Jump to content

KW_1979

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

331 Excellent

About KW_1979

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oregon, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Shooting into the nose from low 12 o'clock (which I believe was the configuration they were using for that one) I averaged 24.3 rds of .50 over 10 passes to either knock out the P-47's engine or set it on fire - no other kill mechanism was apparent with this shot, which makes sense. Data set was: 41, 24, 8, 30, 12, 9, 23, 23, 30, 43. This was far and away the highest average of the BoBP fighters I tested this way, most being around 15. I'm pretty sure that the US vulnerability study was just looking at the pK of a single round from this angle though, and not considering compound damage from multiple rounds. In that light, the chance of a single round knocking down an undamaged P-47 from that angle has to be real close to zero. The other portions of that study that I mimicked were P-38 & B-25 fuel tanks, (32.4 and 39.3 rds on average to ignite, which seemed way low compared to their compound damage numbers, but of course theres the AP vs API issue) and Me262 jet engines. I figured the 262 was close enough to a Bell jet engine to at least make an interesting comparison - 9.7 rounds on average from the from and 6 from the rear for a fire or engine kill - once again higher they what they got, but its a different engine ultimately, and the AP vs API issue is likely a factor again.
  2. Circling back to the small set of data we're arguing over - this doesn't pass the sniff test to me (I'm not trying to suggest any dishonesty or anything like that - just that's its not a representative sample). As I already pointed out, filtering out unsuccessful sorties is already artificially selecting best case outcomes. For another, in my extensive DM testing in 4.006 using static targets, the only way to get kills in that low of a round count was either to hit the pilot or to put all the shots into the engine. That was from a static gun shooting at a static target - not representative of the kind of hit spread you'd seeing in actual flying. So I dug into my own stats going back a few weeks. Only counting P-51 and P-47 sorties, and discounting any where I did some strafing (and thus the hit number is uncertain), and counting in numbers from the other pilots who either assisted my kills or who I assisted I got these results: 33 blue aircraft shot down, by 2947 hits for an average of 89.3 hits per kill. If I exclude any multiengine aircraft (there were a fair number of 110s, 262s, and Ju88s in that set) it was 20 kills from 1407 hits for an average of 70.35 hits per kill. But that's a small sample size and mostly coming from one pilot. So I decided to pull Krupinskii's stats for this month - one of the top pilots in the game, lots of dogfighting - should be a really optimistic setup to get low round per kill totals. I did the same thing where I traced all the airplanes he shot, as well as anyone assisting him, and I just ignored any extra rounds coming in from Spits, Tempests, P-38s, flak and in one case some friendly fire from a 190. So this is a really optimistic set of data that includes some 20mm and heavy flak which I can't account for exactly. 3693 hits for 56 kills - 65.9 rounds per kill. So if we split the difference between my data and [DBS]Browning, the average hits per kill is about 50 - and if the average pilot is hitting at 5% (which may be optimistic based on his numbers) - then it takes 12.8 seconds of gunfire on average to score a kill with 6 x .50s in game right now. And I think that's a really optimistic number.
  3. If you are only choosing sorties where kills were scored, you’re eliminating a lot of data that should be counted. Also, how are you accounting for cases where multiple pilots engaged the same target? The hits are only accounted on the shooters end, you have to dig through the targets log to see if there were multiple attackers, and the you’d have to look at each attacker and hope they’d only shot at one target. An example: https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/909591/?tour=26 If you just looked at the log of the player who scored the kill, you say it took 78 hits to kill that FW190, but if you keep digging there were 121 hits from two of the attackers, plus some percentage of my 98 hits (I did some strafing afterwards). Another example: https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/857926/?tour=25 This looks great on the surface - 19 hits for a kill. But once you dig in there you see he was also damaged by a P-51 (who attacked multiple targets, so we can’t tell how many hits he scored on my kill) and a Tempest (who did some strafing so the same problem). And what the stats don’t really make clear is that he appeared to just crash while trying to avoid the Tempest, and likely hadn’t actually sustained serious damage yet.
