PDA

View Full Version : Cannon and MG efficiency in air to air combat - online test



KraljMatjaz
02-14-2006, 01:55 PM
I tested two kinds of weapons in this online test (I was flying UKD1 server, a non-pit and external on - great server btw - because it is easier to pile up victories faster as on FR servers): (it was 4.02 version!!, but since I doubt power of theese weapons changed much, I stil find it worth of posting)

browning M2 .50 cal machinegun most US planes are armed with, stats here (http://www.il2hq.com/Stats/playerdetails.php?id=6923)

soviet ShVAK cannon, most soviet fighters are armed with. stats here (http://www.il2hq.com/Stats/playerdetails.php?id=6977)

in both cases I was shooting down mostly fighters and just a couple or so bombers or twins.

with .50 cals I needed 10719 hits to score 135 kills (great majority of kills were German and Japanese single engined fighters from all periods of war).

That's 79.4 .50 cal hits per kill.

with ShVAK I needed 1144 hits to bring down 80 planes (again, almost exclusively Fw190 and Bf109 series of 1942-45 period)

That sums up for 14,3 ShVAK 20mm cannon shells per kill.

i am sure number of kills is big enough to represent a valid information, as a number of hits per kill didn't vary much as soon as I reached 8-10 kills.

it should be noted however, that FBD many times recorded a kill from a plane that I damaged, but it RTBed succsessfuly and awarded me with a kill - this effectively lowers number of hits per kill. on the other hand I damaged many planes, which were consequently destroyed by someone else - and this efectively rises hits/kill ratio, so by the rule of thumb I believe it rougly cancels out.

now to results:

79.4 hits per kill with M2 is by far to much. in ETO 20 .50 cal hits were on average liable to down single engined fighter. considering the fact that at least 40% of my victories were over japanese easy-to-burn planes, situation becomes ever worse.

same with ShVAK: as read many times on this forum (and as common sense that has ever seen 20mm in action believes), 3-5 20mm hits were on average needed to kill a single engined fighter. for shvak one needs 14 of them, this seems way off too.

i don't think desinchronisation of M2 helps much with hit/kill ratio (it helps to hit at first place).

there is another factor that affects hit/kill ratio: on a non-fr servers hits to a plane are coming from everywhere, while on FR or in real life, they did come mostly from rear. and from rear you general need even more hits.

i find all weapons in game undermodelled, but 20mm cannons still closest to RL (particulary Mg151/20 and Hispano), while machineguns are way off.

Friendly_flyer
02-14-2006, 02:06 PM
A few patches ago, all weapons where deadly. It would be nice if it was stil so.

georgeo76
02-14-2006, 02:28 PM
couple of points. I'm not saying the .50 is OK, but there are some questions about your methodology.

The 18-20 .50 hits needed to kill in WWII included lots of pilots who bailed out. I believe a RL pilot would jump far sooner than an online pilot.

The P47 shoots about 72 bullets a second, the P51 about 54, You may have hit some targets with far more bullets than was necessary to kill them. Also, you may have put less-than-lethal amounts of ammo into targets that escaped.

Basically, if your going to compare your stats w/ historical ones, you'll have to reproduce their methodology.

Kocur_
02-14-2006, 04:12 PM
3-5 20mm hits were on average needed to kill a single engined fighter. for shvak one needs 14 of them, this seems way off too.

But 3-5 20mm hits by what cannon/ammo? ShVAK is the last in the league...

The-Pizza-Man
02-14-2006, 04:16 PM
That actually fits in reasonably well with some of the statistics I've heard, not sure how accurate they are though.

JG54_Arnie
02-14-2006, 04:43 PM
I think lag, Georgeo's argument and possible deficiencies in the stats programs might not really give a reliable result. If you want to properly test weapons strength, do it on flying AI planes, since those have the same damage model as the one we have. And you'll find you get results much closer to what you mentioned would be historically correct.

ReligiousZealot
02-14-2006, 04:59 PM
Speaking from a historical standpoint, 80 hits still seems like a bit too much, and 20-30 hits seems a lot more reasonable. Many real-life pilots may have bailed after receiving 20-30 hits, but 20-30 1/2" holes in any airplane is enough to considerably limit the aircraft's ability to fly, let alone dogfight.

I still think the .50s are really weak. Firing from the correct convergence range helps somewhat, but it still takes, in my opinion, way too many hits to down an enemy plane. Some may argue citing offline play as an effective test bed - not the case for online play, considering the fact hits have to be predicted due to latency, so up to half the hits you may score don't exist to the other client.

In the PTO, the .50s are mediocre, and the fact most American aircraft struggle to maneuver with the Japanese aircraft, getting to the right range can be rather difficult.

In the ETO, the .50s are ludicrous. Rarely do I shoot down much of anything with them, the Luftwaffe planes seem to be quite armored.

The new patch really helped with the desyncing, no more "bobbling" and less getting instantly shredded as a Japanese aircraft. I think the .50s need to have seriously more "umph". The M2 armed aircraft should be able to seriously damage any aircraft with a good pass/burst. With the way it is now, I find myself having to park on their six and pound several long bursts into the enemy hoping I'll down him before someone gets on my 6 or I lose the advantage. The 2 7.7mm MGs in the nose of the Zero can take down a Wildcat, why can't the 6 .50s on the P-51D shred a Bf109? Even if it isn't historically accurate, the fifties need more stopping power just to achieve a sense of balance...either that, or everything else should be tuned down (which I by no means think should happen).

Edit: I am talking about Online Play through most of this, unless otherwise noted.

Xiolablu3
02-14-2006, 05:46 PM
Thanks for this test ,mate. Its always interesting when someone does something like this.

Interestingly JTD tested all the 20mm cannons in the game a while back and got around the same results as you. He came out with around 14 hits with Russian 20mm, same as you.

He scored 100 kills with each of the weapons and averaged the results out.

The German 20mm was strongest (MG151/20), the Hispano second and the Russian 3rd.

Of course the GErman planes like the FW190 could just be a little tougher, which would mean they needed more 20mm hits to bring them down so the test isnt foolproof. But its interesting nonetheless that you ended up with around the same result as him.

Airmail109
02-14-2006, 05:49 PM
I think if it only took 20-30 hits with il2, i know thats more realistic....id get bored....it would be like plinking tie-fighters in x-wing....after four years of flying this sim.

ReligiousZealot
02-14-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
I think if it only took 20-30 hits with il2, i know thats more realistic....id get bored....it would be like plinking tie-fighters in x-wing....after four years of flying this sim.

I wouldn't want that really either...but I don't recall the Il-2s coming against any strictly .50 cal armed planes. I think that the .50s just need their power doubled. That's right, I said DOUBLED. If it takes 80 hits to down a plane, and you doubled the power, in theory you'd end up with 40 hits to down a plane. That's a bit more close to the real thing than 80 hits.

This game is intended to be a realistic simulation, but its not perfect (darn near close, IMO). In order to achieve realism in one area, you sometimes have to ignore other areas. What I mean is if it would technically take 80 hits (this being said as an example, because I don't think 80 is the right amount for RL) with a .50 cal to achieve an unstable enough airframe to continue flying, and pilots in WWII tended to bail at 20-30 hits, then if you were the developer and you were attempting to achieve realism, I'd think you'd go for it being 20-30 hits to make the airframe unstable to warrent players to want to bail out and behave like the real pilots of WWII.

But, at the end of the day, I'm not Oleg Maddox and I'm not one of his advisors or team members. I'm just a simmer who thinks that the .50s need some beefing up so the Reds are more on par with the Blue's 30mm and 20mm cannons.

Edit: If it did take 80 hits to down an enemy fighter, why did the Americans continually arm their planes with .50s? I'd like to think they were at least nearly as effective as the cannon armed Axis and British fighters. I'd like to think of a relative equality of two 20mm cannons firing for a somewhat shorter amount of time than six .50 cals firing for a longer period that they should do roughly the same amount of damage.

HarlockGN
02-14-2006, 07:40 PM
If it takes you 80 hits to shot down an enemy fighter, learn to shot sensitive areas (engines, radiators, cockpit, fuel tanks), exactly like real life pilots did.
If you drill an enemy fighter's tail with 100s of bullets it's NOT a given it's gonna fall until you hit a sensitive spot.
Do it with WHATEVER gun in the sim (not only the much whined upon .50's, ALL non-cannon guns in the game score decently fast kills only if they hit sensitive spots) and you'll see most enemy aircrafts just continue to happily fly around laughing about you. "Parking on a plane's six" is actually the perfect way to have LESS chances of scoring a killing hit.
If you think that just filling the approximate area where your enemy is with lead is gonna make an ace of you, you might have to revise your gunnery.
On the other end, just a couple of hits on a 109's engine will effectively disable it, so your numbers honestly show bad gunnery over anything else.

Moreover,your calculations don't take into account what georgeo76 said and that a good portion of the hits you scored are on fighters that can have just escaped and landed safely (or you gonna tell me you are so good that you shot down every single enemy you engage? kudos to you then), so the number of hits you spent to down each fighter is (at least i hope for you) much lower.


Even if it isn't historically accurate, the fifties need more stopping power just to achieve a sense of balance...

Sorry mate, this is not an FPS or an RTS, it's an HISTORICAL flight simulator, and as such balance is NOT an issue. Battles are NOT balanced.


I think that the .50s just need their power doubled. That's right, I said DOUBLED.

"What i can't shot down by flying, i can shot down by whining"

Good attitude, for sure.


why did the Americans continually arm their planes with .50s?

Quite simple. Because the US commissioneers believed more on easy hits over damage of any single hit, for a couple of factors including the fact that the average US pilot didn't have enough gunnery training or exprience to actually hit anything with just a couple of cannons with a much lower Rate of Fire.
That wasn't even a bad choice btw and probably axis forces should have adopted it later in the war, when pilots with a proper training were becoming scarce. After all air war is not about scoring kills, it's about disturbing the enemy enough to force him to disengage/abort/fail his mission. And 6-8 .50 guns filling with lead the same area of the sky in wich you are are more than "disturbing" enough.

Cobra-84
02-14-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by HarlockGN:
If it takes you 80 hits to shot down an enemy fighter, learn to shot sensitive areas (engines, radiators, cockpit, fuel tanks), exactly like real life pilots did.

Tested on Bf-109G-14 (Used rear turrets on B-25J (.50) and G4M1(20mm))

Engine - G4M1 - 1 Shot
B-25 - Takes 6-8 direct hits (usually smoke on 6th, on fire or stopped 8th)
A 20mm is definatley not 5-8 times more powerfull in reality.

Radiators- What radiators? There no radiators in the game.

Cockpit - Am i supposed to shot him head-on or at a 90? angle? Doing it from the rear is almost impossible do to the poor piercing power of the .50s.

