PDA

View Full Version : Are the .50's underpowered



mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 09:27 AM
From my experience I would say categorically no, here is a link to statistics of an excellent pilot who posts here but I wont name him.

http://www.il2hq.com/Stats/playerdetails.php?id=5352

He tested each of the main air to air weapons. This test shows it averaged around 55 hits to take down an aircraft. This is inclusive of packet loss, strange DM's different targets ect.

55 hits is a one second burst on target.

I fly .50 cal armed planes online quite a bit and I find them to be excellent weapons. Engine kills, dewings but especially pilot kills are the results. Fires too depending on what type of targets. The P38's weapons package can achieve kills from over 500m cockpit on using only the .50 cals. I have shot down Fw 190's from over this range setting them on fire from dead 6.

I suggest anyone who feels the M2 .50 cal is under powered needs to reapraise how they go about aiming, leading and shooting down their targets. In my opinion its is probably the best all round gun on realistic settings servers.

mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 09:27 AM
From my experience I would say categorically no, here is a link to statistics of an excellent pilot who posts here but I wont name him.

http://www.il2hq.com/Stats/playerdetails.php?id=5352

He tested each of the main air to air weapons. This test shows it averaged around 55 hits to take down an aircraft. This is inclusive of packet loss, strange DM's different targets ect.

55 hits is a one second burst on target.

I fly .50 cal armed planes online quite a bit and I find them to be excellent weapons. Engine kills, dewings but especially pilot kills are the results. Fires too depending on what type of targets. The P38's weapons package can achieve kills from over 500m cockpit on using only the .50 cals. I have shot down Fw 190's from over this range setting them on fire from dead 6.

I suggest anyone who feels the M2 .50 cal is under powered needs to reapraise how they go about aiming, leading and shooting down their targets. In my opinion its is probably the best all round gun on realistic settings servers.

berg417448
02-15-2006, 09:30 AM
I have no problems with them when I do my part.

jds1978
02-15-2006, 09:30 AM
no complaints here.

.50's are sweet in 4.xx

Tator_Totts
02-15-2006, 09:35 AM
Is this going to be anothe blue camp fest?

Texan...
02-15-2006, 09:38 AM
It's almost like calling for a press conference to announce you are not guilty.

http://www.nndb.com/people/110/000024038/richard-m-nixon-sm.jpg

mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
Is this going to be anothe blue camp fest? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope just another thread where poor pilots come on and whine about their favourite gun being porked while people who dont even specialise in .50 cal armed aircraft just get on with it and achive good results.

jamesdietz
02-15-2006, 09:45 AM
Not when they are aimed AT me...Those AI Gunners are good!

Yak_Ace
02-15-2006, 09:57 AM
Brownings are now OK in my view! They were a bit underpowered in previous patch as I can rememeber. I don't fly much on US planes so I am not sure.
But in reality it was a powerful weapon. Short after war USAAF tested 0.50's shells impact on Me-109 and it was proven that only one hit could pierce its engine at 730 meters! Maybe Brownings weren't so effective against bombers but LW bombers didn't pose any threat on Western Front! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 10:15 AM
from a angle shoot the .50's are fine how ever i think there is a major flaw in most aircrafts DM in this game when it comes to 6 Oclock shots. the 50's act more like small cannon rounds that do damnge only if that hit the outer portion of the would be effected area. a real life 50 on the other hand was more about penatration.

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
Is this going to be anothe blue camp fest? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope just another thread where poor pilots come on and whine about their favourite gun being porked while people who dont even specialise in .50 cal armed aircraft just get on with it and achive good results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a fine example of why its so hard to have a intelligent discussion around here some times. always some one with such a bias or closed mind trying to mouth off and throw alot of smoke. just as his first post is a good example of reverse whining. notice the thread starter had already made up his mind before even posting his qustion.

mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Is this going to be another blue camp fest ?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope just another thread where poor pilots come on and whine about their favourite gun being porked while people who dont even specialise in .50 cal armed aircraft just get on with it and achive good results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a fine example of why its so hard to have a intelligent discussion around here some times. always some one with such a bias or closed mind trying to mouth off and throw alot of smoke. just as his first post is a good example of reverse whining. notice the thread starter had already made up his mind before even posting his qustion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ford Fan see the post I was replying too. If you think this is a flame post or a fishing thread why would I even bother to post a link to show what is capable using . 50 cals?

Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate.

Grey_Mouser67
02-15-2006, 11:52 AM
In real life, it took an average of 20 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft with M2 Browning...this is confirmed kills, not claims.

Can't find the source, but it originated from an 8th AF study....another poster on the forum cited it, and also cited that the pilots studied acheived approximately a 10% hit ratio, using about 200 rounds per kill and the rest is pure deduction.

I think the damage modelling misses things like ammo boxes, collateral damage, oxygent bottles etc that would make smaller caliber guns firing more projectiles more effective.

Maybe some folks have some better info, but this was the best I had seen presented since I've been in this sim debating the weapons effectiveness.

That would be the task, to understand what the real round did and then make the sim match as closely as possible. To say a gun is underpowered or not is a difficult proposition if you can't determine, objectively, what reality really was.

Gibbage1
02-15-2006, 12:03 PM
Its my belief that AP rounds in general are greatly undermodeled in this game. I remember the P-39 when it had an AP/HE belting. The AP was useless. I would see it go into the engine of a 109 and do nothing. Put an HE round there and it would most likley remove the engine. The .50 cal is the same way.

My best example is the P-38. 4x .50 cal and 1 20MM. Any P-38 pilot will tell you the .50's are just to tickle and slow the target down till you can put a 20MM into him to take him out. The 20MM in the P-38 is MUCH more effective then the 4x.50 cal's, and everyone in this forum agrees that 3x .50 cals SHOULD = 1 20MM!!! In IL2 it dont. The de-syncing helped get what we have to the target, but its still lacking the hitting power it needs along with all AP rounds. It seems the Hispano has AP rounds in it and they are also useless.

I also have been in contact with Stan Wood, a P-38 ace in the pacific. I asked him about the guns, and he said he NEVER USED THE 20MM!!!! The 4 .50's was plenty.

So in IL2, 1 20MM is a lot more powerfull then 4 .50 cal. In real life, 1 20MM = 3 .50 cal.

mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Ive read that it took 20 hits too. So it currently takes over twice the amout of hits to obtain good results. This seems to work across the board for most guns I fire, if 20mm cannon were meant to take 3 -5 hits to down most fighter sized targets in game they take at least 10 - 15 hits generally.

Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism?

mynameisroland
02-15-2006, 12:28 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:

My best example is the P-38. 4x .50 cal and 1 20MM. Any P-38 pilot will tell you the .50's are just to tickle and slow the target down till you can put a 20MM into him to take him out. The 20MM in the P-38 is MUCH more effective then the 4x.50 cal's, and everyone in this forum agrees that 3x .50 cals SHOULD = 1 20MM!!! QUOTE]


I agree that one 20mm gun is as effective as 3 x M2's I dont agree that 3 .50 cal rounds are as effective as 1 20mm shell. Thats an important difference when looking at these 3 to 1 comments. I think that 3 x M2's can spew out the equivalent firepower of one 20mm cannon but it is how the rounds affect the target that needs to be quantified.

We are talking about HE damage vs KE damage. Even in IL2's current DM world I am happy to pummel targets with .50 cals because I know they cause control loss, pilot kills and engine kills. They maybe dont start as many fires as they should but I certainly find them to be very effective especially against He 111's and Ju 88's fuel leaks and pilot kills ahoy !

I find the .50's in the P38 to be better than the 20mm Hispano because the trajectory although supposedly similar is not. How often can you pull good solid hits off at ranges greater than 600m with the 20mm ? The M2's give the best long distance killing power imo in the game.

FluffyDucks
02-15-2006, 12:41 PM
What a load of TOSH from both "sides".

I thinks,he saids, joe said, maybe something I read somewhere, etc..etc... etc.

Absolute BALDERDASH.
FACTS and FIGURES from published sources are what counts not presumptions based on ignorance, bias, wannabeisms and pure unadulterated BULL SHEEIT.

Another thread that will have the usual suspects delivering their usual bilge from their tiny little closed minds which is destined for the BIN.

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

IBTL

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ive read that it took 20 hits too. So it currently takes over twice the amout of hits to obtain good results. This seems to work across the board for most guns I fire, if 20mm cannon were meant to take 3 -5 hits to down most fighter sized targets in game they take at least 10 - 15 hits generally.

Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm for the increase of firepower in general. I was posting in the other thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7971070214) about .50s feeling weak, and it wasn't until some campaign play this afternoon as a 109 that I too felt the cannons to feel somewhat weak.

My opinion is, if they do increase the power of all the guns, and the Mk 108 gets single hit kills, then okay. I'm willing to accept that if I know the guns on my plane are just as combat effective (not to be taken literally, you know what I mean).

I for one think if they increase all the weapon powers to realistic levels, that might force better teamwork on DF servers. It might actually strike some fear into the red flyers when they see that 109 diving on them with that hypnotizing nose cone knowing that a single hit from that cannon will destroy their plane - I know it would for me, haha http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

Blutarski2004
02-15-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In real life, it took an average of 20 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft with M2 Browning...this is confirmed kills, not claims.

Can't find the source, but it originated from an 8th AF study....another poster on the forum cited it, and also cited that the pilots studied acheived approximately a 10% hit ratio, using about 200 rounds per kill and the rest is pure deduction.

