Jump to content

[DBS]Browning

Members
  • Content Count

    714
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

752 Excellent

About [DBS]Browning

Recent Profile Visitors

1104 profile views
  1. What gift are you planning for the il2 team?
  2. Second war tech could do it, but it couldn't do it small, light or cheap enough. You would need vaccume tubes to convert the tiny heat signal into a much larger control signal and a lead acid battery to power it. The other problem is developing a system sensitive enough at distant ranges. That's most practically done with a mechanical scanning method. Edit: I mean sensative enough in the terms of degrees to the target, not heat sensativity. Other guidance methods may have been more practical https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brakemine
  3. Of course, in reality, even sub machine guns would pose a threat to such low and slow bombing runs.
  4. There are accounts of this happening in the first war and a museum in France that claims to have a shell "caught" by the gunner of an aircraft, although I suspect that is an untrue story.
  5. It really is online. The only way that you might miss is by dropping the bomb at too low an altitude for the fuse to arm (about <10ft with 5sec delay). The only issue is the vulnerability to flak and the transit time. Enemy fighters are only of mild concern.
  6. Practice will improve things, but it's also just the nature of rockets and bombs. Tanks are difficult targets.
  7. Well, it's speculation to doubt the accuracy of the reports, but it's also speculation to consider the reports completely accurate. The question isn't what is speculation and what isn't. Instead, the question is "which is more likely?". It's just as difficult to find evidence that backs up reports of fire as it is to find evidence that refutes reports of fire. Fire is very easy to miss and misinterpret as smoke is often the biggest visual clue to fire. Sometimes smoke is the only signal that a plane is on fire, especially from a distance. What I absolutely can prove is there is a degree of inaccuracy in After Action Reports. Kill claims regularly were made that exceed the number of losses that the opposing side suffered.
  8. Lies are not necessary for biases to show in statistics. It isn't a lie to report a plane on fire if you believe it's on fire because of the thick black smoke and what you thought where flames from 500m away. You might have some small doubts about if it really was fire. Hard to tell with so much smoke, but you're certain it was a kill and if you don't report the fire you think you saw, you won't be credited with your first kill as everyone was too high to see the plane impact. If there is a motivation for a bias, one will show. There is nothing speculative about that. Absolutely! If the fuel air mix was just right in the tank, that would lead to an explosion. Any non-explosive fire that inside the tank it's self will quickly consume all the oxygen available and extinguish in a fraction of a second.
  9. Whilst I don't disagree that it will be a significant number, I don't trust this particular number. I suspect that when your kill credit depends on you spotting fire, the old phrase "where there is smoke, there is fire" tends to get used more often than it should. I would be unsurprised if this number is an overestimate by 15% or more.
  10. I don't know (perhaps someone has evidence?) but I suspect that API rounds will almost always fail to ignite anything by hitting a fuel tank. They're isn't enough oxygen in the tank for fire and not enough fuel outside of the tank for fire. Only once fuel had leaked out of the tank for some time will there be a volatile enough mixture.
  11. Perhaps the VR in the gunners seat could have the rotation smoothing disabled when nestled to the sight also?
  12. 9.82% or 12.21% depending on how you define "London".
  13. Knowing the kill probability of a hit (here after "PKill") also allows its to directly infer the survival probability of a hit. Further more, neither the PKill, nor the survival probability can be calculated from hits that don't result in a kill. This is why is is not useful to have data from hits that don't result in kills. Even if it was the case that it is common to survive 500 hits, so long as the shooter is on the dead six, this will still decrease the PKill, even if only kills are looked at. Now there could be some other mechanic going on. For example, perhaps, due to a bug, a gun does no damage at all of it hits the rudder. That would be a problem that looking at the stats would not reveal, but it would still result in a lower PKill. Likewise, if a gun caused a plane to explode every time the red navigation lights where hit, that's not a problem the stats will reveal, but it will still result in a higher PKill. Such stats don't reveal bugs with the damage model, but they do show us how likely the average hit surviveable as much as they show is how likely each hit will result in a kill. From this, you can infer, without any other information, how likely it is that a plane can RTB after a given number of hits.
  14. You must manually assign the controls after plugging the controller in and starting the game (in that order). Your Thrustmaster will work far better than the joypad.
×
×
  • Create New...