Fuel tanks - If I'm really lucky I'll get a fire; mostly just get small, worthless leaks.

Other (oxygen, ammo storage) - Much like the radiator, it's not modeled.



Sorry mate, this is not an FPS or an RTS, it's an HISTORICAL flight simulator, and as such balance is NOT an issue. Battles are NOT balanced.

So you think late '44, '45 the Axis should be severely outnumbered? No one would play, just like no one uses aircraft mainly armed with machine guns of any type.


"What i can't shot down by flying, i can shot down by whining. Good attitude, for sure."

It's not just the M-2. UBS, .303, MG131, and other non-cannons are borderline useless.


Quite simple. Because the US commissioneers believed more on easy hits over damage of any single hit, for a couple of factors including the fact that the average US pilot didn't have enough gunnery training or exprience to actually hit anything with just a couple of cannons with a much lower Rate of Fire.

Hispano and M-2's ROF are almost equal. I'm sure if the real M-2 sucked as badly as they do in game, there would have been a near complete switch to the Hispano by 1943. A P-47 could probably have been armed with at least 4 cannons and a lot of ammo, if it were necessary.



Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
I think that the .50s just need their power doubled. That's right, I said DOUBLED.

That's still 38 hits. 2.5x - 3x for all MGs and better AP piercing would be better. M-2s being half the power of the worst 20mm sounds a bit more accurate to me.

ReligiousZealot
02-14-2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by HarlockGN:
If it takes you 80 hits to shot down an enemy fighter, learn to shot sensitive areas (engines, radiators, cockpit, fuel tanks), exactly like real life pilots did.
If you drill an enemy fighter's tail with 100s of bullets it's NOT a given it's gonna fall until you hit a sensitive spot.
Do it with WHATEVER gun in the sim (not only the much whined upon .50's, ALL non-cannon guns in the game score decently fast kills only if they hit sensitive spots) and you'll see most enemy aircrafts just continue to happily fly around laughing about you. "Parking on a plane's six" is actually the perfect way to have LESS chances of scoring a killing hit.
If you think that just filling the approximate area where your enemy is with lead is gonna make an ace of you, you might have to revise your gunnery.
On the other end, just a couple of hits on a 109's engine will effectively disable it, so your numbers honestly show bad gunnery over anything else.

Moreover,your calculations don't take into account what georgeo76 said and that a good portion of the hits you scored are on fighters that can have just escaped and landed safely (or you gonna tell me you are so good that you shot down every single enemy you engage? kudos to you then), so the number of hits you spent to down each fighter is (at least i hope for you) much lower.

These are all quite valid and very good points. Sure, there are flaws to this test, but I think they point out the nature of the .50s. You may not be able to make a kill on the first pass (I have no historical proof to prove this as truth or fiction) but after you make this pass, the enemy knows you're there, so he'll keep his eye on you or give chase. Either way, this kind of neuters the American planes methodology of boom and zoom. You've really gotta wonder, were the .50s this ineffective? Why build a plane based around the whole notion of "slash and dash" and arm it with peashooters?

As for "parking on the six", being a bad position, I suggest you read what Bud Anderson (notorious P-51 ace) said about that.Full Interview Here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4891025304)


Bud: Tactics varied in the theater you were in. You used the tactic that fits the situation best.

In Europe flying the P-51 we felt that we could outmaneuver the Me 109 and the FW 190 in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic. However, if you were in a situation that called for a climb/speed energy tactic we would use it. If you could, the best tactic was to surprise the target by coming in from his six o'clock position to a close range with zero deflection, or angle off and shoot him down in straight-and-level flight.


Evidently his experience in the P-51 shows that the best place for shooting .50s was the 6 o'clock position.


Sorry mate, this is not an FPS or an RTS, it's an HISTORICAL flight simulator, and as such balance is NOT an issue. Battles are NOT balanced.

I realize that, but I'm talking about online play here. Client prediction is not perfect (not only here, but in all games), and with newer more complex flight models and physics, the client prediction can become worse.

I am not going to lecture anyone about client prediction, because I'm pretty sure everyone has some sort of understanding of how it works. Basically, your idea of targeting certain areas with the .50s like the RL pilots did is possible, but it doesn't always work like it should.

So in order to achieve this "balance", and I use the word loosely, the .50s power should have more power. So, when certain rounds are lost in the world of cyber space, the rounds that do hit cause more damage to simulate the other rounds contacting. After all, we are flying a combat flight simulator.


"What i can't shot down by flying, i can shot down by whining"

Good attitude, for sure.

I have the right to opinion, and if you're going to call my opinion whining, then that's your "opinion". I'm not trying to whine here, I was stating what I thought and used the bold to attempt to drive my point home. Sorry that you took my statement as a whine. Also, there was no need to insult my flying skill because my opinion differed from yours (if this is indeed what you meant by your statement).



Quite simple. Because the US commissioneers believed more on easy hits over damage of any single hit, for a couple of factors including the fact that the average US pilot didn't have enough gunnery training or exprience to actually hit anything with just a couple of cannons with a much lower Rate of Fire.
That wasn't even a bad choice btw and probably axis forces should have adopted it later in the war, when pilots with a proper training were becoming scarce. After all air war is not about scoring kills, it's about disturbing the enemy enough to force him to disengage/abort/fail his mission. And 6-8 .50 guns filling with lead the same area of the sky in wich you are are more than "disturbing" enough.

Points taken. I realize the idea was easier hitting with less training. The problem here is our sim doesn't simulate the fear pilots would have of many rounds streaking by. If they get shot down, all they have to do is click the refly button and presto, good as new again. So I move for some actual potency to the rounds streaking by, as that might add more caution to the pilot and not him sitting there thinking he can absorb a few good bursts of them before he is in serious trouble.

Let's get one thing straight, I'm not here to start a flame war or whine on and on. I'm here voicing my opinion about the power of the .50 cals. Until someone shows me historical data or just plain data proving that the .50 cals were indeed as weak as they are, I will not move from my opinion that the .50 cals are too weak. Here I am now, reacting to all your post and voicing my opinion, as you all have here as well.

Hopefully something can be reached in which the two opposing parties of this issue can both be happy.

WWSensei
02-14-2006, 09:33 PM
In tonight's practice we were in F4U-1Ds against 109K4s (new boosted one).

I fired 1100 total rounds with 11 hits.

2 kills. The first one went down with 7 .50 cal hits and the second one was 4. I shot out his rudder and elevator and he bailed.

Most of the rounds fired were from distance and mostly to spook the enemy off my wing's 6. The killing shots were down inside 200 meters with my convergence at 180.

JG54_Arnie
02-15-2006, 12:52 AM
I still think the .50s are really weak. Firing from the correct convergence range helps somewhat, but it still takes, in my opinion, way too many hits to down an enemy plane. Some may argue citing offline play as an effective test bed - not the case for online play, considering the fact hits have to be predicted due to latency, so up to half the hits you may score don't exist to the other client.

But offline play is more reliable because you have no lag, so you actually see the real picture offline. Lag is there for everyone in pretty much the same ammount online. Depending on the connection ofcourse. But you cannot just ask for a weapon to be doubled in power because its weaker online then offline. That is the case for all weapons.
And no, its not especially bad for the .50's every weapon has this problem online.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
But offline play is more reliable because you have no lag, so you actually see the real picture offline. Lag is there for everyone in pretty much the same ammount online. Depending on the connection ofcourse. But you cannot just ask for a weapon to be doubled in power because its weaker online then offline. That is the case for all weapons.
And no, its not especially bad for the .50's every weapon has this problem online.

Let me set one thing straight, I said doubled as a way to get the attention that the .50 feels like a peashooter [to me] in comparison to previous versions(I think 3.03 or 3.04 was the last time the .50 felt like it packed a punch to me), let alone the other weapons. I also know that its not just the .50s that suffer from this strange lack of power, it just seems to be more apparent and less fitting for the .50s.

So, the other weapons suffer from the client prediction scenario and I know that the .50s aren't the only thing affected, I'm not stupid. The point of this thread I thought was pretty straight forward, the .50s don't "feel right". To me, I think they aren't strong enough.

Look at this:
http://lonestar-mvpa.org/images/website/50cal20mm.JPG

Do you intend to imply that these two projectiles are that drastically different in power levels? Granted, these aren't the same as WWII era projectiles, but the idea still remains.

A comparison from in game on a good run/aim it takes maybe 30-40 hits with the current .50s to down a plane, yet it only takes only 3-5 hits from a 20mm? And these projectiles are traveling at quite similar speeds but differ in size by only .28 inches? Yet it takes 10 times as many hits to kill with the .50s?

Yes, I know most aircraft have more than two M2s and that most aircraft equipped with 20mm cannons only have two, but even with minor calculations something still appears fishy. You need 3-5 times as much time on target with six .50 cals than two 20mm cannons, this assuming that both weapons fire at the same rate. Considering the time it takes for the 20mms to fire a lethal number of accurate salvos, a matter of a few seconds, that would mean you'd probably need at least 8 seconds on target with the .50s. I don't know too many aircraft that are going to sit still long enough for you to target their vital areas. Not only that, considering American aircraft are built for boom and zoom, you don't exactly have 8 seconds on target at convergence range during a pass. It will take a few passes, but after the first pass, you've already given away the advantage of surprise so your "prey" is now quite aware of your presence.


Originally posted by WWSensei:
In tonight's practice we were in F4U-1Ds against 109K4s (new boosted one).

I fired 1100 total rounds with 11 hits.

2 kills. The first one went down with 7 .50 cal hits and the second one was 4. I shot out his rudder and elevator and he bailed.

Most of the rounds fired were from distance and mostly to spook the enemy off my wing's 6. The killing shots were down inside 200 meters with my convergence at 180.

Yes, I am fully aware it is possible to down aircraft with a small number of .50 cal hits. I still think the .50s need better hitting power, maybe not as extreme as doubling, but none the less, you should be able to down any aircraft that gets caught in your crosshair for a good 3 second burst.

For the record: I'm not attempting to force my opinion on anyone, I made 2 posts stating my opinion and got back some things that made me feel like I was being insulted. As far as I know, I can have my opinion and you can have yours, we don't have to agree, if we did, then the world would be pretty boring. Afterall, we don't exactly have control over 1C:Maddox games so I may just have to learn to live with the .50s the way they are, or maybe they'll get changed and we'll all have to adjust, who knows?