I think the damage modelling misses things like ammo boxes, collateral damage, oxygent bottles etc that would make smaller caliber guns firing more projectiles more effective.

Maybe some folks have some better info, but this was the best I had seen presented since I've been in this sim debating the weapons effectiveness.

That would be the task, to understand what the real round did and then make the sim match as closely as possible. To say a gun is underpowered or not is a difficult proposition if you can't determine, objectively, what reality really was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.... 'Twas I. I did a statistical analysis (last year?) of approx 120 claim reports by US 8FC fighter aces as they were reproduced in a recent book on their wartime careers. Sincethere was a specific convention about what relevant data was to be mentioned in each report, I was able extract trends on ranges (mean range 200-300 yards, with extremes as close as 25 yards and as distant as 700 yards with the K14 sight, expended ammunition (150-300 rounds typical, with extremes as little as 50 and as much as 500+), damage effects, etc. The figure of 15-30 rounds per kill was estimated in connection with an assumed ace gunnery accuracy of 10 percent hits in approx 200-300 rounds expended per attack. Keep in mind that an average RL pilot might only shoot with about 2 percent hits.

As far as the effectiveness of 50cal versus 20mm in long distance sniping is concerned, it is worth noting that a Pk is usually a one bullet event. A fighter armed with 50cals throws out a LOT more bullets compared to a fighter with an equal armament weight invested in 20mm.

Example - 6 x 50cal = 2 x 20mm as a rule of thumb. 2 x 20mm will fire about 20 rds/sec total; 6 x 50cal will fire about 80 rds/sec total and they remain lethal out to a long distance due to their relatively high MV..

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-15-2006, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Yes a thousand times yes, oh god YES!!!

Cyrano
02-15-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate.[/QUOTE]

Let's see all these super cool/super accurate 50 shooters ask Oleg to replace the D9 guns with those 50's for a few weeks and watch what happens. No doubt in my mind: no more D9's online.
Jokers talk a good game when "flying" with a fast ***** mobile.

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ReligiousZealot:
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrano:
Let's see all these super cool/super accurate 50 shooters ask Oleg to replace the D9 guns with those 50's for a few weeks and watch what happens. No doubt in my mind: no more D9's online.
Jokers talk a good game when "flying" with a fast ***** mobile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, hey! Let's all be nice. I think mynameisroland has a valid point, and he was defending himself from fordfan's somewhat attacking post. Since his originally post, I believe he's explained what he thinks quite well and I'd have to say I agree with him somewhat.

I don't agree the .50s are powerful or as accurate as some claim, but I do believe that mynameisroland is right in asking if we think all the weapons should be increased in power to "realistic" levels. I have to say, I fully agree. How about a little patch to fix that? So we can actually enjoy the desynched .50s/MGs. As long as the guns start behaving more realistically (especially the .50s).

The one thing I've learned about this forum is, there are a lot of opinions and you've got to be careful to not read into what people say. mynameisroland stated his opinion, and like everyone else, he's allowed to have one and voice it.

Don't take this as an attack, Cyrano, you have an excellent point about how many people would fly the D9 if it had the current .50s, pretty sure the answer would be none.

Edit: Ended up triple posting...no idea what happened, haha.

VW-IceFire
02-15-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ive read that it took 20 hits too. So it currently takes over twice the amout of hits to obtain good results. This seems to work across the board for most guns I fire, if 20mm cannon were meant to take 3 -5 hits to down most fighter sized targets in game they take at least 10 - 15 hits generally.

Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. I think thats a fair asssement and I'd agree that things should be brought closer to what is historical.

But we'll definately have alot more people going WTF over how quickly they were blown out of the sky.

Sounds like fun! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Is this going to be another blue camp fest ?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope just another thread where poor pilots come on and whine about their favourite gun being porked while people who dont even specialise in .50 cal armed aircraft just get on with it and achive good results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a fine example of why its so hard to have a intelligent discussion around here some times. always some one with such a bias or closed mind trying to mouth off and throw alot of smoke. just as his first post is a good example of reverse whining. notice the thread starter had already made up his mind before even posting his qustion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ford Fan see the post I was replying too. If you think this is a flame post or a fishing thread why would I even bother to post a link to show what is capable using . 50 cals?

Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have to apolagize. iv had a horrible headache for the past 3 days makeing my mood less than it normaly is. no matter weather i agree with your BS and completly wrong opinion or not i should not have made those statments. i was rude and there was no call for it. sorry.....ps the 50s R porked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

georgeo76
02-15-2006, 03:46 PM
the 18-20 rounds statistic was taken from gun camera footage. A few problems:

1: if your going to compare to this statistic, you should follow the methodology of the original one. (save tracks and count strikes from lots of pilots)

2: Real pilots have this thing where they bail out of an aircraft before it explodes. Online pilots don't. Plus, online pilots also have this thing where they shoot at AC until it explodes, crashes, or hits the ground. (overkill).

3: Packet loss.

I'm not saying the .50s are OK, just that this argument is too subjective.

Lordbutter4
02-15-2006, 03:50 PM
The problem is like everyones says..there is no penetration damage. This hurts all Mg weapons and gives cannon the advantage.

When a cannon stikes, i believe it causes numerous arrows on the plane which have various effects dependent on where it hits(I think). How many does an MG hit cause? 1 per hit?

Now since there is no penetration per hit in game now or probably ever do we up the damage on MG's to conpensate?

Facing facts Mg heavy planes are rarely used on most servers. Is it from flight models? Damage models? Most players wont bother trying to use the Mg's. I think that says something.

Unknown-Pilot
02-15-2006, 03:50 PM
Yes, the 50s were underpowered. It wasn't until the early mid 60s that things really started looking up, but the *good* power levels didn't come until the late 60s.

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

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Is this going to be another blue camp fest ?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope just another thread where poor pilots come on and whine about their favourite gun being porked while people who dont even specialise in .50 cal armed aircraft just get on with it and achive good results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a fine example of why its so hard to have a intelligent discussion around here some times. always some one with such a bias or closed mind trying to mouth off and throw alot of smoke. just as his first post is a good example of reverse whining. notice the thread starter had already made up his mind before even posting his qustion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ford Fan see the post I was replying too. If you think this is a flame post or a fishing thread why would I even bother to post a link to show what is capable using . 50 cals?

Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have to apolagize. iv had a horrible headache for the past 3 days makeing my mood less than it normaly is. no matter weather i agree with your BS and completly wrong opinion or not i should not have made those statments. i was rude and there was no call for it. sorry.....ps the 50s R porked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha...there's the fordfan we all know. I love your sig, got a chuckle out of it reading it just now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
the 18-20 rounds statistic was taken from gun camera footage. A few problems:

1: if your going to compare to this statistic, you should follow the methodology of the original one. (save tracks and count strikes from lots of pilots)

2: Real pilots have this thing where they bail out of an aircraft before it explodes. Online pilots don't. Plus, online pilots also have this thing where they shoot at AC until it explodes, crashes, or hits the ground. (overkill).

3: Packet loss.

I'm not saying the .50s are OK, just that this argument is too subjective.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like your reasoning and it is subjective - in regard to just the .50s. With the cannons, its almost a given that potency is off.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lordbutter4:
The problem is like everyones says..there is no penetration damage. This hurts all Mg weapons and gives cannon the advantage.

When a cannon stikes, i believe it causes numerous arrows on the plane which have various effects dependent on where it hits(I think). How many does an MG hit cause? 1 per hit?

Now since there is no penetration per hit in game now or probably ever do we up the damage on MG's to conpensate?

Facing facts Mg heavy planes are rarely used on most servers. Is it from flight models? Damage models? Most players wont bother trying to use the Mg's. I think that says something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By all means we should ask for pumped up damage on MGs. In order to achieve an effective simulation of air combat one should up the MG power to simulate their penetration damage, considering penetration damage isn't modelled. Not only that, I call for all the guns recieving an upped power level to simulate their penetration damage. After all, we are playing a simulator.

And yes, the reason people don't tend to fly strictly MG armed planes is their guns aren't as effective as they would've been in real life, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Yes, the 50s were underpowered. It wasn't until the early mid 60s that things really started looking up, but the *good* power levels didn't come until the late 60s.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can sort of agree with this. The part about the better .50 cal ammunition being in the 1960's, yes. But considering the M2 still generally uses the BMG with ball, I don't see how more than a slight difference in muzzle velocity from the non-high grade gun powder.

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-15-2006, 04:35 PM
It took over 70 landed rounds to bring down a zero. The desynced .50s are very nice though, you can finaly deflection shoot without watch a plane pass untouched through your stream. But they are underpowered.

Unknown-Pilot
02-15-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Unknown-Pilot:
Yes, the 50s were underpowered. It wasn't until the early mid 60s that things really started looking up, but the *good* power levels didn't come until the late 60s.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can sort of agree with this. The part about the better .50 cal ammunition being in the 1960's, yes. But considering the M2 still generally uses the BMG with ball, I don't see how more than a slight difference in muzzle velocity from the non-high grade gun powder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You missed what I was saying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This -
http://www.musclecarnationals.com/gallery/belair/belair55.jpg

vs this -
http://www.olderautos.com/pics/pontiac/69-Pontiac-GTO-Judge.jpg

To say nothing of this -
http://www.roadcompanion.ca/edito/mag/articles/22119/AC-Cobra-427_big.jpg


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

SweetMonkeyLuv
02-15-2006, 05:05 PM
1) So, can anyone point me to a full explanation of how exactly the damage model works in this game? I'm a WW2OL refugee, and there, models were released to players detailing which components in each vehicle were modeled, and how bullet hits/penetration work. I don't think I've seen any such thing here.

