Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. True that and totally agree.

    That's why a dead six 37mm AP round will not necessarily kill the pilot - in order to achieve that with a reasonable probability, you'd need pretty advanced ammunition indeed.

    It's just that it won't just vanish from being deflected either, that's all.




    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3

  2. It's also a huge difference:

    In the @II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson situation you need to hit one specific thing and your bullet gets distracted by some tiny little something way before, "misses" the target and anything else that happens to or with the bullet simply doesn't matter.

    In the "dead six 109 tailshot" situation, the bullet hits the plane's skin, and whether it's path gets disturbed by doing so or not, on it's further way the bullet will still go through vital parts of the plane and therefore cause catastrophic damage either way.


    In other words, you may have aimed for a birthmark on the pilot's neck and "miss" that, but you'd still ruin the 109's day.




    • Upvote 2

  3. 1 hour ago, Winger said:

    Maybe read what you write before you send.


    Maybe watch your words a bit.


    Nobody said that every single 37mm hit would automatically be a straight kill.

    For instance, a 37mm AP round travelling through a wing at 90° angle, without hitting any spars or other critical structures, will surely you punch two nice holes and that's it.

    Same if you hit the fuselage at 90° deflection and don't hit any critical components: Two holes, nothing much to suffer from.


    However, when you throw two pounds at Mach 2.something with a kinetic energy of almost 300kJ at "something" and let it travel through this "something" for a prolonged time, then this will have catastrophic results for that "something".


    The current case/question was "what is supposed to happen when a 37mm AP shell hits a 109 from dead six".

    The starting post for this question suggested that the bullet will probably reach the pilot and kill him. And that's one possibility.

    Then others said that the AP round hits other stuff before and might not reach the pilot, as from the initial impact to the pilot's seat it's about 5 meters to go.

    That's right, but either the bullet travels trough more or less empty space for these 5 meters, or it will hit lots of critical components (spars etc.) on it's way through.

    Either case would be lethal with that amount of energy having to be absorbed by critical components.




    • Upvote 8

  4. 7 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

    That 37mm AP shell has a lot of mass and momentum and would tear the tail off the plane, if some of it's structure managed to deflect it. A tumbling, nearly two pounds shell, 200mm long would tear everything in it's path.


    In my opinion, a 37mm AP shell, hitting a fighter from dead six, should be a 90% kill, either by pilot kill, or catastrophic damage in the rear fuselage,....or both.




    It's exactly what I thought when I read the excuse of straight-six shot deflection for the very first time.

    Yes, maybe your two pound AP round is not running straight anymore, but from the receiver's perspective this doesn't make things any better.

    You'd get a tumbling thing with a kinetic energy of almost 300kJ running through your tail.

    That would be something the same plane could probably not witness twice.




    • Upvote 2

  5. 13 hours ago, justin_z3r0 said:

    Im running on an older MSI laptop w. Nvidia GTX960M. This update improved my performance it seems and looks better too! I can get 40+ fps now (was 30-35 before).Worked perfect after install - no settings changes needed. I have 8x AA turned on in Nvidia control panel. Couldnt get the in game AA to work right on my machine before. Maybe I should try again and see if it improves more. Settings below. Maybe this helps someone else with an older laptop?




    Wait... you have 8xSS transparent AA and get 40+ FPS on a GTX960M?

    Hell... with 4xAA + Multisample transp. AA (which is 1 step (AA) / 3 steps (transp.AA) lower than yours) I get about 60FPS on my GTX970, and as soon as I raise the transp.AA, FPS is cut to half on each step.

    Anyone else being able to run 8xSS transp.AA with a good frame rate?

    Am I missing something here?




    • Upvote 1

  6. I guess a good reason why the Spit and Hurri might not have been all that famous for turning their pilots into a crispy barbecue is that with the fuel tank placed in front of the instrument panel, there's very little chance to hit it without the bullet travelling through either the plane's engine of the pilot himself first.

    The bullets coming upfront (which would have to travel through the engine first) are most likely to be defensive fire from bombers, which at the time of the Hurri's peak would mostly be MG15 7.7mm guns "only" (I don't want to be on their receiving end in real life, but compared to other guns, that's "only", just saying).

    So it's quite likely that a bullet reaching the tank came from the Spit's/Hurri's six, and that it has travelled through vital parts of the pilot body first.

    That being said, the subsequent barbecue might not have been a real issue to him anymore.


