The only thing that could change as far as weapon effectiveness is a global multiplier (or conversely, a multiplier for the plane toughness, which would accomplish the same thing).

So in fact, you're not talking about effectiveness of one weapon, but for the entire system of weapons. Fewer hits to kill with M2 would mean fewer hits to kill with everything else.

DONB3397
06-18-2005, 12:54 AM
This subject has been worked over pretty well in the posts I've read. My offline experience is still limited with 4.01, but the .50's do seem pretty ineffective against LW a/c, while they'll tear the tail off a Betty and explode a zeke in one burst.

I've only had a couple of chances to fly online with the patch. Same story. But I'm still fighting the yaw effect and online pilots don't wait around long enough to line up and test guns (lol).

Aaron_GT
06-18-2005, 02:35 AM
Like I said before, I felt they were ever so slightly underpowered....I now feel they are substantially underpowered and/or the game is such that it is too hard to hit.

Subjectively I think the .50s in 4.01 are slightly more powerful than 3.04, to be honest, but there isn't much in it.

The problem with average out to 250 rounds fired for each target downed is that this is averaged out over planes that weren't downed also. Ace flies mission, fires short burst (100 rounds) at target and misses. Fires 400 at target and downs it. Average 250, but statistic totally skewed. Or... fires 400 rounds at plane and doesn't down it (most shots missed, perhaps) fires 100 at plane (10% hit) - average 250, but statistic skewed. Long term averages should go a long way to removing some of those variations but you can't really get an accurate picture unless you know how many rounds were fired for successful engagements only, and average over those. There are all sorts of dangers of data pooling. Counting rounds fired over all successful engagements only would give you the right figure. It's not a trivial statistical problem. Presented with the base information that we have a statistician would have a hard time coming up with anything but 250 rounds/kill on average, but it potentially hides a lot and may be inaccurate. If information on the length of bursts aces fired at targets in each engagement (kill or not) we'd have about enough information to get a pretty accurate picture, all the prior and post probabilities, and the variation. Due to lack of this information 250/kill is the best we can do, but it's only a very rough guide.

Aaron_GT
06-18-2005, 02:36 AM
If I compare my own statistics and those of good pilots I fly with they don't come close to this....if I take out the smokers that land later to be counted it is way, way off.

In which direction do you feel it is off?

Aaron_GT
06-18-2005, 02:37 AM
Oops I see you are saying they are underpowered.

Aaron_GT
06-18-2005, 02:41 AM
Based on 10% accuracy of an ace in WW2 on 250-300 rounds/kill and based on figures people are posting for kills using 50 cals, we might be close as they seem to vary from 10-50 rounds hitting per kill. I haven't seen the 8th AF study so I don't know if we can get standard deviations from it.

What is true in the game is that the missions and interfaces make it more likely to get in a position where a kill can be scored, plus it is easier for us to become aces (no danger of being killed). So the total number of kills being scored is too high. In WW2 most pilots did not become aces.

WWMaxGunz
06-18-2005, 07:15 AM
OTOH I can't believe that 8th AF Aces counted hits -- the average had to be shots made alone.

OTOH I don't believe the claims = the kills because there were more claims than LW planes made,
let alone flown!

I also believe that online aces have been getting it easier than IRL and that gap of easier is
getting smaller. IRL the view out front was much larger with peripheral view and real 3D, not
simulated pixels. IRL the pilots could feel the motion of their plane and force on the stick.
IRL in close you could see where the rounds strike better for more precise aim correction, if
you had the time which is stretching it on say, a Hartmann style attack but not some others.

Lastly, we don't get much of the real situation online, our targets usually have high awareness
and more experience than average IRL coupled with weird shortcomings in view but other bonusses,
it is really not any big wonder the statistics don't line up.

But should guns, ammo or DM's be adjusted to bring that in line? Please I hope not! I have
already seen the gunnery of one sim arcaded just over overall statistical non-matching garbage.

WWMaxGunz
06-18-2005, 07:17 AM
And Skalgrim has it right about IRL, pilots bailed sooner than online.