2) I thought leaving the WW2OL forums I would also leave behind all the red vs blue catfighting. Guess not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kocur_
02-15-2006, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hen a cannon stikes, i believe it causes numerous arrows on the plane which have various effects dependent on where it hits(I think). How many does an MG hit cause? 1 per hit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One arrow per a mg or hgm or cannon AP hit is fine. Thats whats happened: a solid piece of metal struck a place and went in.
Multiple arrows for cannon HE hits are ok too. Those arrows stand for blast, and even more so - for fragments.

BaronUnderpants
02-15-2006, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Yes a thousand times yes, oh god YES!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me refrase: No No a thousand times no, oh god NO!!!.

I can just see it now..." its WAY to easy to be killed/ get kills, is so stupid and kills all the fun" and on and on and on.

Set up right its almost to easy to get a kill as it is now. and dont get me started on how easy it is on servers with 20-30 in ping = lagfree, ( usally fly with 160-170 ping ) talk a about arcade.

On the upcomming BoB its a differant matter since 303 cal on Spit and Hurries today is completly and utterly useless for anythingelse than PK`s ( i dare anyone to claim differantly )

In BoB i guess we will either have a new DM like some pointed out with hitboxes for ammo boxes, oxegyn bottles and so on...or we will get tweaked firepower of small arms cal. I for one is hoping for the first option.

horseback
02-15-2006, 06:12 PM
I've had a few opportunities to try the 'new' fifties, and they are improved. Time will tell if they are adequately improved.

As has been pointed out, you would jump or run for for home the moment you took hits in a real airplane; some disinfecting of the cockpit (not to mention the aircrews' pants) postflight might also be necessary.

One problem I've had is the lack of an audio cue that I've been hit. Losing a wing or taking cannon/MG rounds anywhere near the cockpit should be LOUD, and hits in the fuselage should at least have some authority.

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
02-15-2006, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In real life, it took an average of 20 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft with M2 Browning...this is confirmed kills, not claims.

Can't find the source, but it originated from an 8th AF study....another poster on the forum cited it, and also cited that the pilots studied acheived approximately a 10% hit ratio, using about 200 rounds per kill and the rest is pure deduction.

I think the damage modelling misses things like ammo boxes, collateral damage, oxygent bottles etc that would make smaller caliber guns firing more projectiles more effective.

Maybe some folks have some better info, but this was the best I had seen presented since I've been in this sim debating the weapons effectiveness.

That would be the task, to understand what the real round did and then make the sim match as closely as possible. To say a gun is underpowered or not is a difficult proposition if you can't determine, objectively, what reality really was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.... 'Twas I. I did a statistical analysis (last year?) of approx 120 claim reports by US 8FC fighter aces as they were reproduced in a recent book on their wartime careers. Sincethere was a specific convention about what relevant data was to be mentioned in each report, I was able extract trends on ranges (mean range 200-300 yards, with extremes as close as 25 yards and as distant as 700 yards with the K14 sight, expended ammunition (150-300 rounds typical, with extremes as little as 50 and as much as 500+), damage effects, etc. The figure of 15-30 rounds per kill was estimated in connection with an assumed ace gunnery accuracy of 10 percent hits in approx 200-300 rounds expended per attack. Keep in mind that an average RL pilot might only shoot with about 2 percent hits.

As far as the effectiveness of 50cal versus 20mm in long distance sniping is concerned, it is worth noting that a Pk is usually a one bullet event. A fighter armed with 50cals throws out a LOT more bullets compared to a fighter with an equal armament weight invested in 20mm.

Example - 6 x 50cal = 2 x 20mm as a rule of thumb. 2 x 20mm will fire about 20 rds/sec total; 6 x 50cal will fire about 80 rds/sec total and they remain lethal out to a long distance due to their relatively high MV.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for replying Blutarski S!...yes, I remember it was you now.

The information you posted was the most informative and accurate representation of objective data I've seen yet.

If anyone else disagrees, present their case and their documentation or why they think the way they do.

The score of the pilot Boemher posted was impressive, his gunnery was over 11%...far better than I acheive with ingame results...I suspect that he fired only when very close to insure connecting in order to acheive those kinds of numbers.

The thing that makes online statistics suspect is the kills a pilot gets when another pilot is lightly damaged and returns to base....I'm not sure who the pilot was, but I know of one who tried a similar test and he stated that he tried to "kill" the target...ie shoot them till they hit the ground.

If, in game, it takes an average of 50 hits to get what in real life would have been a confirmed kill, then I would say based on the above data that the HMG is underpowered....maybe by alot.

I still think what is missing is the internal, collateral damage caused by an AP round...for example, last night, offline I was flying a corsair against Zekes....I hit one plane in a passing shot and I had three hit arrows....two bullets entered the left side of the plane right where the black cowl meets the green paint and the arrows exited to the left side of the propeller hub...the third round hit the canopy...just missing the pilot's head but hitting the framwork of the cockpit...oddly there was some offshoot arrows...now I wonder is this from a HE round? In real life, the two rounds entering the engine would have likely damaged at least two of the cylinder heads and collateral damage might have created fuel leak, oil leak, spark plug wires, magnetos etc to fail...maybe not, but there would have definitely been SOME damage that would have resulted in the plane not flying as well. On the cockpit round, in real life, there likely would have been a combination of glass, metal and possbily bullet fragments flying around the cockpit and the pilot might have been wounded, his oxygen line cut or maybe nothing...just scared the crapola out of him....

In this isntance, due to the placement of the three bullets, the performance of the plane should have been impaired...and if there was a wounded pilot, imapaired alot, but the plane flew on as nothing had happened.

This is probably what is missing...I think in real life, the HMG M2 Browing with its API loadout was a pilot killer and a fire starter. Most Luftwaffe planes were shot down in 1944 over their own territory, yet there was terrible attrition on pilots...I have a feeling lots of those guys just didn't or couldn't bail out or ditch. Homefield advantage just didn't help....I know there is pilot armor, but when a bullet goes through a plane, especially and armor peircing bullet, it sends stuff flying in all directions unless it passes harmlessly through the skin of the plane.

I believe the guns are a little underpowered...and if 3 .50's = 1 20mm then the 20mm aught to kill in about 7 rounds on the average..probably with lots of variation too!

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-15-2006, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
...and a fire starter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Keith_Flint-01.jpg/250px-Keith_Flint-01.jpg

ReligiousZealot
02-15-2006, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In real life, it took an average of 20 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft with M2 Browning...this is confirmed kills, not claims.

Can't find the source, but it originated from an 8th AF study....another poster on the forum cited it, and also cited that the pilots studied acheived approximately a 10% hit ratio, using about 200 rounds per kill and the rest is pure deduction.

I think the damage modelling misses things like ammo boxes, collateral damage, oxygent bottles etc that would make smaller caliber guns firing more projectiles more effective.

Maybe some folks have some better info, but this was the best I had seen presented since I've been in this sim debating the weapons effectiveness.

That would be the task, to understand what the real round did and then make the sim match as closely as possible. To say a gun is underpowered or not is a difficult proposition if you can't determine, objectively, what reality really was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.... 'Twas I. I did a statistical analysis (last year?) of approx 120 claim reports by US 8FC fighter aces as they were reproduced in a recent book on their wartime careers. Sincethere was a specific convention about what relevant data was to be mentioned in each report, I was able extract trends on ranges (mean range 200-300 yards, with extremes as close as 25 yards and as distant as 700 yards with the K14 sight, expended ammunition (150-300 rounds typical, with extremes as little as 50 and as much as 500+), damage effects, etc. The figure of 15-30 rounds per kill was estimated in connection with an assumed ace gunnery accuracy of 10 percent hits in approx 200-300 rounds expended per attack. Keep in mind that an average RL pilot might only shoot with about 2 percent hits.

As far as the effectiveness of 50cal versus 20mm in long distance sniping is concerned, it is worth noting that a Pk is usually a one bullet event. A fighter armed with 50cals throws out a LOT more bullets compared to a fighter with an equal armament weight invested in 20mm.

Example - 6 x 50cal = 2 x 20mm as a rule of thumb. 2 x 20mm will fire about 20 rds/sec total; 6 x 50cal will fire about 80 rds/sec total and they remain lethal out to a long distance due to their relatively high MV.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for replying Blutarski S!...yes, I remember it was you now.

The information you posted was the most informative and accurate representation of objective data I've seen yet.

If anyone else disagrees, present their case and their documentation or why they think the way they do.

The score of the pilot Boemher posted was impressive, his gunnery was over 11%...far better than I acheive with ingame results...I suspect that he fired only when very close to insure connecting in order to acheive those kinds of numbers.

The thing that makes online statistics suspect is the kills a pilot gets when another pilot is lightly damaged and returns to base....I'm not sure who the pilot was, but I know of one who tried a similar test and he stated that he tried to "kill" the target...ie shoot them till they hit the ground.

If, in game, it takes an average of 50 hits to get what in real life would have been a confirmed kill, then I would say based on the above data that the HMG is underpowered....maybe by alot.