  4. I love the attention to detail and focus on continuing improvement! Has any thought been given to making the G-suit in the American fighters a selectable mod? The P-51D for instance saw service with both the RAF and the 15th Air Force (in fact we have default skins for these) without G-suits. Likewise the vast majority of pilots probably didn’t have them yet in the summer of 1944 during Normandy (yeah, ours is a slightly later D-15, but it will almost certainly get used in earlier MP scenarios and SP missions).
  5. All the way at the bottom of that thread.
  6. I like the idea of capturing some data, but I see a couple issues: #1 We would want a much larger sample size before drawing any conclusions. #2 By only counting sorties where a kill was scored and ignoring sorties with assists the rounds per kill number will be artificially low. #3 I believe that certain sortie outcomes (bailouts maybe? I don’t recall) cause the stats to show every round having been fired when they weren’t, which skews things the other way. #4 The devs have acknowledged there is some sort of 13mm aero damage bug (or an issue with certain allied aircraft? I don’t think they clarified what the actual problem is) that will be fixed in the future, but for now that’s going to likely push the rounds per kill much lower than it should be on the axis side, which makes any comparison useless. A Tempest vs P-51/P-47 comparison might be the best one to make since all use an individual gun/ammo type and the target mix should be the same. #5 Related to #2 you have the problem that you would have cases where both ammo types got used on a target due to multiple attackers with no easy way to break down exactly who did what.
  7. If you're going to claim that everyone else in the discussion is incompetent, when you've never even played MP, you need to back it up before anyone will listen to you. Killing the AI is joke compared to facing real people. You may as well stop posting.
  8. With regard to the overclaiming issue - yes it occurred. Sometimes quite often and to a significant degree. However in the case of late war 8th AF fighter claims, they seem to be quite accurate. This is based on Donald Caldwell's research, published in his book "Day Fighters in Defense of the Reich". (This book, and it's companion "The Luftwaffe over Germany", are really excellent and worth a read for anyone interested in the daylight strategic bombing campaign - these books tell the Luftwaffe's story in incredible detail). In general, the 8th fighter command claims were quite accurate in these high altitude engagements - around 1.5:1 or so which is really good by WW2 standards. You'll notice that most of the cases I posted involved either the pilot or one of his squadron mates observing the enemy aircraft crashing. In the case of George Preddy's exceptional sortie, on that day, 8th AF claims were actually less than the Luftwaffe's losses within the interceptor units sent against them - his claims were almost certainly accurate. I do agree with you that 109 DM plays a major role in complaints about the 50s. There have been threads on it in the past that run about like this one - I'm sure more will come.
  9. I'd agree with you there and I think what you said really strikes at the heart of the problem. I think the other big glaring issues are that the fuel tank is VERY difficult to ignite (relative to other aircraft in the game), strikes to the tail never seem to produce any real effect (which is not the case against aircraft like the 190, where I've shot the stabilizers off of them on a number of occasions using .50s), and the non-factor of engine/oil/radiator hits (which impacts every airplane, and is hopefully being addressed with the promised improved engine damage modeling). Reports like this one and this one and this one would seem to show that the .50 could definitely kill the pilot from a rear attack. This report is really the daddy of API effectiveness examples. Basically ideal conditions (non-maneuvering targets in a large formation), and consistently lighting them on fire five times in a row. Note the round count - 832 rds expended, which is about 138 rounds expended per target and 1.8 seconds of trigger time per target. And finally this example, where less than 3 seconds of fire from a 4 gun P-51B was able to take the tail off a 109. Obviously some of these are best case scenarios, and we shouldn't expect to chop the tail off of every 109 - but at the same time a solid burst from six o'clock should have a REALLY good chance of killing the pilot or igniting the fuel tank and it just doesn't right now. We just don't see results like this in game, whether in single or multiplayer. Yeah with some angle off you can get a pilot hit, and sometimes engine strikes will produce a fire. But that's about it. Those numbers are well inline with the testing I did in 4.006 - 78.7 and 79.3 average over 10 passes for the K-4 and G-14 respectively if I aimed precisely for the fuel tank. By comparison my results for the A-8, D-9 and P-51D were: 24.9, 45.2, and 33.5. To put some perspective on those numbers, against humans in multiplayer it's REALLY hard to get 20% accuracy - it can be done, but most people probably average far below that - maybe 5%. So if we assume we're doing really well at hitting with 20% of our shots, it would take 5 seconds of trigger time in a P-51D to produce those hits. And that's assuming that every hit is going into the fuel tank against a reactive, maneuvering target, which is absurdly optimistic.