    In contrast, any low six approach on a 109 is likely to result in a couple of bullets ending up in the 109's main fuel tank.

    Not that it'd be a 100% chance, but at least from a logical point of view, the chance to hit that 109's seat heater is probably much larger than the chance to hit Spit's/Hurri's panel defroster - each without killing the pilot first that is.




  7. 10 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

    Sure I seen enough burned faces from both sides to see consequences of fuel , fire inside a cockpit. But was not Spitfire pilots in special exposed to that. Or is it just a Battle of Britain myth? 

    I don't think I ever tried to make people believe the Spitfire was a fireproof plane.

    Quite in contrast to some of what people just tried to turn the 109 into.




  8. 7 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

    Well I rather sit on the front of a tank instead of having a tank right in front of my face. Or like gunners in IL2 on top behind a tank


    I'd certainly prefer to avoid any such situations.

    Simple reason is that as much as you try to keep the fuel contained inside your tank, if push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the direction of your tank proximity - the sheer fact that you're within leak/pour/expansion/explosion distance is by far enough to ruin your day.




  9. 6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

    The fuel tank is indeed very close, but layers of aluminium and steel separate them (look in a Bf109 fuselage in an Airfix kit) hence why I stated any explosion would be behind and away from the pilot in almost all circumstances. I don't deny its unnerving to look at the proximity, but this was largely designed out as a potential issue.


    That was just meant to be a joke, wasn't it?

    But it's a good one if that kidding was intentional 😂




    • Haha 2

  10. On 4/17/2020 at 6:39 PM, SAS_Storebror said:

    So far the crash appears to be an isolated incident, I've yet to see it happening again.


    Just for the record, during the past month the server locked up 5 times in total.

    Every time the reason was unknown but the result was the same:

    Server load looked just normal (in contrast to the crashes we've witnessed long time ago when the CPU load would always be 100%).

    DServer.exe becomes unresponsive.

    Server is listed ingame, but you cannot join it - click on it, and you get back to the server list within a split second.




  11. 10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

    I expect that to be the case...amongst sensible people.


    Well as a tester you probably know better/sooner whether this will be the case than us ordinary mortals.


    Personally I agree that the .50s of course will not cause damage similar to large HE rounds, and the "I" in API won't change that.

    What I'd expect a .50 to do is that significant damage if lots of rounds hit at convergence spot and of not set on right on convergence distance, I would expect a well distributed prolonged burst across the surface of a target plane armoured less than a tank to cause a "random" critical damage to some part at a pretty good chance.

    Both is currently extremely rare. Chances do exist and they do get depicted endlessly to support the currently prevalent opinion, but that's not necessarily solely driven by factual considerations.




    • Haha 1

  12. 11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

    I just hope people don't think that API is going to turn .50 cals into a wonder weapon that vaporizes anything they see.

    No it's not an MG 151/20 after all 😁


    11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

    This is an account from a Fw 190 D-9 pilot on 15 October 1944:

    Also nice to see that people who otherwise are so utterly sensible about "anecdotal" stories have upvoted this.
    Could be a good sign, let's hope for the best.


    11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

    even two propeller blades had three holes.

    That part however makes me want to get my "I want to believe!" shirt off the shelf again.
    Sounds a bit like a circus trick.




    • Like 1

  13. 9 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

    Not sure if I would go so far to say p38 better  allied plane in game than a p51. It certainly has its weaknesses, with its poor dive performance in comparison to many other planes in game. Pilot skill and situation can change that considerably, in any plane.


    Well @CountZero probably mainly compared the P-38 to the P-47 instead, given that we're discussing the latter in this thread:


    21 hours ago, CountZero said:

    P-47 is one of worst airplanes and to bad BoN is giving as one more inseted some more usefule airplane especialy after last update to .50 cal, you dont have right ammo or convergance, even P-38 is miles better with 1x20mm and all guns in nouse (its best american airplane in game now after DM update that made P-51 like glass and .50 useless) and its combat speed is better then p-47 at any alt.


    And that's something I have to agree with.

    IL-2 Great Battles P-38 IMHO wins against the P-47 in every way, at every altitude, in every situation.

    It's more nimble, faster, turns better, has the better and more versatile weapons - it's simply better in each and every regard.

    Whereas in real life, when P-47s got introduced for the first two squadrons in ETO, one of them transitioned from P-38 to P-47, and they were happy with it (oh yeah, I'm perfectly prepared for getting nailed to the cross for "anecdotal" refs now - bite me!).