I still think what is missing is the internal, collateral damage caused by an AP round...for example, last night, offline I was flying a corsair against Zekes....I hit one plane in a passing shot and I had three hit arrows....two bullets entered the left side of the plane right where the black cowl meets the green paint and the arrows exited to the left side of the propeller hub...the third round hit the canopy...just missing the pilot's head but hitting the framwork of the cockpit...oddly there was some offshoot arrows...now I wonder is this from a HE round? In real life, the two rounds entering the engine would have likely damaged at least two of the cylinder heads and collateral damage might have created fuel leak, oil leak, spark plug wires, magnetos etc to fail...maybe not, but there would have definitely been SOME damage that would have resulted in the plane not flying as well. On the cockpit round, in real life, there likely would have been a combination of glass, metal and possbily bullet fragments flying around the cockpit and the pilot might have been wounded, his oxygen line cut or maybe nothing...just scared the crapola out of him....

In this isntance, due to the placement of the three bullets, the performance of the plane should have been impaired...and if there was a wounded pilot, imapaired alot, but the plane flew on as nothing had happened.

This is probably what is missing...I think in real life, the HMG M2 Browing with its API loadout was a pilot killer and a fire starter. Most Luftwaffe planes were shot down in 1944 over their own territory, yet there was terrible attrition on pilots...I have a feeling lots of those guys just didn't or couldn't bail out or ditch. Homefield advantage just didn't help....I know there is pilot armor, but when a bullet goes through a plane, especially and armor peircing bullet, it sends stuff flying in all directions unless it passes harmlessly through the skin of the plane.

I believe the guns are a little underpowered...and if 3 .50's = 1 20mm then the 20mm aught to kill in about 7 rounds on the average..probably with lots of variation too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
quote:
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:

quote:
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Do you guys think firepower should be increased generally to achieve something a little closer to realism?


Yes Yes a thousand times yes, oh god YES!!!


Let me refrase: No No a thousand times no, oh god NO!!!.

I can just see it now..." its WAY to easy to be killed/ get kills, is so stupid and kills all the fun" and on and on and on.

Set up right its almost to easy to get a kill as it is now. and dont get me started on how easy it is on servers with 20-30 in ping = lagfree, ( usally fly with 160-170 ping ) talk a about arcade.

On the upcomming BoB its a differant matter since 303 cal on Spit and Hurries today is completly and utterly useless for anythingelse than PK`s ( i dare anyone to claim differantly )

In BoB i guess we will either have a new DM like some pointed out with hitboxes for ammo boxes, oxegyn bottles and so on...or we will get tweaked firepower of small arms cal. I for one is hoping for the first option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you'd prefer the current "arcade-style" gunnery? Or am I just reading into your statement? Personally, I'd rather have it closer to reality because this is supposed to be the most realistic sim on the market.

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
...and a fire starter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Keith_Flint-01.jpg/250px-Keith_Flint-01.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that has to be the ugl.......ummm thats not a picture of you or your boyfriend is it.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif J/K

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-15-2006, 08:05 PM
No, it's not me, it's the firestarter

...the twisted firestarter

Grey_Mouser67
02-15-2006, 08:57 PM
The firestarter! Especially at low and medium altitudes...another thing that is not modelled...API's didn't start too many fires at 30,000 ft. but at I'm guessing 15,000 ft and below it started lots of them!

I've never seen any studies done, but the firestarting ability of the API should be much different at low altitude than at high altitude...but I'm not sure how high you have to go before combustion is not supported by air and affects the flammability of the round.

WOLFMondo
02-16-2006, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
the 18-20 rounds statistic was taken from gun camera footage. A few problems:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu can get your stats from the console within FB or most online server stat tracking systems are pretty accurate. No need for tracks etc.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 02:18 AM
Not sure about the 50's , I havent used them much. But I must say that with 303s on the Hurricane I have acheieved much better results lately by simply getting CLOSER.

I have stopped myself firing until I am within 200 yards or closer, this seems to work great with fighters, I took down 3 Emils in one sortie with a Hurri the other day online, which surprised me.

I would suspect its the same with the .50s you must get very close and then they work.

Funnily enuff I find the 2 50's on the SPitfire 9e great sniping weapons. You can hit from very far away with them to slow a FW down and then finish him with cannons.

KIMURA
02-16-2006, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From my experience I would say categorically no, here is a link to statistics of an excellent pilot who posts here but I wont name him.

http://www.il2hq.com/Stats/playerdetails.php?id=5352

He tested each of the main air to air weapons. This test shows it averaged around 55 hits to take down an aircraft. This is inclusive of packet loss, strange DM's different targets ect.

55 hits is a one second burst on target.

I fly .50 cal armed planes online quite a bit and I find them to be excellent weapons. Engine kills, dewings but especially pilot kills are the results. Fires too depending on what type of targets. The P38's weapons package can achieve kills from over 500m cockpit on using only the .50 cals. I have shot down Fw 190's from over this range setting them on fire from dead 6.

I suggest anyone who feels the M2 .50 cal is under powered needs to reapraise how they go about aiming, leading and shooting down their targets. In my opinion its is probably the best all round gun on realistic settings servers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you mixed-up 55 hit rounds and 55 shot rounds............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
with an average hit/shot ratio of less than 10% things appears in a different light. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
02-16-2006, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
What a load of TOSH from both "sides".

I thinks,he saids, joe said, maybe something I read somewhere, etc..etc... etc.

Absolute BALDERDASH.
FACTS and FIGURES from published sources are what counts not presumptions based on ignorance, bias, wannabeisms and pure unadulterated BULL SHEEIT.

Another thread that will have the usual suspects delivering their usual bilge from their tiny little closed minds which is destined for the BIN.

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

IBTL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for wasing your time posting SMACKTARD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

mynameisroland
02-16-2006, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrano:
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


Oh , and yes I had already made up my mind before making this thread - its called a rhetorical question. Why ? because Im fed up of people complaining about a gun that is very adequate and dare I say it accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see all these super cool/super accurate 50 shooters ask Oleg to replace the D9 guns with those 50's for a few weeks and watch what happens. No doubt in my mind: no more D9's online.
Jokers talk a good game when "flying" with a fast ***** mobile.[/QUOTE]

I am currently among the top scores in the P38, P40 and Corsair on the servers I fly on. I can kill with the .50 cal. If you find my claims outrageous maybe you'd like to come and watch sometime ??

Xiolablu3
02-16-2006, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

On the upcomming BoB its a differant matter since 303 cal on Spit and Hurries today is completly and utterly useless for anythingelse than PK`s ( i dare anyone to claim differantly )

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You just need to get closer.

Sure they are no 20mm and bombers are really hard to bring down, but 109E is not too hard to down.

I would rather have the 2xMGFF tho obviously, but thats not the point.

If the 50 cals power is improved then you have to up the power of the 20mm to realistic levels too.

Diablo310th
02-16-2006, 08:23 AM
With all the talk about the power of the 50's it makes me wonder waht it would be like if teh 50 cals had a loadout of just HE rounds. Now I know this isn't realistic. Oleg has said teh 50's have a loadout of AP,HE, and T rounds. I'm not sure of the exact order and amount. It's something like AP-AP-He-T. If passthru damage is not modeled accurately that would make the 50's weak untill the HE round hit and did most of the damage. There have been several post in here from documentaion that the typical loadout was API-API-API-API-APIT. Notice the HE round is missing. How weak would 50's be if we had this? How strong would they be if passthru damage was modeled accurately? as well as theh firestarting API capability.

Jetbuff
02-16-2006, 09:23 AM
nm

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
With all the talk about the power of the 50's it makes me wonder waht it would be like if teh 50 cals had a loadout of just HE rounds. Now I know this isn't realistic. Oleg has said teh 50's have a loadout of AP,HE, and T rounds. I'm not sure of the exact order and amount. It's something like AP-AP-He-T. If passthru damage is not modeled accurately that would make the 50's weak untill the HE round hit and did most of the damage. There have been several post in here from documentaion that the typical loadout was API-API-API-API-APIT. Notice the HE round is missing. How weak would 50's be if we had this? How strong would they be if passthru damage was modeled accurately? as well as theh firestarting API capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please guide me to designation of ".50 HE round". If you cant it will support my knowledge: there was NO HE projectile for US .50 AN M2.

"Official" beltings were posted once and for .50 it was:

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

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


Now I dont know what gun those projectiles are for, but that gun definately is NOT WW2 .50! Those would be (translated into the game 'language' where weights are in kg, velocities are in m/s, "power" is weight of incendiary/HE content in kg):

Ball M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

AP M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

I M1
mass = 0.041
speed = 900,0
power = 0.002

T M10

mass = 0.041
speed = 870,0
power = 0

API M8

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0.001

APIT M20

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0.002 (0,0017 rounded up)

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
Is this going to be anothe blue camp fest? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



i think 1 .50cal hit should be enought to explode enemy AC in bits, everytime.

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

I agree that one 20mm gun is as effective as 3 x M2's I dont agree that 3 .50 cal rounds are as effective as 1 20mm shell. Thats an important difference when looking at these 3 to 1 comments. I think that 3 x M2's can spew out the equivalent firepower of one 20mm cannon but it is how the rounds affect the target that needs to be quantified.

**Sweet spot found http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif**

We are talking about HE damage vs KE damage. Even in IL2's current DM world I am happy to pummel targets with .50 cals because I know they cause control loss, pilot kills and engine kills. They maybe dont start as many fires as they should but I certainly find them to be very effective especially against He 111's and Ju 88's fuel leaks and pilot kills ahoy !