The point is, I'm allowed to have an opinion and I'm allowed to voice it, as are you. We don't have to agree, but we shouldn't talk down to one another when we don't agree.

nakamura_kenji
02-15-2006, 02:42 AM
japanese plane take little 12.7mm shoot down
ki-61 have magic one bullet engine, a6m wing very weak 12.7mm easy fire + much unmanoverable after few hit, pk easy, ki-43 pk + fire/fall apart

japanese side 12.7mm already much deadly >_<

JG54_Arnie
02-15-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
Let me set one thing straight, I said doubled as a way to get the attention that the .50 feels like a peashooter [to me] in comparison to previous versions(I think 3.03 or 3.04 was the last time the .50 felt like it packed a punch to me), let alone the other weapons. I also know that its not just the .50s that suffer from this strange lack of power, it just seems to be more apparent and less fitting for the .50s.

So, the other weapons suffer from the client prediction scenario and I know that the .50s aren't the only thing affected, I'm not stupid. The point of this thread I thought was pretty straight forward, the .50s don't "feel right". To me, I think they aren't strong enough.

So you agree that a good offline test will show if the weapon is up to strength? Because online statistics are in my opinion way too unreliable to say something about the weapons performance.


Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
Do you intend to imply that these two projectiles are that drastically different in power levels? Granted, these aren't the same as WWII era projectiles, but the idea still remains.

12.7mm vs 20mm isnt that already a difference of having a shell thats almost twice as big? This means a lot more explosive power. Not just twice the power. I'm sure there's plenty of threads still in the archive that talk about the explosive power of different weapons and how they relate to eachother. Its not just a matter of size of the projectile, but also of the chemical stuff inside them. Its interesting stuff to look into anyways. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Offline, the .50's feel fine to me. Quite effective for sure.

F19_Ob
02-15-2006, 03:34 AM
The online opponent refuses to fly in predictable patterns or straight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif and this makes the online shooting very hard with 50 calliber.
Another thing is that u don't get the damage visible for most part wich makes one feel that nothing happens.

P51, p47 and corsair's are especially hard because they can't turn or maneuver with the 109 or the japanese late fighters, wich gives U a 1 sec burst most of the time and it requires some luck to score a kill or to damage the enemy enough so he can't maneuver so well.

The Fiat cr42 and G50 and even p40 does better because they can maneuver with most enemies for a while.
I often shot down spits with G50 on dessertmaps because of this. If the spit turned I turned inside him and if he tried to run I usually scored hits aswell so he atleast got damaged.
The Breda-Safat guns on the Macchis are a bit harder because they are a tiny bit slower and rate of fire is less.
I however think the G50 got the american guns and hope they get the correct guns and the cooler sound and tracers we got on the Macchis.

KraljMatjaz
02-15-2006, 08:41 AM
firstly, thank you all for responses.


Originally posted by georgeo76:
The 18-20 .50 hits needed to kill in WWII included lots of pilots who bailed out. I believe a RL pilot would jump far sooner than an online pilot.

The P47 shoots about 72 bullets a second, the P51 about 54, You may have hit some targets with far more bullets than was necessary to kill them. Also, you may have put less-than-lethal amounts of ammo into targets that escaped.

Basically, if your going to compare your stats w/ historical ones, you'll have to reproduce their methodology.


valid points here. indeed many pilots even bailed when their plane was not damaged yet: Bader was even claiming such kills with a remark: frightened.

however, on the other hand here should also be considered that PF and FBD will award me with a kill also if I only damage a plane that gets away, and then crashes half an hour later. in WW2 pilot would get only "damaged" or "probable", not a kill.

we have many factors here that affect hit/kill ratio, and many of them do it in opposite ways (like the two mentioned above: your argument rises it, mine lowers it).

again: taking into a consideration that at least around 40% of my targets were japanese planes (that requite a lot less hits on average to bring down), so average number of .50cal hits to bring down single engined LW fighter is even higher, let's say 90-100, and considering that on average the deflection angle under which I hit enemy plane was substantionaly larger than one on FR servers or the one in WW2 (where great majority of air to air hits were made from dead 6) while keeping in mind it requires less ammo to down a target if shooting at it with larger deflection angle, .50 cals seem to be way off. also shvaks, but not so much.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
If it takes you 80 hits to shot down an enemy fighter, learn to shot sensitive areas (engines, radiators, cockpit, fuel tanks), exactly like real life pilots did.


heh, when I first read this sentence I was sure you were sarcastic. The only situation where pilots were trying to hit sensitive spots on aircrat were when only very experienced pilots were attacking large (and clumsy) bombers. in this cases they were usualy aimiing for wings/engines/cocokpit.

in fighter vs fighter engagement it was (and it is in this sim) entirely impossible to aim at specific points of enemy craft, unless he is already crippled enough for not being to evade, or unless he is unaware of your presence. keep in mind that many unexperienced (but properly trained!!) pilots returned from first engagements with empty magazines without scoring a single hit, many times also against bombers! hiting a hit anywhere on a maneouvering fighter alone (let alone it's specific part) was a great succsess that required a lot of skill.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
If you drill an enemy fighter's tail with 100s of bullets it's NOT a given it's gonna fall until you hit a sensitive spot.
Do it with WHATEVER gun in the sim (not only the much whined upon .50's, ALL non-cannon guns in the game score decently fast kills only if they hit sensitive spots) and you'll see most enemy aircrafts just continue to happily fly around laughing about you. "Parking on a plane's six" is actually the perfect way to have LESS chances of scoring a killing hit.

did you even read what i posted already in my initial post:
"there is another factor that affects hit/kill ratio: on a non-fr servers hits to a plane are coming from everywhere, while on FR or in real life, they did come mostly from rear. and from rear you general need even more hits."

on the other hand, it is (at least should be IRL) entirely impossible to fill Bf109 with .50cal from dead 6 with 100 hits without hitting something vital. for gods sake, do you imply fighters were carying unnecessary balast with it? everything on a fighter is vital!


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
If you think that just filling the approximate area where your enemy is with lead is gonna make an ace of you, you might have to revise your gunnery.
On the other end, just a couple of hits on a 109's engine will effectively disable it, so your numbers honestly show bad gunnery over anything else.


looks like you didn't even click stat links i provided in first post. my .50cal gunnery is 9.9% what i consider decent. and those were still unsynchronised guns, harder to hit with! also with K/D ratio of 5:1 with US planes versus luftwaffe i think i knew what i was doing.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
Moreover,your calculations don't take into account what georgeo76 said and that a good portion of the hits you scored are on fighters that can have just escaped and landed safely (or you gonna tell me you are so good that you shot down every single enemy you engage? kudos to you then), so the number of hits you spent to down each fighter is (at least i hope for you) much lower.


i answered this to georgio, however, assuming you will not read it, i will explain it again especialy for you:
true, many fighters i managed to damage ran away and many were consequently shot down by other flyers, which means more hits per kill and HIGHER hits/kill ratio. believe me i am not exactly altruistic and i like to finish what i start. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif UKD is also quite a nice server, where in many cases players cover you when they see you already damage a plane, so you can finish it in peace.

now, irl there were many cases when a damaged plane got away but crashed consequently when noone was able to confirm a kill, and pilot that damaged it, got only "probable" or "damaged". in this sim i will get credit for the kill (which means more kills and LOWER hit/kill ratio). and believe me, there were a lot of such cases, so they at least cancel out with your uper argument again.


Originally posted by WWSensei:
In tonight's practice we were in F4U-1Ds against 109K4s (new boosted one).

I fired 1100 total rounds with 11 hits.

2 kills. The first one went down with 7 .50 cal hits and the second one was 4. I shot out his rudder and elevator and he bailed.

Most of the rounds fired were from distance and mostly to spook the enemy off my wing's 6. The killing shots were down inside 200 meters with my convergence at 180.

now go online, shoot down 100 german single engined fighters in a row, and calculate ratio between bullet hits and kills.
i have shot down IL2 with a single 7.9mm hit. online that is.


Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
japanese plane take little 12.7mm shoot down
ki-61 have magic one bullet engine, a6m wing very weak 12.7mm easy fire + much unmanoverable after few hit, pk easy, ki-43 pk + fire/fall apart

japanese side 12.7mm already much deadly >_<

agree, 12.7 are quite deadly against japanese planes. i don't, however, have any data or source on how many hits were on average needed to down a japanese fighter.

speaking about a "feeling" now, i feel .50 cal machineguns are not far from what .303 should be, and ShVAK is just a bit stronger as .50cal should be.

WWSensei
02-15-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
In tonight's practice we were in F4U-1Ds against 109K4s (new boosted one).

I fired 1100 total rounds with 11 hits.

2 kills. The first one went down with 7 .50 cal hits and the second one was 4. I shot out his rudder and elevator and he bailed.

Most of the rounds fired were from distance and mostly to spook the enemy off my wing's 6. The killing shots were down inside 200 meters with my convergence at 180.

Yes, I am fully aware it is possible to down aircraft with a small number of .50 cal hits. I still think the .50s need better hitting power, maybe not as extreme as doubling, but none the less, you should be able to down any aircraft that gets caught in your crosshair for a good 3 second burst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understood. I wasn't trying to point out a fluke occurence. It's been my experience, especially in practing for our own upcoming WWBattles online battle where we are in the F4U-1A with 6 .50 cal that it seldom takes more than 10 .50 cal to down most aircraft when fired from less than 200 meters. My aim sucks so it usually takes me a 1000 rounds to get those 10 hits but when I get them I am usually rewarded.

One thing that should be done in online fighting is checking your hit rate. Just Shift-Tab to bring up the console and type 'user callsign STAT' where callsign is equal to the name you are using. You'll be shown how many rounds you fired, how many hit an air target and how many hit something (like a ground target).

I've flown with many people claiming "I just put 50 rounds into that aircraft and he kept going" and doing the above command shows they either hit with 2 rounds or none at all or fired from 300+ meters so even if they hit the energy of the round was far less than it should be.

IMHO, it isn't always the number of hits or how long your burst. A 3 second burst from 300 to 400 meters is simply going to be far less effective than a burst from 150-200 meters.

Jetbuff
02-15-2006, 09:05 AM
Actually Sensei, I think he originally quoted 'hits' Vs. kills.

What is missing though is that we don't know from what distance those hits were. At 500m, from dead 6, most aircraft (except for Japanese aircraft) will shrug off 0.50 cal rounds that do not hit a 'lucky' spot like a control cable/rod or some such. From under 200m in contrast, I routinely get pilot kills, fires, severed wings, dead engines, you name it and usually from well under 80 rounds. (varies from 10 - 50 depending on my luck/aim)

BTW, don't jump to that tired defence of "but I know how to shoot". Yes, you probably do and so did I - or so I thought. But you'd be surprised at how often you fire at less than optimum parameters when you're not conciously trying to get the 'best' shot.