  10. What I found in my testing was that if you engage the 109's fuel tank from the side, it burns very similarly to every other plane. But from the rear is where it gets weird. Since we knew there was something going on with the vert stab, that's where that theory comes from. But as you point out it could just be that the alloy bulkhead is getting treated like some sort of fire suppressant. The fuel tank certainly leaks easily enough, often within the first couple rounds striking it. I also wonder if the MW50 tanks come into play in this - I say that because I noticed that the 190D9 (while being on the high end of average for durability overall) is MUCH tougher than an A8 (which is surprisingly fragile). Put the same short burst into both fighters and the A8 is in flames with a dead pilot while the D9 is leaking fuel and running away from you at high speed. The only real difference in construction between the two that I'm aware of is the MW50 tank behind the fuel tank. The MW50 tanks are an interesting side note - I'm not entirely certain how flammable MW50 was - Methanol burns much like Ethanol, so you'd imagine it would be along the lines of 100 proof liquor which burns, but is hardly gasoline. Of course if you have a slow burning methanol fire and some gas starts leaking onto it, that could be nasty. My understanding is that the tanks themselves were made of aluminum (and should offer little protection against AP HMG fire and above) and were pressurized with air tapped from the supercharger - thus if you poke some holes in the tank it's going to depressurize and quit delivering MW50 even if there is still fluid left in the tank. Would the Kommandogerat pull boost back down if methanol pressure dropped? I'd guess not in that scenario which should result in a blown engine very quickly if the throttle is up in emergency power. That would be some neat systems modeling, but is obviously way beyond what we have right now.
  11. Yeah, I set this test up with some angle off, as a pure tail shot is probably really unlikely and with some angle off the rounds should go around the vert stab and avoid that question. However another test I ran raised a whole new set of questions regarding the vert stab. I shot into the vert stab from 9 o'clock and was able to empty the entire ammo load of the A20 gunner into it, demonstrating that it was indeed invulnerable. What was strange was that other things started happening - right around the 380 round mark (the entire ammo load) the 109s engine was stopping, or the rear fuselage was breaking in half behind the cockpit. The only explanation I can come up with is that there must be some sort of connection with the invulnerable vert stab, or central hit point pool or something. From the angle I was shooting there was no way either of those outcomes should have been possible. I switched to using a 20mm MGFF/M for this shot and shooting the vert stab was producing pilot kills, engine and fuel tank fires, and outright explosions. So it's possible that the vert stab may still be tied into the durability issue - it's certainly producing a lot of weird behavior.
  12. A nice resource for the actual specifics of the various shells: https://ww2data.blogspot.com/2017/05/german-projectiles-792mm-to-30mm.html The 13mm projectiles had 18 grains of filler, either HE or HE with some thermite. 20mm MG151 HE projecticles had ~50-60 grains, and the mine shells had 260 grains.
  13. From a stern attack, it requires an average of over 100 hits to down a 109G14 or K4 in the current damage model using the AN/M2 .50. And in some cases over 300 hits. And that's in single player shooting at a static airplane where you are getting perfect strikes. Against a live target where a best case scenario is ~20% accuracy, that works out to 6+ seconds of trigger time. A simple bounce attack where you can squeeze in a 2-3 second burst at most before the target reacts is almost guaranteed to not produce a kill. People keep trying to blame this stuff on packet loss, but as you see in the video, this has been demonstrated in single player (months ago, and submitted as a bug report). It's just the reality of the current DM - if they start maneuvering you can start getting pilot and engine hits, but otherwise good luck.
  14. From the AFDUs trials of the Mustang III: “There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting.” From the 1944 P-51D manual: “A high-speed stall is preceded by a sharp buffeting at the elevators and wing root ...” This doesn’t really occur in game, but wasn’t an issue when you could hear the gun port whistle to judge how close you were to stalling.
  15. Even the vaunted 30mm + weapons weren’t a guaranteed kill. There are numerous photos of aircraft that returned to base with giant chunks of wing or tail torn off by 37mm flak etc. There are known cases of 262s attacking and damaging Allied fighters that returned to base. Obviously hits to critical components (cockpit, engine, fuel, oil) should be devastating, but a poor hit wasn’t a guaranteed loss no matter the caliber.
×
×
  • Create New...