    If "our" P-47's combat performance was anywhere close to what it was in real life, the 78th FG must have been totally nuts.

    Honestly, put two average sim pilots in 'em, and even a 109 E-7 will win 9 out of 10 fights against the P-47.




  14. 17 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

    I mean, this is anecdotal evidence almost by definition. 


    Yeah, got the message.

    100% of lufties were 100% happy with anything they got.

    Put my anecdotal crap aside, it's just what every book on this world tells you but hey, it's missing calculations... *sigh*.


    I'm starting to wonder why the germans didn't win the war now that they've had such utterly superior weapons.

    And why didn't they kick out the 8.8 flak in favour of the superior MG 151/20?

    Just anecdotal. Don't you take it serious please.




  15. 27 minutes ago, Grancesc said:

    I would advise you to consult the corresponding specialist literature (e.g. Flying Guns World War II, A.G. Williams and Dr. E. Gustin) instead of spreading any anectodes that lack any scientific basis.

    I would not advise you of anything, but would recommend to try not to come across as a complete... you know what.

    It's not an anecdote that many german pilots were less than happy with the new armament of the 109 "Friedrich", that's a well known fact all across the 109 history.




  16. 12 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

    The Minengeschoss is just the best HE shell, not counting the Hispano. And even if that, the number of ammo you have on the MG151/20 does much to diminish any problems one could have with using the cannon. Single MG151/20 or MK108 was always a matter of preference / target, never one being better than the other.

    The extraordinary superiority of the MG151 which we've come to witness lately somehow doesn't want to fit to the complaints of real life pilots when it got introduced with the 109F, just saying.

    And the ones complaining weren't all stupid morons, there's been quite a couple hotshots among them, most prominently probably Adolf Galland, who was so utterly convinced of the 151 that he let his mechanics add two MG/FF to the wings of one of his 109F planes (and replace the MG 17 with MG 131 on another).

    Probably he did so because downing planes with the new wonder-151 became just too easy so he wanted to add some weight penalty?




    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Confused 2
    • Upvote 1

  17. Don't get me wrong guys, I totally agree that attacking an IL-2 with a Macchi is nonsense - I've performed that test solely for educational purpose. Online. Twice. Never more.

    What I tried to get across is, as @jojy47jojyrocks just wrote, the fact that the damage model probably needs a tad more fine tuning, and alongside with it, the disparity between HE and AP ammo (not even speaking about the lack of API here). The balance between HE and AP clearly was wrong before 4.005, but now it feels like the pendulum swung a tad too much into opposite direction.

    Now concerning my particular Macchi vs. IL-2 tests, it wasn't the end result that surprised me.

    It was the way I achieved it.

    That's what seemed inconsistent to me.

    I would not expect the radiator to simple "ignore" hits, regardless how many.

    And I surely didn't expect to be able to score a PK from dead six eventually after having fired half of my belts from up to 60 degree deflection right into the cockpit department without success before. That looks like an odd chance to me, almost like standing upfront a T-34 with an MG-34 in my hands and putting in belt after belt in the hope of eventually getting through.


    No doubt this game has made great leaps in the recent years.

    I totally agree and I put all my money on it as it's the solely future of WW2 combat flight sims to me. Literally I do, I've grabbed what money can buy here, for a reason.




    • Upvote 3

  18. 1 hour ago, John_Yossarian said:

    On differences between MP and SP:


    I did some tests that suggested that the fuel mix for an A20 now triggers at different points in SP and MP. I had originally reported the mix issue (triggering at 50% not 66%) and they seem to have changed (fixed) it in SP so that it triggers a change at 66% or so (where the auto rich setting is), but in MP it still changes at 50% which does not tally with any lever position. 


    How on earth can it be different in SP and MP, surely it can't be, yet that is what I was seeing. This doesn't mean there are any other differences in SP and MP, I don't really trust my eyes on this still, but it has certainly placed a seed of doubt that things really are the same in both SP and MP for me; until someone can report that they see the light smoke dissappear at 66% fuel mix (auto rich) in MP.


    (Hmm, is it not the case that there is no turbulant airstream behind an aircraft in MP, but there is in SP?)


    Confirmed, we've just had a sortie with 3 chaps together in A-20s last sunday.

    At auto rich (66%) we were all trailing smoke, at 33% (auto lean) the smoke is gone.

    Clearly around 66%, even slightly lower than 66%, there's still smoke visible.

    No wake turbulence behind other planes online for me either.




    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...