Sturm_Williger
02-15-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:

A comparison from in game on a good run/aim it takes maybe 30-40 hits with the current .50s to down a plane, yet it only takes only 3-5 hits from a 20mm? And these projectiles are traveling at quite similar speeds but differ in size by only .28 inches? Yet it takes 10 times as many hits to kill with the .50s?


Bear in mind that of these 30-40 hits, many may have gone straight through the structure of the target without hitting anything vital. Whereas the 3-5 20mm rounds explode on or inside the structure with a much much higher likelihood of causing damage to a vital element ( never mind the hole ).

Try shooting a biplane with just Mg - there's an awful lot of nothing to hit on a biplane - and the rounds just go through. But one cannon round and generally it's toast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
02-15-2006, 09:27 AM
dead 6 shooting is preferencial cos your not trying to guess where your rounds will go so much.

they will go up his **** quite easily, like a girl whos been in too many pr0n films http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jetbuff
02-15-2006, 09:42 AM
Actually ideal shooting parameters are slightly off-dead six (15-30?) because it gives you much bigger and more vulnerable planeform to shoot at with only minimal lead requirements. Check Andy Bush's articles.

JtD
02-15-2006, 09:47 AM
From my testing your number are a bit high, I only needed about 75% the hits you do for both types of weapons (fighter sized targets only).

Still http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for this test.

I do not think 0.50 cal damage needs to be doubled, but I think we need more complex damage model so they have more things to hit, more things to damage. The power of the weapon seems to be alright.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
Let me set one thing straight, I said doubled as a way to get the attention that the .50 feels like a peashooter [to me] in comparison to previous versions(I think 3.03 or 3.04 was the last time the .50 felt like it packed a punch to me), let alone the other weapons. I also know that its not just the .50s that suffer from this strange lack of power, it just seems to be more apparent and less fitting for the .50s.

So, the other weapons suffer from the client prediction scenario and I know that the .50s aren't the only thing affected, I'm not stupid. The point of this thread I thought was pretty straight forward, the .50s don't "feel right". To me, I think they aren't strong enough.

So you agree that a good offline test will show if the weapon is up to strength? Because online statistics are in my opinion way too unreliable to say something about the weapons performance.


Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
Do you intend to imply that these two projectiles are that drastically different in power levels? Granted, these aren't the same as WWII era projectiles, but the idea still remains.

12.7mm vs 20mm isnt that already a difference of having a shell thats almost twice as big? This means a lot more explosive power. Not just twice the power. I'm sure there's plenty of threads still in the archive that talk about the explosive power of different weapons and how they relate to eachother. Its not just a matter of size of the projectile, but also of the chemical stuff inside them. Its interesting stuff to look into anyways. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Offline, the .50's feel fine to me. Quite effective for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I agree with everything you've said about the offline effectiveness and cannon shell power, haha. I think they are decently effective offline, its just when you go online that it seems they don't share the effectiveness the cannons do (and no, the .50s don't exclusively suffer from this ineffectiveness, its just strictly armed .50 cal or .303 planes that seem to get the short end of the stick). Yes, the cannons are nearly 2-3 times as big and explosive, but still, the ballistics are still there and the .50s are probably firing faster, if not slightly faster than the cannons. At some point in regards to range and times, you'd reach a point where the two weapons, in theory, should have roughly the same effectiveness.

If its just me, then I don't know, but when I pump a good burst into an unsuspecting 109, I'd like to think the .50s would do more than put a couple holes in the fuel tank (I generally aim for the wing if I have the advantage of surprise, if my tactics are wrong, I'd appreciate someone telling what I should be doing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).


Originally posted by WWSensei:
Understood. I wasn't trying to point out a fluke occurence. It's been my experience, especially in practing for our own upcoming WWBattles online battle where we are in the F4U-1A with 6 .50 cal that it seldom takes more than 10 .50 cal to down most aircraft when fired from less than 200 meters. My aim sucks so it usually takes me a 1000 rounds to get those 10 hits but when I get them I am usually rewarded.

One thing that should be done in online fighting is checking your hit rate. Just Shift-Tab to bring up the console and type 'user callsign STAT' where callsign is equal to the name you are using. You'll be shown how many rounds you fired, how many hit an air target and how many hit something (like a ground target).

I've flown with many people claiming "I just put 50 rounds into that aircraft and he kept going" and doing the above command shows they either hit with 2 rounds or none at all or fired from 300+ meters so even if they hit the energy of the round was far less than it should be.

IMHO, it isn't always the number of hits or how long your burst. A 3 second burst from 300 to 400 meters is simply going to be far less effective than a burst from 150-200 meters.


Very true. However, I'd still say the ballistics are off. The Barret M82, a modern sniper rifle, fires the BMG cartridge or a reproduction of the .50 cal cartridge we have in our Browning M2s (it's using the M33 Ball ammunition as well). This rifle is listed as its maximum effective range of 1800 meters. Now, we're not using sniper rifle .50 cals, but I think if the rifle can do EOD from 1800 meters away, we should be able to cause serious damage to an aircraft 400-500 meters in front of our gunsight.

Further evidence lists the muzzle velocity of the Browning M2 as actually higher than the sniper rifle, so it should be able to shoot as far, if not farther. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to be able to engage enemies from 1.8 kilometers away (haha), I'm just doing this because I'm pretty sure this shows the .50 caliber potency.

AS for the .50 cal power against Japanese planes, well yes, it is still effective. But because the guns have been desynched, you still have a good chance to survive because you're not getting hit by 4-8 .50 cal rounds in salvos. I think the Japanese pilots just have to be more alert - if they catch the American plane sneaking up on them for a pass, they can easily out maneuver them.


Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
Bear in mind that of these 30-40 hits, many may have gone straight through the structure of the target without hitting anything vital. Whereas the 3-5 20mm rounds explode on or inside the structure with a much much higher likelihood of causing damage to a vital element ( never mind the hole ).

Try shooting a biplane with just Mg - there's an awful lot of nothing to hit on a biplane - and the rounds just go through. But one cannon round and generally it's toast.

Good point. I'm no aerodynamics expert, but I'd like to believe that putting 30-40 1/2" holes into any aiframe is going to make it not fly very well, even if it just is the fuselage.


Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Actually ideal shooting parameters are slightly off-dead six (15-30?) because it gives you much bigger and more vulnerable planeform to shoot at with only minimal lead requirements. Check Andy Bush's articles.


Thanks, I will need to experiment with this tonight as well as read some stuff on Andy Bush.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:
Radiators- What radiators? There no radiators in the game.

Didn't honestly know this, i'm used to aiming at radiators when i encounter an IL-2 and granted, a single MG hit in the radiator area cripples most IL-2 and forces him to ditch.


Cockpit - Am i supposed to shot him head-on or at a 90? angle? Doing it from the rear is almost impossible do to the poor piercing power of the .50s.

No one said you should do it from straight behind, good deflection gunnery works wonders in hitting the cockpit area.


Fuel tanks - If I'm really lucky I'll get a fire; mostly just get small, worthless leaks.

A leak is not worthless, a fuel leak most of the times can force an human pilot to turn his nose back and return to base, aborting his mission, and that' what you want. Shoting him down is a bonus.


So you think late '44, '45 the Axis should be severely outnumbered? No one would play, just like no one uses aircraft mainly armed with machine guns of any type.

Yes they should be, but that's unfortunately one of the limits of online play, you can't FORCE a player to take a side (but you can force him to learn gunnery, if he does want to shot down something)


not just the M-2. UBS, .303, MG131, and other non-cannons are borderline useless.

I never found my machine guns useless, not offline nor online. As long as i can disturb the enemy and have him abort his mission, my machine guns did their duty. Sometimes i get a solid hit and a kill, and that's more than enough to make me happy. But normally as soon as i see the enemy leaving a trail of smoke behind and his target is not in the immediate vicinity i turn and leave for another target.


You may not be able to make a kill on the first pass (I have no historical proof to prove this as truth or fiction)

You're not supposed to, unless you're good ^_^


Originally posted by Religiouszaelot:
Either way, this kind of neuters the American planes methodology of boom and zoom. You've really gotta wonder, were the .50s this ineffective? Why build a plane based around the whole notion of "slash and dash" and arm it with peashooters?

The problem here is dual edged. Unfortunately most planes in IL2 have less sensitive areas than the real ones, just because of damage modeling. But on the other side, making the machine guns MORE effective would not encourage good gunnery and target selection, one would just wildly press the trigger as soon as the enemy enters his reticle and blam. No good.
Slash and dash is possible, but many virtual pilots do it the wrong way. If you approach from the direct 6 of your enemy and fire still from direct 6 most of your hits will concentrate on the tail section of the enemy plane, that's basically the place that has LESS sensitive targets of the plane, thus inflicting the least potential damage possible.
Correct approach from 6 is either from 6 high or 6 low. That way you will be able to aim your shots to the cockpit and to the engine of the enemy plane (it's not that difficult, you just need to concentrate on the little deflection needed to have them actually land around there and not in the tail section, the high ROF and for american planes, the high number of guns, will help you score hits where you want even if your aim is not perfect). If the engine is smoking, it's done for, no need for a devastating hit. You can look for another target.


So in order to achieve this "balance", and I use the word loosely, the .50s power should have more power. So, when certain rounds are lost in the world of cyber space, the rounds that do hit cause more damage to simulate the other rounds contacting. After all, we are flying a combat flight simulator.


Client prediction affects all guns and cannons, not only .50, actually affects cannons more, because of the generally lower ROF, it happened often to me to shoot with cannons on a perfect angle, when i was absolutely sure to have hit and to see nothing happen. It's a limitation of online play, and unfortunately rising single bullet damage would do nothing else than encourage lucky hits over gunnery, thing that any even decently accurate flight simulator should NOT do.


Points taken. I realize the idea was easier hitting with less training. The problem here is our sim doesn't simulate the fear pilots would have of many rounds streaking by. If they get shot down, all they have to do is click the refly button and presto, good as new again. So I move for some actual potency to the rounds streaking by, as that might add more caution to the pilot and not him sitting there thinking he can absorb a few good bursts of them before he is in serious trouble.


That's true for online dogfights, where the pilots have the sensation of invulnerability much like online first person shooters. If you don't like this then i'd advice you to move to coop and online wars, where being killed actually COUNTS. It's recorded and lowers your permanent stats (or erases them) and can mean the failure of the mission for the whole team.
Unfortunately online dogfights are little more than a pastime. If you want decently realistic behavioir then you need to look elsewhere. In an online war, in the heat of a mission, with your field of view extremely limited and the time running short, be sure that when you see tracers streaking around you and hear the first impacts on your fuselage the temptation to bail before it's too late it's MUCH higher. At least that would force hard manouvering and bomb dropping that can effectively screw a mission. When you screwed your opponent's mission your as well as done. Everything else is added bonus.


