Jump to content

Cass

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

About Cass

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

175 profile views
  1. Cass

    M2 50 Cal. Mod

    That's a mod that changes the 50s to output the same damage as the 13mm HE. This is just a modified version of the .50 file to create a more plausible damage output. It would still affect the Spitfires .50s but would be nowhere near as effective as in that video.
  2. The issue is that there is a greater variance to AP hits. It's not unlikely that a 12.7mm round is going to leave that size holes on parts of the plane, but the fact that the DM thinks it does that every single time is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous to have .50s do their maximum damage each round, which is what we get for HE. It's a mega stop gap solution but the idea of having a ninja HE in the .50 belt every 5 rounds or so to simulate a "good" hit, isn't seeming like such a bad idea anymore.
  3. A plane on fire is a kill IRL. Sure there are some engine fires that you can put out if you're hit by flak, but if someone is on your six and has set your plane on fire you're going to get out. The actual damage output went down when switching from AP to API but they happily traded that as it meant a massive increase in confirmed kills. I understand that there is minority saying they don't work at all. That certainly isn't the case, they can cause PK's, engine damage and damage other components as well. The issue is the lack of any appreciable damage to aircraft skin,
  4. Thanks, it looks a lot clearer from above. Judging by the warping in the other picture I'd guess there was a fire of some sort as @alpino suggested rather than explosive damage. It almost certainly has to be mostly kinetic damage as they would have to be using some funky fuses to get it to perfectly detonate on the other side of the wing.
  5. I'm not sure the pictures are of the same wing. You can see the exit damage at the top of the first picture which doesn't correspond to the one below. The way the paint has come off in the 2nd picture is potentially put that down to a crash maybe pulling off some additional skin. To clarify also, the amount of explosives in WW2 HMG (Russian and German) is not sufficient to create significantly more skin damage. Explosives only come into play in rounds 20mm+ where the explosive energy becomes much greater than the kinetic energy of the round (or explosive + kinetic). Hence Minengesc
  6. This always ends up with the same points being made. The number of rounds it takes to fully kill an aircraft are probably about right for .50 BMG. The issue lies with the fact that you can put 40 rounds into a plane with little to no effect only for the 41st round to plonk the pilot on the head or create a fire. It's not a cannon. It was nowhere near as effective as a cannon, but it's still is a decent anti aircraft weapon when you stick 6 or 8 of them on a plane. The issue of skin damage seems to be the main problem along with a lack of internal components
  7. I've suggested this as well. Looking at the reference in the files, it does appear to be too low. I think it would have a similar effect, however you would still be quite limited unless you increased the dispersion levels unrealistically. Overheating the guns does increase dispersion but also reduces the muzzle velocity massively so the guns become even more ineffective.
  8. Of course yes, there is a level of dispersion built into the guns. But as it is it's very minimal at normal ranges and regardless it's completely different to gun harmonisation. If you fire outside of the current convergence from dead 6, the rounds will only impact the wings, which are a very small target from the rear and you're unlikely to score many hits. With the way it's implemented currently you are restricted to a very narrow window where the weapons are their most effective.
  9. I understand that. In sim currently we have point harmonisation where all the guns are trained at a certain point. Creating historically accurate harmonisation would be a massive challenge for the dev team. I thought this solution would get us close to the "shotgun effect" utilising the calculations already available.
  10. I'm well aware the work behind implementing a complex gun harmonisation system is fairly massive and it's unrealistic to expect it any time soon in the sim. As I understand it the ballistics calculation for each range setting has already been computed and are available for us to select every 10m across all the aircraft. Unfortunately the current system puts aircraft with multiple wing mounted guns at a significant disadvantage as their firepower is trained at a single, perfect point in the sky. My suggestion would be to allow such planes to select a "Pattern Harmonisati
  11. I think the average number of rounds to kill isn't too far off. If you told me that there were a few IRL examples of 109s tanking 60-70 rounds of AP before they fell out of the sky I'd happily believe you. Even more is possible if they all hit in the right places. The problem is the lack of damage before that single round that makes the kill. Aircraft are seemingly unaffected up until that point in some cases and are able to manoeuvre and reach speeds close to their maximum performance. The argument is that 20 rounds of AP shouldn't necessarily lead to a kill 100% of the time, you
  12. I don't think they'll announce anything properly unless they have come up with a workable solution. I'm not sure if it's possible with the way they are implemented but having the ability to select some kind of pattern harmonisation would have such a massive impact. Perhaps having your setting be the first inboard set of guns and then all guns preceding are set out a further 50 or 70m. The point convergence and seemingly laser accuracy of the .50s really doesn't allow for the advantage of having 6 or 8 guns to be maximised.
  13. It says from the end of page 13 through 14: These coefficients were arrived at by an examination of the design and construction of operational projectile types: ....an evaluation of relative combat damage to allied aircraft: through results of structural-damage firing tests by Allied and G.A.F research establishments: and by assessment of G.A.F gun cameras films Surely that means there's more than that behind them? I know double guns = double firepower is a little simplistic but it isn't going to be miles off at this scale.
  14. @QB.Shallot That would be much better but it doesn't seem they are able to do that without borking the DMs on the other platforms. You're right though a stop gap implementing a broken system isn't the right move. I can't seem to find where it's from I have another page if that helps. It's apparently one of the studies into weapon effectiveness.
  15. Anyone able to dig out the USAAF microfilm this comes from? How we reach something like this I don't know. Clearly we shouldn't have the .50 as a singilarity doing decent amounts of skin damage as that's been proven false. We've seen the absurdity of upscaling 12.7mm HE on the P47 and P51. But there needs to be a way of creating some kind of skin damage to denote the tearing hits we see and read about. Perhaps adding a "ghost" HE shell every 5 or 8 rounds to signify a more significant hit. Of course we'd need Mg calibre HE
×
×
  • Create New...