**of course AP round should release all its KE in wing withou ever penetrating it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif if it would, it would be non usable KE right?**
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 09:58 AM
let be said, that, i dont have anything against that the .50cal could penetrate the pilot armor, or anything else, but only if its under the "Laws of real life Physics"

I like that pilots get killed more easily, as planes as well get torn out by ripping cannon fire.

I think, 20mm cannon hit, with HE grenade, would do the hole in wing to fit through some 50-100 rounds of .50cal ammo in same time, the area of damage is MUCH bigger than with one .50cal round. Even 20mm AP makes hmm few times bigger hole than does one .50cal rounds, as .50cal is 12,7mm and 20mm cannon is 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

like, when i start to shoot at enemy who flies away from me, at speed of 500kmh (138,8 m/sec) at range of 500meters, how fast would the .50cal round fly when it reached the target, which is more far away than 500m as when you count the time what it takes to bullet to reach that target, i call it to be hmm, some one sec flight time, at the target range, as, bullets do
slow down by the friction of air, as faster you move, faster your speed is gone if you dont have propulsion, so the peak speed is right away decreasin when bullet leaves barrel, no more acceleration to it. so, how fast would the shot go compared to target, how much would it really have KE left at that time? still enought to go throught 25mm of steel at 0 degree angle(90deg europe) or, would it be what power left on bulled when the plane speed would be just be taken off from the bullet speed?

is it already calculated as so, or how?

does it make it too complex?

i think there isnt such calculation yet, it could be tested, right now, arcade mode, headon shooting and from 6 shooting, compare the arrow lenght and fatness, as well how many secondary arrows emerge from the main arrow compared in both ways.

anyway

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 10:00 AM
problem is in game engine, it has only single way of damage model, which is KE based, totally. HE pressure is still made with secondary arrows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Diablo310th
02-16-2006, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
With all the talk about the power of the 50's it makes me wonder waht it would be like if teh 50 cals had a loadout of just HE rounds. Now I know this isn't realistic. Oleg has said teh 50's have a loadout of AP,HE, and T rounds. I'm not sure of the exact order and amount. It's something like AP-AP-He-T. If passthru damage is not modeled accurately that would make the 50's weak untill the HE round hit and did most of the damage. There have been several post in here from documentaion that the typical loadout was API-API-API-API-APIT. Notice the HE round is missing. How weak would 50's be if we had this? How strong would they be if passthru damage was modeled accurately? as well as theh firestarting API capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please guide me to designation of ".50 HE round". If you cant it will support my knowledge: there was NO HE projectile for US .50 AN M2.

"Official" beltings were posted once and for .50 it was:

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

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148


Now I dont know what gun those projectiles are for, but that gun definately is NOT WW2 .50! Those would be (translated into the game 'language' where weights are in kg, velocities are in m/s, "power" is weight of incendiary/HE content in kg):

Ball M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

AP M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

I M1
mass = 0.041
speed = 900,0
power = 0.002

T M10

mass = 0.041
speed = 870,0
power = 0

API M8

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0.001

APIT M20

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0.002 (0,0017 rounded up) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur......I totally agree with you on this. I do remember a community member who served in Viet Nam posting that he had seen HE rounds while in Nam. Agreed they were rare. This was in that vry long thread on the 50's awhile back. He said teh box was dated soemthing 1945. What my contention is ..is that teh HE round should NOT be there but I don't ahve documentaion to prove waht a typical loadout was. Maybe somebody else here does. I did a search one day and could never find anything. The table your'e showing with teh HE round in teh loadout is Olegs.

FritzGryphon
02-16-2006, 12:02 PM
So ironically, the mass and velocity of the M2 rounds are overmodeled by a small amount.

In the spirit of modeling 'best data' and fantasy loadouts, I think the M2 should use SLAP rounds.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 12:24 PM
Diablo! I remember that thread. What I belive is that its possible, that his idea that they were HE came from observing them hitting ground, when they produced a little 'boom' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But the way he described the phenomenon sounded to me like API or I hit: small bright, orange flash. I have never found any trace of .50 HE documentation either.

JG5_UnKle
02-16-2006, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
So ironically, the mass and velocity of the M2 rounds are overmodeled by a small amount.

In the spirit of modeling 'best data' and fantasy loadouts, I think the M2 should use SLAP rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FritzGryphon
02-16-2006, 12:44 PM
But seriously, I'm aware of two historical values that pertain to the effectiveness of the M2 machine gun.

One, roughly 15 hits to down a fighter. Value from USAAF (correct me if I'm wrong, surely I am).

Two, roughly 4-5 bullets are as effective as 1 Hispano shell (3 M2 versus 1 Hispano gun).

I've tested the former against AI 109G6, and it does in fact take about that amount, on average, to down a plane. Arnie's test also confirmed that planes, on average take about 15 M2 hits to down. The less durable ones as few as 6 or 7. The more durable ones 20-30.

In the same test, the ratio of 4-5 M2 bullets per Hispano shell was confirmed. On average, the number of M2 hits required was 3-4 times the number of Hispano shells required. Even if one could argue a gun is undermodeled or overmodeled, it would still have the correct relative effectiveness to other guns.

Finally, I also look at armor penetration. It can, in fact, penetrate 2.5cm of armor under the correct conditions, as is evidenced by killing a PzIV tank with a YP-80 under the correct conditions.

From my perspective, the M2 machine gun matches all known historical measures closely, if not exactly. Contrary to thinking it undermodeled or overmodeled, I am astounded that MG has made it so accurate.

There is little basis, I think, for undermodeled discussion, save for people making false estimations or assumtions. Overestimating the number of hits they get, for example.


50th Sylvester's stats do show 54 hits per kill. Howerever, you'll notice there are also multi-engine bombers in his last 25 mission kill record. You couldn't figure out how many hits per fighter.

Also, the 15 hit/kill figure is purely to shoot down the plane. It probably does not include additional hits scored. Many times in game, hits will be scored when the plane is already finished, either to be sure, or by accident, or simply for kicks.

RedDeth
02-16-2006, 12:45 PM
what is a smacktard?

FritzGryphon
02-16-2006, 12:52 PM
A ****** deserving of a smack?

StellarRat
02-16-2006, 01:07 PM
Since the 4.03 patch I have had little problem killing with the .50s. I think they're fine now. It appears that the sync was the problem. The power of the bullets was never really the issue. As far as a .50 HE round, I would find it hard to believe that a .50 round could carry enough HE to do any sigificant damage to anything. I hope I never see another .50s are too weak again thread in my life. I bet we've had a 100 of them on this forum.

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-16-2006, 01:16 PM
But they *are* too weak - they're still not destroying Tigers and sinking battleships and obliterating planets with a single shot thus demonstrating the awesome destructive potential of this new battlestation

Gibbage1
02-16-2006, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Kocur......I totally agree with you on this. I do remember a community member who served in Viet Nam posting that he had seen HE rounds while in Nam. Agreed they were rare. This was in that vry long thread on the 50's awhile back. He said teh box was dated soemthing 1945. What my contention is ..is that teh HE round should NOT be there but I don't ahve documentaion to prove waht a typical loadout was. Maybe somebody else here does. I did a search one day and could never find anything. The table your'e showing with teh HE round in teh loadout is Olegs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was HE .50 cal rounds at the battle for Midway. A PBY crew "stole" 5 HE .50 cal rounds and stored extra fuel to find a Jap float plane that shot them up the previous day. They hung out on patrole a little extra, used the extra fuel, and found the Japanese fleet. If they did NOT bring the .50 cal HE AND the extra fuel, the Japanese fleet would of gone un-noticed.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 01:30 PM
Gibbage! What is more probable:

1. That there were HE projectiles for .50 even though noone can find any official document on them and all we have to support that idea is what those PBY guys thought
or
2. That the PBY crew took API or I ammo, test-fired it and seeing flashes, when projectiles hit anything, they thought they 'exploded', which looks quite similarly to ignition of incendiary in I or API?

Gibbage1
02-16-2006, 01:59 PM
No. The crew stole a few hounds of "New" HE from the armory. They spacifically said they wanted too test the EXPLOSIVE AMMO on the flying boat that shot them up the previous day.

I also remember pilot accounts of bullets that were filled with mercury and that when they hit, they made a large bright white explosion.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
No. The crew stole a few hounds of "New" HE from the armory. They spacifically said they wanted too test the EXPLOSIVE AMMO on the flying boat that shot them up the previous day.

I also remember pilot accounts of bullets that were filled with mercury and that when they hit, they made a large bright white explosion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still what those PBY guys say sounds like they judged what they had by what they saw: flashes when projectiles hit a trget: flashes - like API or I.

Mercury filled? Does mercury explode? OTOH incediary material, which seems obvius that author took for mercury for some reason, does produce explosion-like flash.

No document on HE .50 whatsoever - only ancedotes easy to explain with API or I. Sorry.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 02:11 PM
I was flying today in AFJ for a while. Im not good in processing data from track sadly. Anyway my today kills with .50 were likethat (http://rapidshare.de/files/13426372/records.zip.html).

CD_kp84yb
02-16-2006, 02:14 PM
Uhm how much HE should that bullet contains, cant find the bloody .50 cal He in any book here.
In my last resort i tried the internet. No luck.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

cheers

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 02:19 PM
i bet amounts which are not enought to make enought overpressure in parts of the airplane to make any damage. sure, it can reshape bean can if blow inside one. but i think it would be much more effective if .50cal is used as AP or API style of ammo trusting on its armour piecing value.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 02:31 PM
The best 'scorer' in how-much-can-a.50-contain is M23 I with 5,8g of incendiary material. Unfortunately its a post WW2 projectile, the Korea war "MiG-killer".