Do you intend to imply that these two projectiles are that drastically different in power levels? Granted, these aren't the same as WWII era projectiles, but the idea still remains.

They actually are. It's not just a matter of size. Cannon rounds actually EXPLODE with impact, making them much more deadlier and damaging than normal machine gun bullets, that rely only on the impact force and piercing.


in fighter vs fighter engagement it was (and it is in this sim) entirely impossible to aim at specific points of enemy craft, unless he is already crippled enough for not being to evade, or unless he is unaware of your presence. keep in mind that many unexperienced (but properly trained!!) pilots returned from first engagements with empty magazines without scoring a single hit, many times also against bombers! hiting a hit anywhere on a maneouvering fighter alone (let alone it's specific part) was a great succsess that required a lot of skill.


This is only partly true. Yes, it's not easy to hit a manouvering fighter (even if a good knowledge of gunnery and deflection shooting helps, and helps a lot), but no, it's not THAT difficult to aim to specific parts of the plane. Sure, you won't be able to snipe the radio antenna, but you don't need to be a sniper to actually aim and hit big sensitive parts such as the cockpit and expecially the engine. It all depends on the amount of deflection you give to your aim.
And you need deflection (even if smaller) even when attacking from 6 o clock (high or low), the ONLY time in wich you don't need deflection is when you attack from 6 o clock level, but i already told you why that's not that great of an idea.
The biggest error i see done by online pilots (and that was noticeable even in most real pilots during WW2, according to the writings of many aces) is that they don't give enough deflection to their shots. This way, even if your deflection is enough to actually hit the plane, the vast majority (or all of them) will end up in the tail section of your target, thus dealing much less damage than they could.
If you feel that your bullets don't do enough damage to enemy planes, expecially fighters, then there are 2 possibilities:
1: you're always attacking from straight 6 'o clock level, this way you allow the tail section of the enemy plane to effectively act as a shield for the most sensitive parts of it. In this case try attacking from 6 low or 6 high.
2: when you're shooting your deflection is not enough, having the bullets land in the tail section of the enemy plane anyway. In this case try increasing your deflection, so your shots naturally land in the nose section of the enemy plane, containing the engine and the cockpit, rising enormously your chance to hit something sensitive and see the enemy go down.
That's it, more or less.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 02:17 PM
Very informative post, Harlock (and I mean that in all honesty). I still think the .50s are undermodelled as well as a few other guns.

At the time of my writing, I hadn't had a lot of time to actually play test...but enough to, what I thought, accurately judge the power level of the .50s (the P-51 is one of my favorite rides).

Another thread has been discussing the supposed undermodelling of the .50 cals as well as a few other weapons. You can find that thread here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521083214). The original author of the thread has said that the .50s aren't the only victim of the "lackluster power". So, go check that out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 02:36 PM
The bad thing of this forum is that there are 400 threads telling exactly the same stuff on the same thing, can't write exactly the same posts on all those threads.
Bad or lacking gunnery (expecially in the deflection management) is not just a problem of the .50 but of every plane using any kind of machine guns. That's not because guns are undermodeled and only partly because of the approximate damage modeling (it's true that sansitive areas are fewer than in a real aircraft, but they are simpler, thus making stuff like the engine MUCH easier to damage severely than in real world), but simply because people have big problems understanding deflection and how it works. Or better, they understand it, but they don't apply enough deflection for fear of overshooting. From my observation (by no means a law, just personal observation since when IL-2 Sturmovik was out and on CFS2 before that) about 85% to 90% of overall hits online end in the tail section of the planes, thus resulting in uneffective shooting.

This is expecially true for machine guns, since the lack of explosive damage means that you have to hit a sensitive area to cause lot of damage in a short time.
On the other end cannons, with their explosive damage, fare better with tail section hitting, because explosive force helps a whole lot in compromising the structural integrity of the plane itself (this doesn't mean a good gunnery and deflection control doesn't help with cannons, a cannon hit in the engine is MUCH better than a cannon hit in the tail section, but they become much more important with machine gun, that rely only on impact and piercing).

Kocur_
02-15-2006, 02:57 PM
A comparison from in game on a good run/aim it takes maybe 30-40 hits with the current .50s to down a plane, yet it only takes only 3-5 hits from a 20mm?

None of .50 projectiles has explosive in it. Most of 20mm projectiles in belts do. Difference in effectiveness is DRAMATIC! .50 hits and unless hits pilot, cables or critical engine part or its installation, it just leaves a hole only a bit larger than caliber. A 20mm HE hit NEAR, merely NEAR those points will affect them by blast and fragments.

Please analise carefully this page:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Frequent_Flyer
02-15-2006, 06:03 PM
If your interested in realism go to Zeno's site to name one of many. Watch real life gun camera footage of a P-47, 51 ,or 38. It take a fraction of what it does in this sim to score a victory.A 190 or 109 flame up almost immediately, many lose wings, and explode shortly there after. Most of the footage is from directly on the 6 of the e/a. The next issue to take note of is the lack of shake wobble and roll that actually occurs when firing these weapons. Time the burst that destroys the aircraft. Than line up on a 190 or 109 ( make them friendly)in this sim. Your lucky if your target is emitting smoke from the same duration burst. For the darkside, there is captured Lufty footage. It may surprize you how long a burst is neccessary to take down a B-17.As they say "seeing is beleiving".

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 07:17 PM
It's been stated oh so many times in this forums by oh so many different sources that gun camera footage is the least possible source of information on real life gunnery available.
Leave the dead horses in their graves, come on ^_^

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A comparison from in game on a good run/aim it takes maybe 30-40 hits with the current .50s to down a plane, yet it only takes only 3-5 hits from a 20mm?

None of .50 projectiles has explosive in it. Most of 20mm projectiles in belts do. Difference in effectiveness is DRAMATIC! .50 hits and unless hits pilot, cables or critical engine part or its installation, it just leaves a hole only a bit larger than caliber. A 20mm HE hit NEAR, merely NEAR those points will affect them by blast and fragments.

Please analise carefully this page:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"To return to the obviously controversial question of the relatively poor performance of the .50 Browning: as has already been stated in this study, "the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered, there were strong arguments in favour of retaining the weapon, as the standardisation of production, supply, maintenance and training provided great logistic benefits by comparison with the plethora of different weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese in particular."

In the rest of the tables the .50 cals usually score a rating of roughly between 1/6 and 1/3 the power of cannons. Doesn't appear that way if it takes 50 hits to down a plane when it only takes five 20mm hits.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
It's been stated oh so many times in this forums by oh so many different sources that gun camera footage is the least possible source of information on real life gunnery available.
Leave the dead horses in their graves, come on ^_^


I could've sworn gun camera footage is classified as a primary source. They are unaltered and they were actually there recording what happened.

I would figure you'd be able to at least get a relative idea of what the power of certain weapons were.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
I could've sworn gun camera footage is classified as a primary source. They are unaltered and they were actually there recording what happened.


The problem of gun camera is that:
1: you never have enough examples to actually have any statistical value, you may have the ones on wich the most dramatic effects are recorded, but who the hell knows how many there are in wich the bullets had no effect at all?
2: the framerate is all messed, so you have no clear idea how how long it really was or how many bullets were actually fired. Moreover you don't know what percentage of tracers were loaded on the aircraft, and what you see are just that, the tracers. Moreover the framerate is low itself, as far as i know lower than the rate of fire of the gun, so you actually loose most of the impacts on the target.
3: the colors are all messed up as well and the film is ruined/worn, so you miss explosions and various effects that would be important to evaluate the actual damage
4: you have no real idea of where and how the hits have landed, what you see is just the effect, so you can't really compare that to the damage model in IL2

All those factors make gun camera a nice show, and good (well not completely) to see if you can credit a kill to a pilot or not, but actually bad to evaluate gunnery and physics.

Frequent_Flyer
02-15-2006, 09:38 PM
Harlock, With all due respect you could not be more wrong. The USAAF and UN both examined hit ratio and damage by slowing the film and doing analysis. For the sake of discussion leave math and physics out of it.Not only was there ample gun camera footage to make a case for accuracy, rate of fire and distructive power of the round it was much more reliable than the combat report filed by the pilot. Use your eyes. There is virtually hours of it on line alone not to mention hundreds of DVD's. Sit behind an enemy e/a firing you .50's you will run out of ammunition before you replicate what you see on real gun camera footage........Religous Zealot you are absolutly correct it was the primary source, used also to refine the load out of the belts as well.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 09:48 PM
The problem of gun camera is that:
1: you never have enough examples to actually have any statistical value, you may have the ones on wich the most dramatic effects are recorded, but who the hell knows how many there are in wich the bullets had no effect at all?
2: the framerate is all messed, so you have no clear idea how how long it really was or how many bullets were actually fired. Moreover you don't know what percentage of tracers were loaded on the aircraft, and what you see are just that, the tracers. Moreover the framerate is low itself, as far as i know lower than the rate of fire of the gun, so you actually loose most of the impacts on the target.
3: the colors are all messed up as well and the film is ruined/worn, so you miss explosions and various effects that would be important to evaluate the actual damage
4: you have no real idea of where and how the hits have landed, what you see is just the effect, so you can't really compare that to the damage model in IL2

All those factors make gun camera a nice show, and good (well not completely) to see if you can credit a kill to a pilot or not, but actually bad to evaluate gunnery and physics.

Ahhh, I get it now, thanks for the info. So it's only a relative idea, but even then its flawed because you don't have access to all the various footage and only the spectacular reels. If you actually had several full reels of footage (including the less than spectacular kills/damaging hits) you could potentially get a reasonable idea of power.

The one thing gun camera footage does do is give us an idea of what .50 cals can do. To me, that is enough proof that the .50s currently in game are weaker than they should be. In order to effectively simulate the damage .50s (or any gun for that matter) would do in real life, and because we don't have all the vulnerable areas/penetrating damage modeled (as well as other things), the power needs to be boosted somewhat.

Maybe not just the .50s, maybe all of the guns. If the .50 cal could detonate and blow the wing off various planes, then to effectively simulate that without the vulnerable area modeled, a small number of .50 cal rounds should be able to render the wing almost useless or something to that extent. By boosting the power of said gun, you would end up with a more realistic representation of WWII air combat.

If something like this isn't taken care of, the game is severely slanted towards cannon armed aircraft - killing the realism the game supposedly simulates.

At least we can all rest easy knowing that BoB will be complex enough to model a lot of things missing from PF+FB+AEP. Hopefully, it will finally kill all the threads dealing with percieved inaccuracies (although I doubt it) by giving us a sim that feels right.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-15-2006, 10:00 PM
Your assesment is badly flawed.

For one thing, there's no mention of GROUPING in here at all.

You could spray 79 .50 caliber hits all over an airframe (especially a bomber) and not do much to it but seive it a bit.

But group them in an area, like a wing spar, a wing root, in the vicinity of a fuel tank...ah, now we're onto something.

As for the cannon, I find them to be wholly overpowered. Yesterday, a Spit hit me with one magic Hispano on the outside wing; it was gone. That's WAY overstated. a 30mm or 37 or larger might be expected to do that, but not a 20mm; you need a good 4 - 5 grouped to be relatively sure of a kill with .20mm. Of course, it does have the capability to score a critical hit with just one....but that won't happen the majority of the time, like it does now.

All 20mm are basically nuclear tipped, and almost every cannon bearing plane is a one-hit wonder. Pretty arcade....

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 10:18 PM
The gun camera footage data is uncomplete and unrreliable simply because there's no way to have an even slightest idea of what percentage of them we have and/or we can see. It's fairly obvious that only the ones with the most dramatic effects are shown/kept, because it would be useless to keep/show gun camere on wich shots have no effect at all on the targeted plane.

You're entirely correct in stating that sitting behind an enemy firing ANY kind of MG (not only .50s, let's remember the pony is not the only plane in the game please) will make you run out of ammo before you replicate what you see in real camera footage, and i already explained the reasons:
1: what we can see is only the footage that is somewhat interesting, meaning the footage in wich the enemy aircraft is actually shot down/heavily damaged, we have no idea of what percentage of the total this amounts to.
2: the IL2 damage model is (for obvious reasons) simplified. Meaning that some sensitive spost are lacking, making ANY kind of machine gun less effective than in reality. This unfortunately cannt be adressed without unbalancing the game TOO much in favor of machine guns, and penalizing strongly good gunnery in favor of trigger happyness. I definately don't feel right that this simulator should be further unbalanced towards quakers with wings.

To balance this out there ALREADY is the fact that sensitive damage areas are bigger and less complex in IL-2 than in reality, making damaging them severely much easier.
This meaning that the tail section of a plane is less prone to lethal damage than in reality, while the nose section of a plane is MORE prone to lethal damage than in reality.
Unfortunately that's what we have and the ONLY solution to this would be making the damage model more complex, increasing lag considerably and cutting people with a 56k and slower computers completely out of the game. Moreover i seriously doubt that Oleg&C have any time to devote to such a big task now, since the DM should be reworked for ALL planes.
Simply increasing the damage power of Machine guns would be even more unbalancing, because they would cause more damage wherever they hit, even in parts of the plane that are realistically not sensitive to machine gun damage. Thus seevrely crippling a plane even with lucky hits, and lucky hits are EXTREMELY easy to get with machine guns, expecially if you have many of them.
Sorry but if i know Oleg even just a little this is not gonna happen.
The only real solution to the problem is to get a little better with gunnery and deflection shooting, to be able to target (from 6 high or 6 low) the nose section of the enemy plane, where the damage chances are actually HIGHER than they were in real life.
In any case this kind of behavioir is realistic, because any good pilot would not attack his target from 6 o clock level, nor aim directly at the tail section. Even if in IL2 the tail section is sturdier than in reality, even in reality it wasn't a good idea to target the part of the plane that was less prone to damage.
In IL2 machine guns do their duty brilliantly in the hands of a good pilot that knows where and how to aim, they perform poorly in the hands of a less than average pilot that ca't deflect enough and always hits the tail section, that's it.
It's really not that difficult to master it once you know the trick, and when you do you will notice how easy is to get kills or to at least force an enemy pilot to ditch/bail.
If you're unsatisfied about the performance of your pony/jug think that many, with effort and training, manage to score good kills having only TWO (or four when they're lucky) machine guns, while you are lucky enough to sport 6/8 of them.

My main suggestion here is to play in environments in wich pilots cannot just hit "refly" and get back into the game immediately and in wich the death of one pilot counts (full real coops/wars). This will give back to your machine guns the scaring/disturbing effect they had in real life, making them much more effective.
Otherwise, if you play only on online dogfights, well, you can't really complain much, they are unrealistic much before even getting to actually shoot at the enemy.

edit @stiegler: i don't feel cannons to be this much overpowered. In real life a 20mm bullet could snap a wing while hitting in the right spot. And so it's in this sim. It wasn't an extremely common occurrence, but it DID happen. Saburo Sakai records such an occurrence in his book Samurai, and i'm fairly sure Pierre Clostermann does as well.
On the other end, more often than not i find myself (normally when i'm lazy/not concentrated enough and don't take my time to aim well) spraying my target (mostly the tail section again, see, it doesn't happen just with MG) with several cannon shot, and despite big holes appearing in the fuselage it doesn't go down.
I'm fairly sure that the imulation of the various kind of ammunitions is accurate in this game, the problem is in the damage model (earlier in this post i was talking about simplified sensitive spots, i do think that applies to the wing roots as well, that's why they're so easy to rip apart)
Good point on concentration of fire, the popular effects we see on gun camera ARE actually possible with MG on two conditions:
1: you have to be gentle enough to keep your aircraft steady while firing. To my observation the virtual pilot is normally MUCH rougher than real ones with his plane. Normally due to lack of patience/eagerness to put the target into the gunsight, thus screwing the stability of his plane as a fire platform.
2: you have to set your convergence right and be able to evaluate yourtarget distance to keep it at your convergence range most of the time. I feeel the convergence range of 500 meters set by default to be HIGHLY ineffective on basically all the planes. I would suggest 150/200 meters for MG and 200 meters for cannon, but that really is heavily variable from pilot to pilot.
If your convergence is set wrongly or you're not well trained in judging it's distance from the nose of your plane to fire exactly when the enemy plane is in that spot you defnately MAIM the effectiveness of your machine guns.

Frequent_Flyer
02-15-2006, 10:20 PM
Stigler, I will agree with the exception being the 37mm on the P-39. the only ammunition aforded the Soviets by the US was HE. The explosive force from a point detenating 37mm should literally be a "one hit wonder " At the very least a nice explosion instead of a puff of smoke and the plane continues on.

Lordbutter4
02-15-2006, 10:31 PM
I dont see how beefing up the machine guns will add to an "arcady" Il2. Didnt the 20mm get a beef up just a patch ago? How many times have you seen a 109 or spit on your tail stall out and endlessly spam his 20mm all over the place in hopes of landing a hit on you. Whats even worse is when you see these spammed out hits hit something and cause immediate damage (talk about arcady).
Parking on a planes six and firing dead six gives you a simple shot. No need to worry about deflection. Remember your bullets in RL will penetrate that tail section and hit something vital BEHIND the cockpit. Why do you think most planes needed rear cockpit armor? Look at a breakdown of a FW. Behind the armor usually sits the air tanks. Let a round hit one of those. Not to mention some planes have gas tanks, control cables, engines, anything you can think of. Someone said a bi-plane as an example. If you parked on a bi-planes six and lit it up with mg fire, the bullets would pass right through the fabric and probabaly into the cockpit. Same goes for the upper wing. In game however sometimes you can fire a volley of 12 303's, hit right in the cockpit area, and not get a PK. Same with dead six shots. Right now without penetration this type of kill isnt happening. Instead players who use MG's on a regular basis are forced to be great marksmen while the cannon players can just spam kill.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Lordbutter4:
Parking on a planes six and firing dead six gives you a simple shot.

Simple but less effective, that's the trade off, your decision.


No need to worry about deflection.

If you don't want to worry about the slight deflection needed to attack from 6 o' clock high or 6 o' clock low, then you can blame only yourself if your shots are uneffective.
Better gunners get better results, more egffort means more reward, i see this as very fair and very realistic.


Remember your bullets in RL will penetrate that tail section and hit something vital BEHIND the cockpit.

All the while loosing energy and as such damaging power.


Why do you think most planes needed rear cockpit armor?

Mostly to protect from 6'o clock high attacks, that was one of the preferred vectors of engagement and the one in wich it was the easiest to land shots in the rear part of the cockpit. Most shots coming from dead six exhausted their stopping power much before reaching the cockit or any armor.


control cables

Do you have any idea of how hard it is to severe or even hit a CABLE with a machine gun that has no explosion on impact?


Instead players who use MG's on a regular basis are forced to be great marksmen while the cannon players can just spam kill.

EVERYONE in this game is forced to be a good marksman, given that you play in a realistic environment. Cannons generally have low ROF and low ammunition, you will find people spamming shots as you described earlier in the post to be HIGHLY uneffective to disastrous in environments on wich you actually have to make every round of ammo count and on wich you can't just land, rearm, or just die and hit refly and be instantly back into the fray.
Those environments are unrealistic by definition, and they don't count much.
As i told to the previous poster, if you're unsatisfied to see "cannon spammers" be succesful, find a more realistic environment and you'll laugh while seeing them suck badly.

Beefing MG with their high rof and high numbers on many planes would simply encourage pilots to spam shots more than they already do, without actually having to worry about gunnery or ability, nor ammo count.
You would just turn planes like the mustang or the jug into monsters with 6 or 8 cannon-like (in term of effectiveness) guns that have MUCH more ammo than the average cannon, obtaining a totally unrealistic outcome, an outcome that i'm sure would please many red whiners, that would finally get theyr much awaited "win the war" button, but that would be unrealistic anyway.
If you think that cannon planes have an unfair advantage, try them once, and when you'll run out of ammo after a couple of short bursts, having then to rely only on TWO meager MG to save your life, you'll notice that they aren't the heaven that you thought they were.

Remember than in any case this is a SIMULATION, not an FPS, and balance is not an issue.

Frequent_Flyer
02-15-2006, 11:01 PM
Harlock, It only takes "one" bullet to down a plane. We all have been hit in that " lethal area" sending you into that terminal dive.Your chances of scoring that "one" hit are greater with eight .50 firing than the two MG's and a cannon on the 109, or the two 20mm and the two .50's on the spit. Yet experience shows me different.
While not impossible to decern how many hits with a .50 should down a plane there are more varibles than anyone would want to discuss. We don't need to know. Simple math dictates more rounds headed for the target more likely a 'lethal strike' is made. Again Gun camera confirms this.The p-38 has more concentration of fire power (an area the size of a beach ball on the target in real life) Four .50's and a 20mm all getting to the target at the same time. Yet your more likely to bring down a plane in a Spit.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Harlock, It only takes "one" bullet to down a plane. We all have been hit in that " lethal area" sending you into that terminal dive.Your chances of scoring that "one" hit are greater with eight .50 firing than the two MG's and a cannon on the 109, or the two 20mm and the two .50's on the spit. Yet experience shows me different.

That's not entirely true. I mean, yes, it's easier with 8 machine guns to actually have one of the bullets you fire to directly hit that lethal spot, but you don't take into account warhead fragmentation of a cannon round here.