CD_kp84yb
02-16-2006, 02:40 PM
that would be a wonder if they used it already in WW2 .

that leaves only the "normal" incendary's .

Well than we have API, APIT, BAll and tracer. if i am correct

edit: oops i forgot the AP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 02:47 PM
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).

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 03:03 PM
Yep, Fw-190 is very tough vs. .50. OTOH it had good self sealing tanks, pilot had good armour and last but not least it was powered with radial engine. Anyway any angle above 0, i.e. dead six improves chances of achieving 'critical' .50 hits, i.e. on pilot, engine, tanks and controls. At shorst distances concentrated bursts cut off control surfaces from tail quite often when shooting from dead 6.


Earlier US planes should have older beltings with Ball, but current P-51s, P-47s and P-38s should have beltings with APIs primarily - like did IRL. I dont know anything on USN .50s beltings, but I guess those were similar to USAAF evolution.

CD_kp84yb
02-16-2006, 03:11 PM
what was the belting for the USAAF, didnt they used ball. Looks nice to me to have something that puts its kinetic energie into a wingspar and deform something, insteat like a AP just make a hole. or was it just AP,APIT????

ReligiousZealot
02-16-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Wow...perfect response! I agree 100%.

I have not been able to test this, but in my online play I found the German planes generally hard to bring down, but I figured it was just low powered .50s. Thanks for clarifying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yep, Fw-190 is very tough vs. .50. OTOH it had good self sealing tanks, pilot had good armour </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do most US planes and they aren't even half as resistant as the FW-190. A hit to the P-47's mid fuselage is an almost guaranteed fire, the same with the F4U's tail.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
and last but not least it was powered with radial engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Direct .50 hits to radial engines (stopped = engine not working, a fire is close enough to dead for me)

FW-190A-2 42 hits (stopped)
FW-190A-9 40 hits (stopped)

A6M7 - 12 (stopped + fire)
KI-100 - 12 (stopped + fire)
La-7 - 4 ((stopped + fire) and 2 (fire)
I-16 - 16 (fire)
F4F - 12 (stopped) and 24 (stopped + fire)
F2A2 - 8 (stopped)
P-47 - 2 (stopped)
F6F - 2 (stopped)
F4U - 2 (stopped)

Which ones are out of line with the rest? Not only that but guess which ones don't ever catch fire?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Anyway any angle above 0, i.e. dead six improves chances of achieving 'critical' .50 hits, i.e. on pilot, engine, tanks and controls. At shorst distances concentrated bursts cut off control surfaces from tail quite often when shooting from dead 6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Angle didn't effect the planes with a proper damage model too much, even tough planes like the F4U or Tempest were easy to kill at 0?.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Earlier US planes should have older beltings with Ball, but current P-51s, P-47s and P-38s should have beltings with APIs primarily - like did IRL. I dont know anything on USN .50s beltings, but I guess those were similar to USAAF evolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, I was only thinking of the later planes. Early ones should have some ball ammo in there, but I don't know the exact load (APT-Ball-API-Ball?).

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
FW-190A-2 42 hits (stopped)
FW-190A-9 40 hits (stopped)


P-47 - 2 (stopped)
F6F - 2 (stopped)
F4U - 2 (stopped) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOURTY vs TWO!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

horseback
02-16-2006, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
what is a smacktard? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"Smacktard" is derived from two slang expressions:

1. Smack- boasting, vain, and/or taunting, insulting and threatening speech, as in "he was talkin' smack and dissin' me." May be associated with drug use (heroin is also referred to as 'smack'). I first heard the expression 10-15 years ago while listening to a radio sports show hosted by Jim Rome, who may have coined the expression.

2. ******-idiot, moron, etc.

Hence, 'smacktard,' a moron who talks smack.

cheers

horseback

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
FOURTY vs TWO!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly, that is correct R-2800 only takes two .50s to kill. I had to test it with the B-25s single front gun instead of the rear pair to make sure it wasn't one hit.

Also another note, because I used a pair of guns The correct number might be one less (42 might be 41). I thought it was close enough.

Kocur_
02-16-2006, 04:53 PM
My limited knowledge on engines or rather what Ive read from guys who know the subject indicates that well positioned two or even one .50 hit might cause catastophic failure to in-line engine, and I dont mean coolant loss, but things related to the way cranks are connected to shaft. But not to a radial! And I see no reason for that large or any in fact, difference between BMW801 and R2800!

horseback
02-16-2006, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
My limited knowledge on engines or rather what Ive read from guys who know the subject indicates that well positioned two or even one .50 hit might cause catastophic failure to in-line engine, and I dont mean coolant loss, but things related to the way cranks are connected to shaft. But not to a radial! And I see no reason for that large or any in fact, difference between BMW801 and R2800! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Especially nothing favoring the more compact BMW (less empty space for rounds to travel through). Maybe it's related to assumptions about quality.

And now, once again, the .50 caliber relative weakness thread morphs into a Red vd Blue Damage Modelling thread...

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
02-16-2006, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
FW-190A-2 42 hits (stopped)
FW-190A-9 40 hits (stopped)


P-47 - 2 (stopped)
F6F - 2 (stopped)
F4U - 2 (stopped) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOURTY vs TWO!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Houston...we have a problem

It is not very ironic how many of these gripes and complaints...when people get creative enough to find a way to verify...actually have merit and are real deficiencies....I have no problems killing most Japanese planes...a few burn and then go out, but by and large, the .50's seem close to me, but the Fw is just overdone...and I fly the Fw alot and like it! It was not the toughest plane of WWII. Most US pilot accounts that I've read stated the Fw was only slightly tougher than the 109...not much of a consideration at all.

Lordbutter4
02-16-2006, 05:20 PM
My experiences using 50's are against german planes as well. Most allied planes are very easy to bring down using nose mounted mg's only. On one map in spits vs 109's we added the B-239 against russian p-40's, hurricanes, lagg, 39, yak, and migg. All the above planes dont require much hits from a 239 to bring down. I might have to try reversing the situation and see if it is german planes DM instead of the 50's themseleves.

And yes the 47's fraility is quite annoying.

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 05:42 PM
I've found that the Bf-109 strong enough to survive a mid-air collision about 30% of the time.

Bf-109 vs A6M7 crash - Pilot dead but fuselage and right wing intact.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/109crash.jpg

Bf-109 vs A6M7 crash 2 - Pilot alive and fuselage intact.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/BF-109Crash.jpg

Bf-109 vs A6M7 crash 2- Pilot alive and fuselage intact - bailing out.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/Crashbail.jpg

Nothing else I've tried can survive this, not even an empty heavy bomber.


FW-190A-9 vs Type 99 20mm cannon - 16 hits (2.5x the damage of a .50)

R-2800s only die in two shots if hit in the front center, but if shot a little high or low it takes 60. Seems like a serious bug.

P-47 center shot vs Type 99 - 2 shots
P-47 low shot vs Type 99 - 24 shots

Hispanos (P-38)

FW-190A-9 - 10
P-47D - 15

The Type 99 does about 2.5 times the damage of the .50s.
60.50/24 20mm = 40 .50 /16 20mm = 2.5

The hispano does about 4 times the damage of the .50s.
60/15 = 40/10 = 4

The hispano does about 1.6 times the damage of the Type 99.
24/15 = 16/10 = 1.6

The hispano being 4x more is about right from what I know. The USN says 3 time not sure if that includes ROF differences or not. If it does then the game is correct.


The R-2800 needs that center shot bug fixed and both engines need to be much less durable and more in line with the other radials.

Grey_Mouser67
02-16-2006, 07:35 PM
Been running in arcade mode on QMB and there is a huge difference in the number of HMG rounds a 190 takes compared to many planes...the 109 is an odd bird because sometimes it takes a bunch and then just a few hits and it is smoking heavily....

The DM is the culprit I think, not the round perhaps...I was counting well over 30 hits on most of my kills...not the smokers that land 15 minutes later...but kills...and the 190 is totally missing damage boxes for its ammo boxes...a few rounds in the right place and wing goes bye bye irl.

Cobra-84
02-16-2006, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
the 109 is an odd bird because sometimes it takes a bunch and then just a few hits and it is smoking heavily.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engine hits will bring any inline engined aircraft down quickly (anywhere from direct 1-8 hits). The problem is thatit isn't possible to get good engine hits through the overly strong fuselage. A rear shot that brings kills a P-51 or a spitfire's engine, does little or nothing to a Bf-109 and some others (Most seem to be from the original Il-2).

Use a deflection shot and it will go down as quickly as a Zero, from the rear its like shooting 6 feet of concrete.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
the 190 is totally missing damage boxes for its ammo boxes...a few rounds in the right place and wing goes bye bye irl. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every plane is missing ammo storage, its not supperted by the game.

bolillo_loco
02-16-2006, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Houston...we have a problem
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah Gunter Vent, eye vander ver gunter vent?

Ya! ve valk und vee talk und de moon,

Grey_Mouser67
02-17-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobra-84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
the 109 is an odd bird because sometimes it takes a bunch and then just a few hits and it is smoking heavily.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engine hits will bring any inline engined aircraft down quickly (anywhere from direct 1-8 hits). The problem is thatit isn't possible to get good engine hits through the overly strong fuselage. A rear shot that brings kills a P-51 or a spitfire's engine, does little or nothing to a Bf-109 and some others (Most seem to be from the original Il-2).

Use a deflection shot and it will go down as quickly as a Zero, from the rear its like shooting 6 feet of concrete.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
the 190 is totally missing damage boxes for its ammo boxes...a few rounds in the right place and wing goes bye bye irl. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every plane is missing ammo storage, its not supperted by the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there are some inline engines that don't behave the same as others....most notable are the Lagg 3 which is completely immune to light machinegun fire and the Dora which behaves exactly like an Anton...I actually think the DM was copied from one aircraft to the other...even the bugs in past patches were copied which is why I think that.

2 bullets for a Pratt&Whitney and 40 for a BMW....yes, we have a problem.

Cobra-84
02-17-2006, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Actually, there are some inline engines that don't behave the same as others....most notable are the Lagg 3 which is completely immune to light machinegun fire and the Dora which behaves exactly like an Anton...I actually think the DM was copied from one aircraft to the other...even the bugs in past patches were copied which is why I think that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LaGG-3 takes about 8-20 hits, its the toughest inline I've tested (the first shot when right through the engine and killed the pilot). I think LaGG-3 and La-7 need the thier engine damaged models swapped. FW-190D-9 takes about 2-8 to stop, 8th shot usually cases a fire. Neither engines can be hit from the rear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2 bullets for a Pratt&Whitney and 40 for a BMW....yes, we have a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't the worst damage model problem. The P-47s and FW-190s inside wing sections can't be shot off. Damage is divided between any other sections on the same wing. On the FW-190, 30 hits can kill each of the outside two sections but 60 hits on the inside one removes the other 2 sections.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/FW-190.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/FW-190-2.jpg

JG5_UnKle
02-17-2006, 01:53 PM
That explains a lot Cobra

Grey_Mouser67
02-17-2006, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobra-84:
That isn't the worst damage model problem.

That depends on whether you like to fly the Jug/Hellcat/Corsair combination more than the FW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yes, there are DM issues that probably could be readily addressed if we can get them to oleg as you have done in these shots....

Anyone want to make some Ntrks and send them to Oleg?


http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/FW-190.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/FW-190-2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 03:52 PM
I already did a test in 4.01 with the FW-190's engine vs P-47.

The FW-190 survived 80-100 hits from the .50 cal. P-47 never made it past 10 hits.

It was disputed that even though the FW-190 took hits, it was producing no power even though the prop was spinning. So I put 50 hits into it, and throttled up the FW-190 and it rolled away. The engine was still producing plenty of power.

Here is the track file. The test was done on a local network. All shots were placed between the spinner and engine cowel even though there is a bug in recording from a turret that shows the shots hitting somewere else.

www.gibbageart.com/files/fw190vsp47.zip (http://www.gibbageart.com/files/fw190vsp47.zip)

WWSensei
02-17-2006, 05:29 PM
Gibbage, in watching your track what I see is a large number of the bullets going over the 190 engine and striking the tail and fuselage (if you change focus to the 190 and watch from the left side you can see the strikes going down the body and hitting the tail. The P-47, standing a bit taller is catching more directly in the engine.

Doing some of my own testing flying the P-51B and the F4U1A against an A4, A6 and A9, 4 flights each the max number of hits I ever needed to down a 190 was 39. This is with 180m convergence and firing from &lt;200 meters (sometimes as little as 50 meters).

Here is a track of my last fight against a Vet 190 with me in the 51B. 2 things to note--I'm a lousy shot (no secret) and 2) only 38 hits to bring him down.

http://www.wingwalkers.org/vault/quick0187.zip

This was consistent with both the F4U1A and 51 in 4 flights each against the 190A4, A6 and A9. Lowest number it took was 7 and highest was 39.

http://www.wingwalkers.org/quick0192.zip

Was same P51B 25% fuel Default load out against 1944A9. 24 hits to bring them down.

Grey_Mouser67
02-17-2006, 05:38 PM
Is that online or offline Sensei?

WWSensei
02-17-2006, 06:07 PM
Flown as an online coop mission. I was the host and the 190 forced to be AI. If you watch the track you can verify the number of hits via the Shift-Tab and user STAT command. Be sure to exit the game between playing tracks or for some reason the game keeps a cumlative total of the rounds fired and hit. So, start the tracks, shift-tab and user STAT to verify bullet counts at zero.

Was flown against veteran AI which really doesn't matter because only the number of hits counts not how many I missed. :-)

Cobra-84
02-17-2006, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Gibbage1
The FW-190 survived 80-100 hits </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never got anywhere close to that on my tests. Yours are angle hits and mine were straight on hits, maybe thats the difference. Where there changes to the FW-190s engine in the last two patches or would that have changed the outcome of the track?

[/QUOTE]from the .50 cal. P-47 never made it past 10 hits.[/QUOTE]

I always got exactly 2 hits,no more, no less. Aiming off center boosts it up to 60 for what ever reason. The P-47 has a very strange damage model (tail).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was disputed that even though the FW-190 took hits, it was producing no power even though the prop was spinning. So I put 50 hits into it, and throttled up the FW-190 and it rolled away. The engine was still producing plenty of power.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did the engine die or was it shut off after it moved on the first FW-190 test? Either way that was way too many hits for it to still have enough power to move.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Gibbage, in watching your track what I see is a large number of the bullets going over the 190 engine and striking the tail and fuselage (if you change focus to the 190 and watch from the left side you can see the strikes going down the body and hitting the tail. The P-47, standing a bit taller is catching more directly in the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
All shots were placed between the spinner and engine cowel even though there is a bug in recording from a turret that shows the shots hitting somewere else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the angle he's really shoting at he couldn't have hit the tail.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is a track of my last fight against a Vet 190 with me in the 51B. 2 things to note--I'm a lousy shot (no secret) and 2) only 38 hits to bring him down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't kill him, not with guns anyway. He crashed into the forest trying to evade you. No engine damage, no pilot kill, no elevator or aileron damage of failure, minimal rudder damage (had nothing to do with the crash).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was consistent with both the F4U1A and 51 in 4 flights each against the 190A4, A6 and A9. Lowest number it took was 7 and highest was 39. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make a quick mission, any .50 armed plane you want, set 2 friendly planes (they won't fight or even turn except to return to base), one American/British fighter, one Bf-109/FW-190 and shot them both down. Don't shoot wings on a Bf-109 they aren't a problem (takes about the same damage as a spitfire's wings), go for the fuselage. Even a tougher plane like a P-47 or F4U takes several time less to bring down than the much weaker Bf-109 and thats ignoring the 2 hit R-2800 engine kills. The FW-190 is even worse.

Grey_Mouser67
02-17-2006, 06:37 PM
I find the AI slightly easier to bring down than online opponents in general, however with online opponents I get kills after hitting them with only a few hits and they land later.

I've not done a prolonged study, but when I take the time to count arrows with "arcade" mode on, I find that it rarely takes less than 20 hits to put the plane down....often, mode of failure with online is a burst to one wing and the ai goes into a death spiral, fire, or bailout, or smoker that crash lands later.

Based on the study done with the 8th airforce, I believe it to take roughly 20 rounds in real life...lots of variation, to bring down an enemy fighter...best I've seen.

Offline, I'd say without studying it a great deal, the Fw takes 30+ hits on the average to shoot down...not smokers that land later...but planes that go down in our sight. Online, I suspect the number is higher...one guy is showing 50 hits...it might be a little lower, but I'll bet it is still 40 or better.

So in the end, based on this, I would logically conclude that the HMG's are not as effective in game as they were in real life...for whatever those reasons are.

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Gibbage, in watching your track what I see is a large number of the bullets going over the 190 engine and striking the tail and fuselage (if you change focus to the 190 and watch from the left side you can see the strikes going down the body and hitting the tail. The P-47, standing a bit taller is catching more directly in the engine.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, due too a recording error in IL2, the turret position is not recorded accuratly. 100% of the shots were done into the engine between the coweling and spinner.

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 06:53 PM
AI cant be used as a test target. I have seen them auger in with minimul damage. Its just stupid. Online they will stay in the air till a wing falls off or they explode. They never give up and just die like the AI will.

WWSensei
02-17-2006, 07:16 PM
Well, all I can say is these tracks are consistent with my experience both against AI and humans. When firing from effective ranges of 200 meters are less it has seldom taken me more than 30 rounds to bring down an enemy with 50. cals.

I'm just trying to point out not everyone's experience is like your own. I presented counter evidence showing a combat situation shooting down 2 aircraft claimed to require 80-100 hits and doing so with less than 40, but I'm told it's an invalid test, yet your track showing you not hitting the target you claimed is in error (and it's your own track) and then despite what we are seeing you insist you needed that many hits. Even though "turret track recording error" has nothing to do with being able to see the 190 is shorter than the P-47 and watching your bullets sail over. Odd how that track error doesn't occur on the 47 parts of your track...

OK, whatever you want. Just going to say again, I fly a lot of 50 cal aircraft on various non-AI DF servers and these tracks are the norm, not the excepetion.

.50s have been hosed in the past and the de-synch of tracers was much needed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You didn't kill him, not with guns anyway. He crashed into the forest trying to evade you. No engine damage, no pilot kill, no elevator or aileron damage of failure, minimal rudder damage (had nothing to do with the crash). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look again, my last burst got smoke pouring from his engine and he went down. Can't confirm but from the way manuevered I most likely also destroyed his aerilons as well.

Cobra-84
02-17-2006, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Look again, my last burst got smoke pouring from his engine and he went down. Can't confirm but from the way manuevered I most likely also destroyed his aerilons as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched it again, its not smoke thats a fuel leak. Engine smoke is dark gray, not white.

Screenshot (no more shots fired after this point) - faint white smoke is in the red box. FW-190 is slightly rolled + it is level during the crash = ailerons are working fine
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/Crash.jpg

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 07:30 PM
I said 80-100 to stop the engine, not to kill the aircraft. In reality, all aircraft can be killed with 1 hit. Into the pilots head! That does NOT mean every aircraft will go down in 1 hit.

You also showed a very small profile of the general target. You shot down 2 aircraft for your test with 40 hits. Thats an average of 20 hits between those two targets. Now do that with 100 targets and average it out. Also do it online. As we said, the AI suck and is stupid. It will go down for no reason at all. Humans on the otherhand take far more hits then AI.

WWSensei
02-17-2006, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobra-84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Look again, my last burst got smoke pouring from his engine and he went down. Can't confirm but from the way manuevered I most likely also destroyed his aerilons as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched it again, its not smoke thats a fuel leak. Engine smoke is dark gray, not white.

Screenshot (no more shots fired after this point) - faint white smoke is in the red box. FW-190 is slightly rolled + it is level during the crash = ailerons are working fine
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/Cobra84/Crash.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From your pic, yes you are right the aerilons are fine. It was his rudder I destroyed.

WWSensei
02-17-2006, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I said 80-100 to stop the engine, not to kill the aircraft. In reality, all aircraft can be killed with 1 hit. Into the pilots head! That does NOT mean every aircraft will go down in 1 hit.

You also showed a very small profile of the general target. You shot down 2 aircraft for your test with 40 hits. Thats an average of 20 hits between those two targets. Now do that with 100 targets and average it out. Also do it online. As we said, the AI suck and is stupid. It will go down for no reason at all. Humans on the otherhand take far more hits then AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, between practice sessions for an upcoming battle and time spent on various DF servers against humans I'd say I've downed around 50 targets with an average 25-30 rounds with a few taking as many as 40. Again, I posted the examples I had on hand but it is consistent with what I've experienced in the game so far.

I have experienced taking more rounds when I've fired from &gt;200 meters, but then I don't expect it too.

Also, don't agree on human pilots being inherently brighter than the AI. I've killed humans with no ammo by just being on their 6 while winchester. But testing against AI also doesn't take into account control damage unless it's clearly indicated whereas a human can at least report controls being out. Will PK's count as well?

Now, just to be straight on conditions...only engine kills and/or explosions count? Pilot bailing ok? Crashes etc?

Will up front agree on not counting the ones where you put a few rounds into someone and they land 10 minutes later and you erronesouly get credit. I never count those in any case. If a pilot brings his cripple home and lands it shouldn't be a kill.

Cobra-84
02-17-2006, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
That depends on whether you like to fly the Jug/Hellcat/Corsair combination more than the FW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Anyone want to make some Ntrks and send them to Oleg? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I almost missed this because you didn't quote properly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

I have a bunch of screenshots and quite a few tracks a could send. I have a one that nice one that really proves my thoughts correct, P-51D-20 vs 3x P-51D-20, I killed all three with about 10 hits each (an engine fire and 2 stopped engines). All were shots from 6 o'clock.

I just need to make some for the... (rear fuselage too strong refers to stopping AP ammo to well)
Bf-109 - rear fuselage too strong, fuel tank doesn't burn
FW-190A - weird wings, rear fuselage too strong, engine doesn't burn
FW-190D - weird wings, rear fuselage too strong
P-47 - tail section too weak, weird wings, rear fuselage too strong
R-2800 engine - 2 hit kill bug with center shots
Lagg-3 - rear fuselage too strong, engine too strong
Yak-5 - tail section too weak, rear fuselage too strong, engine too weak (the Yak-5 is a radial, right? If not then its fine)
Yak-7 - rear fuselage too strong, engine too weak (the Yak-7 is a radial, right? If not then its fine)

Is the R-2800/FW-190A engines too strong? 60 and 40 hits are a lot compared to 20 hits for the other radials (B-29 only takes about 25 with engines that look similar to the R-2800).

I have no life, so I should be able to do this over the weekend

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Also, don't agree on human pilots being inherently brighter than the AI. I've killed humans with no ammo by just being on their 6 while winchester. But testing against AI also doesn't take into account control damage unless it's clearly indicated whereas a human can at least report controls being out. Will PK's count as well?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you not understand english at all? I did not say they are "inherently brighter than the AI". I said that they hang on longer then the AI!!! I have a few tracks of me putting 2 .50 cal's into an AI and he just does a slow spiral into the ground. The hits are not even CLOSE too anything vital, but on the wingtip. The AI in recent builds simply DONT FLY!!! They are like robots that when something goes beyond there programming, freez up and just auger in. Its not a PK since in arcade mode it would show a PK, and if it was controle lines you would THINK they would bail out, but no. They just slowly fly into the ground for no reason. There is a bug in the AI and it looks like your FW suffered from it. Aileron and elivator are just fine, a small fuel leak and he flies into the ground. Loosing your rudder is not crippling. It will take out out of the fight, but the aircraft is still 100% flyable and controleable. From the screenshot the rudder is only damaged and not missing at all.

Even if you nailed the rudders controle line, that would not stop a human pilot. Its things like that, that PROVES my point that a human pilot is more difficult too bring down then an AI pilot.

Cobra-84
02-18-2006, 03:28 PM
Some tracks of .50 damage comparisons and some damage bugs.

Bf-109 kills - The most inconsistent plane ever. Sometimes goes up in flames quickly, other times not at all.

F4U - F4U + 6x .50s = fire + engine damage.

FW-190 wing 40 +60 hits - 40 hits to the middle wing section, 60 hits to the inside section, all sections removed except inside landing gear still attached, but plane still tips over.

FW-190A 40 hits 40 direct hits to the engine

FW-190A no engine fire - 4000 .50 rounds and over a 2 minutes still no engine fire. (black smoke is from the fuel tank)

FW-190D kills - If it weren't for the for the fuel tank, I'm not sure they would ever gone down. Little to no engine damage, next to impossible pilot kills through the fuselage.

P-51 kills - The opposite of the FW-190D test, 3 P-51s get their engines destroyed with very few rounds.

R-2800 ? hits - R-2800 engines die quickly or slowly depending on location hit.

Spit vs Spit - 2x .50 armed Spitfire easily takes down another.

http://rapidshare.de/files/13580347/Damage.zip.html

Anything wrong with these tracks? This was hard to do, parts that do work properly (FW-190 fuel tank, Bf-109 wings) were always the most common failures. Fuselage AP penetration was much lower on the two German planes vs other similar planes.

Kocur_
02-18-2006, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fuselage AP penetration was much lower on the two German planes vs other similar planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not sure what you mean by that, but I can assure you that no hmg AP projectile would penetrate fuselage along longitudinal axis from anywhere in aft section (point of entrance) through pilots armour AND into engine.

I wonder what about flammability of planes? Ever since 4.00 all Yaks have inflammable fuel tanks. If that is more common, it would reduce .50 effectiveness alot.

Cobra-84
02-18-2006, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im not sure what you mean by that, but I can assure you that no hmg AP projectile would penetrate fuselage along longitudinal axis from anywhere in aft section (point of entrance) through pilots armour AND into engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51, spitfire, F4U and others take fairly significant engine damage from .50 rounds entering from the rear fuselage. Pretty sure all have at least decent pilot armor. If you are right, its the other planes are the ones with bad damage models.

In the P-51 track the 3 P-51s engines are destroyed about 6-12 shots through the fuselage into the engine, double the number of direct hits needed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wonder what about flammability of planes? Ever since 4.00 all Yaks have inflammable fuel tanks. If that is more common, it would reduce .50 effectiveness alot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW-190s tank can catch fire, although it is difficult to do consistantly. Bf-109 tank only catches fire if the whole tail is shot off. API rounds are no more likely to start a fire than regular AP rounds.

I guess it really doesn't matter what's wrong with the .50s anymore. Its not worth the effort to try and fix it. Too many bad, inconsistant damage and flight models. Too much focus on adding more planes rather than fixing the ones we already have. The DO-335 was fun for about 5 minutes before it got tossed aside, never to be used again, while a decent number of "good" planes that saw real combat sit in the same pile of worthless planes.

Kocur_
02-18-2006, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobra-84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im not sure what you mean by that, but I can assure you that no hmg AP projectile would penetrate fuselage along longitudinal axis from anywhere in aft section (point of entrance) through pilots armour AND into engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51, spitfire, F4U and others take fairly significant engine damage from .50 rounds entering from the rear fuselage. Pretty sure all have at least decent pilot armor. If you are right, its the other planes are the ones with bad damage models.

In the P-51 track the 3 P-51s engines are destroyed about 6-12 shots through the fuselage into the engine, double the number of direct hits needed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! But I was talking about RL not the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif F4U is especially funny, since there was also that big tank on projectiles path to engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Cobra-84
02-18-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh! But I was talking about RL not the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif F4U is especially funny, since there was also that big tank on projectiles path to engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew you were talking about real life. Thats why I said "If you are right, its the other planes are the ones with bad damage models", meaning that the P-51, Spitfire ect are the one that need fixing and the FW-190 and BF-109 are somewhat correct.