When a cannon round explodes, it's like many small bullets are fired trough the area of the explosion, each one of them has a chance to hit that lethal spot. That's wht a good gunner will always have the advantage if he's using cannons.
He's more likely to put a shot into the enemy plane and that shot will count more.
Sure, cannon shell have less numbers,. but they have automatic concentration of firepower, and in gunnery concentration is EVERYTHING.

Machine guns were used in big numbers on american planes because (no disrespect intended) american pilots were on average less trained in gunnery that their axis counterparts, thus needing guns able to spray the target area with a big number of shots and making it easier to actually hit.

In fact when the number of experienced pilots on the axis side began to become scarce, the advantage of machine gun planes became more apparent, that's because the newbie axis pilots, with scarce gunnery training, weren't able to hit a lancaster parked 2 meters in front of their noses using only 1 or 2 low ROF cannons.

While this can be an advantage in real life, where you might have MUCH less time to actually get experienced with gunnery it's a factual disadvantage here, because we simply don't die. So we have time to get a good experience with gunnery, making the only REAL advantage of machine guns moot.

If you put 2 very experienced pilots one against the another, in totally even conditions, the one with the MG will probably loose, in real life like in IL2, because the gunnery experience renders the MG's advantage moot.

If you put 2 fairly unexperienced pilots in the same conditions, the one with MG will probably win, because he'll be able to degrade his opponent's plane performance much faster with lucky/spray shots while his opponent will probably just miss.

So yes, probably a veteran IL2 player will probably fare better with cannons than with guns, but that's not because guns are undermodeled, but simply because his gunnery is good enough to make the only real advantage guns have almost totally useless.

If we were in a real environment, where pilots actually die, and don't retain their experience when they come back and fly after a good night of sleep, machine guns planes would be MUCH more appreciated.



My opinion on the matter, is that dogfight servers actually turn this simulation into little more than an FPS in wich you move in three dimensions. You die, hit refly, and you're back there instantly.
Flying on a more realistic environment in wich limited ammo and being killed counts much more would probably make most complaints about balance moot points.
that' why, personally, i avoid dogfight servers like the plague. Believe me, if you want immersion, go where you will ACTUALY feel the tension and be afraid to die/run out of ammo at a critical time, in that kind of environment a good rack of 6/8 machine guns is MUCH more appreciated and effective.
When i fly axis and i begin to see an high number of bullets streaking around me, and the sound of impacts begins to beheard, my fingers goes immediately to the CTRL+E, much better than seeing the black screen. Thing that DOES happen often when against mustangs, jugs, p-40 and the like. In that environment, believe me, machine guns, are as good as gold.

Kocur_
02-15-2006, 11:33 PM
Parking on a planes six and firing dead six gives you a simple shot. No need to worry about deflection. Remember your bullets in RL will penetrate that tail section and hit something vital BEHIND the cockpit. Why do you think most planes needed rear cockpit armor?

Unfortuntunately not! Only AP and to some extent API projectiles had chances of hitting pilot through armour plate from dead 6, but as various tests shown, passing through: stabs, tailwheel, radio equippment greately reduces penetration of those. In fact even thin fuselage skin was an obstacle difficult to lower considerably penetration of AP projectiles, the best in penetration. If you fire from dead 6, pilots chances behind 10mm plate are good, if its 15mm - he's safe!

The same goes to API or I projectiles: if you fire from dead 6, there is alwys considerable distance detween point of impact on outer skin, where incendiary material gets ignited and tanks walls inside, both in case of wing and fuselage tanks. To sum up: any angle of deflection beyound 0 of 'dead 6' increaces effectiveness of mg or hmg hits. In fact: of all hits.

Kocur_
02-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by HarlockGN:

That's not entirely true. I mean, yes, it's easier with 8 machine guns to actually have one of the bullets you fire to directly hit that lethal spot, but you don't take into account warhead fragmentation of a cannon round here.

When a cannon round explodes, it's like many small bullets are fired trough the area of the explosion, each one of them has a chance to hit that lethal spot. That's wht a good gunner will always have the advantage if he's using cannons.
He's more likely to put a shot into the enemy plane and that shot will count more.

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


Originally posted by HarlockGN:

Machine guns were used in big numbers on american planes because (no disrespect intended) american pilots were on average less trained in gunnery that their axis counterparts, thus needing guns able to spray the target area with a big number of shots and making it easier to actually hit.



Well, the reasons are not of practical gunnery reasons. The reasons are of technological and industry nature. From another thread:

I just got my copy of
"The Machine Gun Volume 1 - History, Evolution and Developement of Manual, Automatic and Airborne Repeating Weapons by George M. Chinn, Lieutenant Colonel, USMC".
What a GREAT book!

You can put on shelf with fairy tales any claims that US were totally satsfied with .50 and didnt want anythig else. As soon as 1936 USN decided to search for suitable aircraft cannon. Four types were initially considered: Danish Madsen, German Rhinemetall-Borsig and two Swiss guns: Solothurn and Oerlikon.
Develpement of Hispano was closely watched by American Navy AND Army attaches in Paris. On 27 february 1937 War Department authorised its attache to "ascetain prices and dates of delivery" of 20mm and 23mm Hispanos. On 27 july 1937 US War Department ordered a Hispano with certain amount of ammo, and that was ready for inspection on 15 december 1937. The gun and ammo arrived in US on 26 february 1938! The gun was tested by Army in Aberdeen Proving Ground, with Navy watching closely, from 21 june 1938 to april 1940 (sic!). Also 23mm Madsens were tested, even got Army designations 0.9'' T1 to T3!
Finally Hispano was chosen and contract between US Gov and Societe Francaise Hispano-Suiza was signed, by which 33 Hispanos were bought, 20 for Navy, 13 for Army plus option for buying all manufacturing rights withina a year for 425.000$ plus 100$ of royalty per gun made in US. Those 33 guns arrived Aberdeen Proving Ground on 20 february 1940.

On 11 april 1940 gen. Arnold, chief of USAAC wrote to US Army Chief of Ordnance suggesting him to take immediate steps to buy production rights to Hispano and buy 400 guns even before rights were bought. He also pointed out to standarise Hispano ASAP. Since original blueprints would not be available before buying rights to produce guns, Watervliet ****nal was ordered to prepare set of drawinigs basing of Hispanos in their disposal. Initial USAAC needs were estimated 456 guns and Navy's - 100, therefore 600 were planned for production to ensure surplus. But when it came to ordering production 1.202 guns were ordered in three companies. Finally Bendix Aviation Corp. was choosen as main US manufacturer of Hispano and order was placed there for up to 5.000 guns on 23 septeber 1940. And so something unprecedented happened: a major power, the USA, adopted a weapon of foreign origin and ordered its local production before licence to produce it was bought! I call it a serious rush, quite far from full satisfaction with .50!
Licence was finally bought on 6 november 1940. Initially 1.202 guns were ordered in Eclipse Machine Division of Bendix Aviation Corp. as M1., including 500 for US Navy. Before any were delivered, order was changed for modified version standarised as "Gun, Automatic, 20mm, AN M2 (Aircraft)". Bendix shippings begun in late 1941 and production capability of 1.300 per month was reached. Until early 1941 Army ordered production of 44.747 20mm cannons! Later on more companies joined production program including Oldsmobile (77.010 total), International Harvester (24.526 total) and... IBM (10.500 total)!
As it was said above in january 1942 British Hispano and its drawnings arrived in US. British asked to produce US Hispanos, i.e. M1 ans AN M2 with minor changes, which would make them identical to British Hispano Mk. II. Of those minor changes, one was rather major, i.e. lenght of chamber - that was shorter by 2mm in British gun. By then it was clear that US Hispanos suffered high misfire rate, which did not happen to British ones, even though both used the same ammo. But Army Ordnance enineers decided in april 1942 that British shorter chamber has no advantages over American and decided no to alter it...
But soon level of inreliability of US manufactured Hispanos forced new tests which lasted from june 1942 to january 1943. It was found that it is necessary to... shorten chamber by 1mm!! AN M2s with shorter chamber of International Harvester and Oldsmobile were tested in UK in july and august 1943, being mounted in Hurricane along with British Hispanos - reliability of all guns was found satisactory. All 35.955 US Hispanos with long chambers were declared UNSERVICEABLE!

So some conceited engineers of Army Ordnance who decided not to shorten US Hispano chamber according to British blueprints in january of 1942 so their reliability was far too low, delayed practical service of 20mm AN M2 by over a year. That forced US Hispano out of service as primary US fighters armament... And .50 AN M2 Browning was left as the only other thing in American inventory - and so legend of such a US "decision" begun...


In initial NA P-51B project it had 4 x 20mm, but since US made Hispanos proved to be unreliable, 20mm AN M2 had to be replaced with next best weapon in US inventory: .50. There was no time to redesign wings gunbays to increace number of gun stations and so... Later on, i.e. after US Hispanos were finally corrected in summer of 1943, production of P-47 and P-51 was already too hot to alter anything in the design, not to mention lost confidence in US Hispano reliability...

Kocur_
02-15-2006, 11:49 PM
I dont see how beefing up the machine guns will add to an "arcady" Il2. Didnt the 20mm get a beef up just a patch ago?

We dont have a "20mm" in the game. What we have are specific types of 20mm cannons: ShVAK, Hispanos, Type 99s and MG-151/20. The latter was "beefed up" by adding Minengeschoss projectile ammo to its belts to replicate historical ammo set of that specific cannon.

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
The latter was "beefed up" by adding Minengeschoss projectile ammo to its belts to replicate historical ammo set of that specific cannon.

Several months ago I seem to remember someone posting a similar and very legitimate problem with the .50s. That change was make every round API or at least get the fictional HE round that is there removed. I don't exactly remember Oleg's reply, but it was pretty much "Too bad, I don't care." or no reply at all. No explanation or reasons to something clearly incorrect and easy to prove.

I'd still like to know why its even there in the first place, its seems to do about as much damage as a small firecracker. Who doesn't like to try to shoot down aircraft with about 1-2 ounces of HE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ReligiousZealot
02-16-2006, 01:23 AM
So what exactly is going on here? It seems this thread's original intention was to state something appeared fishy with the .50 cals power. Since then, people have been showing up and giving their opinion and nothing seems to be going anywhere. This is due much to the fact little evidence has been presented on either side of the fence to support that side's argument.

I have my own feelings towards the new .50s. I don't like them, they are desynched, which is a good thing, but their power is frustrating. I play online when I'm in the mood, but as well as a slightly longer time as an offline flyer. So when I come storming out of the clouds at an unsuspecting enemy and I open up with my .50s I expect them to tear him apart...they used to, was it patch 3.03 or 3.04? But they were firing in salvos, so it's a little different now. They just don't seem right, and you can argue all you want about them being correct, fire from the correct convergence, target specific areas etc. This is all useful advice, and I have been attempting to use these tactics since my days of flying EAW. But in this latest patch, I find it infuriating to watch my intended quarry fly on as if nothing happened after I put a 3 second burst into his wing or tail and used a little rudder to walk them into the vitals (cockpit, wing root, engine, etc.).

So, instead of continuing to go round and round, people constantly coming back to defend their posts that people keep picking apart and try to make them seem like an idiot for not bothering to write out obvious things, I just want to say this: If you think the .50s are excellent and outright effective, then say it. If not, say what you think needs improvement. There is no point in going round and round trying to prove what you say by citing examples from your own experiences, a book, gun camera footage, what you heard, and so on. It's a plain and simple matter of opinion. Once people form one, they are usually pretty stubborn to change it, at least around here.

In closing, I don't think the .50s are right. They lack the stopping power they should rightfully have, and regardless of how much "evidence" you guys present, you're not gonna make me change my opinion, because as far as I'm concerned, I think I'm right. I know it goes the same way for you, so let's just say it. This is an argument that has no end, it will go round and round until the next patch, or by the grace of God, Oleg or a team member comes and says what is going to happen (if anything).

"To return to the obviously controversial question of the relatively poor performance of the .50 Browning: as has already been stated in this study, "the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered, there were strong arguments in favour of retaining the weapon, as the standardisation of production, supply, maintenance and training provided great logistic benefits by comparison with the plethora of different weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese in particular."

Here's the website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)(also posted on page 2)...the tables score the .50s as 1/8-1/3 the power of the various cannons.

That's the only solid evidence I can find around here, other than Kocur_'s post regarding the 'why' the US continually used M2s. The problem with these sources is they can be used to argue either way, so it really just comes down to a matter of opinion.

Don't take this as the wrong way, after all, I'm just giving my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Edit: Fixed broken link.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:

Several months ago I seem to remember someone posting a similar and very legitimate problem with the .50s. That change was make every round API or at least get the fictional HE round that is there removed.

I dont think I get what you mean here. A "fictional HE round"?? Anyway there were no HE rounds in US .50s. There were such in soviet, German and AFAIK Italian ones, but not in US hmgs.


Even though I feel quite competent in guns I cant tell if current effectiveness of .50 is RL like or not. What I do see is that their effectiveness has one thing to do with RL at least: randomness. Sometimes you shoot and shoot and little to nothing happenes. OTOH sometimes the first short burst kills the enemy pilot or cuts control(s). Those are extremes, and there is also everything between them.

Another thing quite sure is belting. In progress of WW2 percentage of Ball ammo was reduced in favour of AP and APIs. AFAIK at least from mid-1944 US fighters used mix of API and T or API only. I have no idea what is current .50s belting.

HarlockGN
02-16-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Even though I feel quite competent in guns I cant tell if current effectiveness of .50 is RL like or not. What I do see is that their effectiveness has one thing to do with RL at least: randomness. Sometimes you shoot and shoot and little to nothing happenes. OTOH sometimes the first short burst kills the enemy pilot or cuts control(s). Those are extremes, and there is also everything between them.


I totaly agree here. This morning i just decided to make a quick flight before work, and since i wasn't up to think too much about gunnery (i didn't sleep tonight and was too sleepy), so i took up a jug and took off in a full real DF server.
First plane that got into my sights was a Ki-61. I fired a decently long burst from 6 o clock low (about 2 secs), saw the usual debris coming out of it, it entered a cloud and fled.
Then i got a Ki-84, attacked from 6 o clock low with a very short burst (no more than 1 sec) and the wing was ripped off, fell down like a mature apple.
Third "victim" was anothe ki-61, approached from 6-high, gave it a lil bit of deflection, waited until it was roughly into the convergence range and shot another 1 sec burst. Propeller stopped adn engine smoking, didn't see if the pilot bailed, but a few seconds later i got the kill message, so i guess he did.
Guns didn't feel underpowered at all, more than that they felt like they had a quite high degree of randomness (like they are SUPPOSED to be) but they easily ripped a sturdy plane like the Ki-84 to pieces.
Actually i LIKE having those 8 mg racked in my wings... they give quite a good sensation
It might be because i'm used to the two peashooters on the CR-42 or to have to rely on just two guns on the zero as soon as you (very quickly) run out of cannon ammo, that to me 8 .50 almost look like overkill.

@ReligiousZealot
Honestly telling that .50 should be beefed up because you feel like so it's kind of like telling us that the american planes should be more powerful beause the US won the war, so they should be able to easily beat the axis planes.
A quite weak argument if you ask me...

Honestly i'm a bit saddened by all this people that think that this should be beefed up and that should be nerfed just because they "feel" that their favourite plane/gun/thing should be more succesful or the enemy should be less succesful.
WW2 is far away in time, Oleg has done his calculations and we have what we have to play/simulate with, for whatever proof/evidence/data someone can bring, someone else can bring an exactly opposite proof/evidence/data.
So let's just fly with what Oleg gave us and think about tuning our skills instead of tuning our guns?

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 01:20 PM
Think .50 issues are not in fact on .50. But in RL planes had much more areas that were sensitve to small solid shots. In game we have only a few.

Explosive shells like MG ones or Mk108 ones on other hand don´t need to hit any specific system to cripple a plane. They can pretty much blow large, really large pieces of plane skin and control surfaces easily. So anywhere the shell lands.. it is a good hit.

Blutarski2004
02-16-2006, 02:34 PM
Not to send this thread too far off course, but the Hispano was not the only foreign weapon design adopted in WW2 by the US. The USN licensed both the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40mm Bofors and produced thousands and thousands of them for use as AAA aboard their ships. Probably every hsip in the USN mounted one or both by war's end.

Here's an interesting question for those in the know. How did the P38 end up with a 20mm gun in its nose?

HarlockGN
02-16-2006, 02:42 PM
Actually i don't know. The only thing i know is that it originally was supposed to have 1 23 mm cannon, that was then replaced with a 20 mm cannon with a bigger ammo load.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 02:51 PM
Umm, ASA they found that 37mm is not effective air to air weapon, they just replaced it with Hispano?

ReligiousZealot
02-16-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Even though I feel quite competent in guns I cant tell if current effectiveness of .50 is RL like or not. What I do see is that their effectiveness has one thing to do with RL at least: randomness. Sometimes you shoot and shoot and little to nothing happenes. OTOH sometimes the first short burst kills the enemy pilot or cuts control(s). Those are extremes, and there is also everything between them.


I agree here as well, it makes sense in the randomness, but as you said, on the other hand there is everything inbetween.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
@ReligiousZealot
Honestly telling that .50 should be beefed up because you feel like so it's kind of like telling us that the american planes should be more powerful beause the US won the war, so they should be able to easily beat the axis planes.


Look, I said what I thought, and if I'm wrong, neither of us have any way of proving it. The US contributed largely towards winning the war, and if I'm under the mistaken notion that their planes armamnets should be fairly effective, someone please tell me. When compared to the German planes armament, the .50s don't stack up. I was under the impression that .50s were a decent gun, not as good as the fine tuned German cannons, but still an all around good gun.


Originally posted by HarlockGN
A quite weak argument if you ask me...


What argument? I'm not trying to argue anything. I just came to add my 2 cents worth.


Originally posted by HarlockGN:
Honestly i'm a bit saddened by all this people that think that this should be beefed up and that should be nerfed just because they "feel" that their favourite plane/gun/thing should be more succesful or the enemy should be less succesful.
WW2 is far away in time, Oleg has done his calculations and we have what we have to play/simulate with, for whatever proof/evidence/data someone can bring, someone else can bring an exactly opposite proof/evidence/data.
So let's just fly with what Oleg gave us and think about tuning our skills instead of tuning our guns?

I have to say I agree with enjoying what Oleg and team has given us and the less complaining. So on that note, let's just end this silly thread by agreeing that the .50s may be or may not be modeled wrong, just certain things are not/cannot be modeled to attain the true effectiveness of the real .50s.

Edit: Cobra-84 in the other thread seemed to have come up with a response that made more sense than any of the babbling here.

He writes:

Originally posted by Cobra-84:
After some offline testing, I'm going have to slightly change my position on this subject. I agree with both sides. Most aircraft seem to take .50 damage fairly reasonably.

All non-direct engine hits shot at 6 o'clock, little to no deflection, fired under 300m, convergence at 100m. Used P-51D-20, mostly no cockpit view. All targets friendly to avoid Maneuvering.

Direct engine hits fired in B-25J's tail guns, both aircraft on the runway.

American and British planes were the easiest to shoot down. Even ignoring overly flammable P-47 fuel tank and paper R-2800 engines, I had no problems getting kills on Spitfires, Tempests, and P-40s.

Soviet planes were mixed. The Yaks were maybe a little too tough, but weren't too bad. Il-2 was tough, but but still took damage and could be killed. It Lost control surfaces and had fuel leaks but was kept flying; could be killed with a wing removal or engine fialure after a reasonable amount of hits. The La-5s were easy kills, mostly tail removal and engine failure. La-7s and LaGG-3s were terrible, little visible damage, no engine problems(the one and only La-7 I killed online with .50s was a pilot kill).

German planes are the worst offenders, and unfortunately the most common target for a .50. Bf-109 fuselage is made of concrete, it take little damage and prevents AP rounds from penetrating into the pilot or engine. Engine is fine, about 6 hits to kill it. wings are ok, probably a little to strong but not ridiculous. The lack of pilot\engine hits with AP ammo really hurts.

Firing .50s at a FW-190A isn't even worthwhile. Only weak points are the pilot and a fuel tank near the bomb rack. The fuel tank needs only about 5-6 hits to catch fire but it can only be hit from below. It a an overly tough fuselage like the 109. The engine takes over direct 20 hits to kill (I lost track to hits after 20. I'll try again later). Each of the 6 wing sections (three per wing) take about 30 or more hits. Due to the poor division of the wing sections it is likely the shots will divied between each section if aimed a little to the side of the fuselage. The outside section is the largest and easiest to remove, it makes up about half starting from the tip.

The weak .50s are really only the caused against a few with bad damage models (old?). Unfortunately these aircraft are extemely common. Fixing the damage models on these planes would help greatly. increasing the .50 damage would hurt the planes that take damage properly.

After this, I only can only recommend two changes to the current M2s. Possbily a very slight damage increase on long to medium range shots(not that important), and an ammo change to APIT-API-API-API (or similar) from the APIT-AP-HE-AP we have now(needs to be done, at least remove the HE).

I've gotta say, that sounds like the end of the mystery. Boy do I feel stupid for not coming to this conclusion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif