Poll: Should guns jam? (with some degree of historical accuracy?)

[Xenunjeon88]

As a sim enthusiast, I do understand why most people would find certain simulated aspects "annoying" or a detriment to fun. But I do think that jamming guns allow people to make critical decisions that convey the reality of the game they are playing...

 

So why don't guns ever jam in this game? Why not? Yes it could be annoying to be robbed of a kill, (or end up being killed) but it really gives a sense of tension, panic and of luck and realism that sucks you into understanding what real WW2 pilots had to go through.

 

Perhaps I'm different in that I see video games not as art or as fun, but as a sort of "time machine" able to simulate bygone worlds of the past so that we may experience them. And yes, that may mean that my views of historical realism may make game completely "un-fun..." but there is something to be said about learning through experience. I certainly wouldn't have appreciated how difficult combat must have been for the average Soviet soldier, until I actually fired a real Mosin-nagant and truly felt a sense of vulnerability and defenselessness while having to spend those few seconds chambering the next round...

 

What are your thoughts? Would jamming guns based off of historical statistical data improve the game?

(or much more pragmatically, half, third, or fifth the historical data, so that if a gun was known to jam 1% at any given time, in-game it would jam .5%, .33% or .2% at any given time, making jams less frequent an annoying while still being in the game.)

 

 

Wing guns were more susceptible to jams than fuselage mounted.  Firing while pulling high Gs also increased the odds of a jam - a fact that is directly related to the grater vulnerability of wing guns.  I'm sure different types of guns were more or less prone but I don't have any information on details.

 

So no, it should not be random.  It should be odds based, with the odds determined by the type of gun, position of the gun, and the maneuver state of the aircraft when the trigger is pulled.

 

Wing guns also had the disadvantage of not being clearable with a tiny hammer kept in the cockpit ... sorry, wrong war again.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Xenunjeon88

[TP_Jacko]

I think if it ever became part of the game it should be a feature that can be selected. We fly a Sunday ops campaign mission and as time is precious to  find a gun jammed when you have made first contact would be a tad annoying. I remember sometime gun jams were modeled ( maybe 1946 for the early Spitfire with cannon) but it didn't really bring much to the game.

[Finkeren]

I remember the ridiculous rates of gun jams in EAW back in the day. It was fairly annoying and didn't really bring much gameplay-wise. The same thing goes for random engine failures: It takes away from the experience rather than add to it, to know that any moment a random failure might ruin your mission.

 

Personally, I'm satisfied not having any kind of random failures built into the sim.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I like the idea and with the fact that barrel heating and gun-disabling damage is already modeled I don't think it would be a far stretch to account for an additional variable like jams.

[Xenunjeon88]

I like the idea and with the fact that barrel heating and gun-disabling damage is already modeled I don't think it would be a far stretch to account for an additional variable like jams.

 

 

Perhaps they can take a historical value and half or third it in-game to make it less annoying (so if a machine gun's chance of jamming is 1% at any given time, in-game maybe it should jam at 0.5% or 0.33% at any given time.)

 

Though again, should probably be set as an option like in DCS and be available to turn on or off for multiplayer games.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Xenunjeon88

[Danziger]

I thought that is what it means to check the "misfires" option on the realism?

[Xenunjeon88]

I thought that is what it means to check the "misfires" option on the realism?

I think that's only when guns overheat? I'm not 100% sure but misfire and jamming are different catastrophic events...

[Sokol1]

As a sim enthusiast, I do understand why most people would find certain simulated aspects "annoying" or a detriment to fun. But I do think that jamming guns allow people to make critical decisions that convey the reality of the game they are playing...?

 

I agree with you, but most of "simmers" just around just want fly QMB's with unlimited ammunition, shooting Rookie AI... this kind of feature will annoying then. 

 

Even the "Holly Grail" of "realistic" simulation have some dumb simplifications in favor of "gameplay", like the FW 190 D-9 trigger that fold/unfold every time you press the trigger (this feature is correct modeled in 109 K-4 and MiG-15) or Mig-21 trigger that unfold when you press the arm cannon button, or drop ordnance button cover that "magically" open when you press the key/joy button, or the nose wheel that steering with rudder movement... or... 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sokol1

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's interesting to have it, but probably best as an option (at least initially to test the reaction) because even though most people want realism each player has their own line drawn on the sand.

 

For example here Finkeren and Jacko are not fans of it particularly in online cooperative war scenarios, while Space Ghost, Coast-to-Coast is for it (as am I).

 

The simulation of war in a game is still hinged on fun for most people, while others like to see the full face of it (the horrors, the fear and etc.) such as planning for a mission for 2h and then having an engine cut out or start overheating in the middle of a fight and having to return. Those who want the fun will obviously feel their mission is spoiled and the time is wasted, while the ones who want the 'full package' will enjoy gripping the stick with sweating hands while trying to make it over the frontlines while also having to worry about the wingman/flight leader who is now flying alone or has to return as well.

[Dakpilot]

As an option, sure why not, but if gun jamming is implemented then it would have to be done right, weren't some guns more susceptible to jams when fired in high G environment, some more when in V cold temps, others when overheated, could be a lot of work and research for a small percentile of players, also it's very hard  to create a 'random event' even if at a tiny percentage..

 

how often do people get cross when 5 random missions in a row turn up as bad weather, for (a poor) example, random events are hard to simulate, when in real life they are usually triggered by something.

 

Well if it could be done right and historically accurate, (cue xyz cannon was 30% more reliable than in game threads )  then I am all for it, but it would need to be an option as it could annoy many

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Xenunjeon88]

As an option, sure why not, but if gun jamming is implemented then it would have to be done right, weren't some guns more susceptible to jams when fired in high G environment, some more when in V cold temps, others when overheated, could be a lot of work and research for a small percentile of players, also it's very hard  to create a 'random event' even if at a tiny percentage..

 

how often do people get cross when 5 random missions in a row turn up as bad weather, for (a poor) example, random events are hard to simulate, when in real life they are usually triggered by something.

 

Well if it could be done right and historically accurate, (cue xyz cannon was 30% more reliable than in game threads )  then I am all for it, but it would need to be an option as it could annoy many

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Agreed...

[Willy__]

 

 

Plus, we would surely just have long abusive threads as to why one side should jam more or less often.

 

I was just gonna post this, but I guess someone got to do it first.   

[LukeFF]

I thought that is what it means to check the "misfires" option on the realism?

 

Misfires are not the sam as jams.

[PatrickAWlson]

As an option, sure why not, but if gun jamming is implemented then it would have to be done right, weren't some guns more susceptible to jams when fired in high G environment, some more when in V cold temps, others when overheated, could be a lot of work and research for a small percentile of players, also it's very hard  to create a 'random event' even if at a tiny percentage..

 

how often do people get cross when 5 random missions in a row turn up as bad weather, for (a poor) example, random events are hard to simulate, when in real life they are usually triggered by something.

 

Well if it could be done right and historically accurate, (cue xyz cannon was 30% more reliable than in game threads )  then I am all for it, but it would need to be an option as it could annoy many

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Wing guns were more susceptible to jams than fuselage mounted.  Firing while pulling high Gs also increased the odds of a jam - a fact that is directly related to the grater vulnerability of wing guns.  I'm sure different types of guns were more or less prone but I don't have any information on details.

 

So no, it should not be random.  It should be odds based, with the odds determined by the type of gun, position of the gun, and the maneuver state of the aircraft when the trigger is pulled.

 

Wing guns also had the disadvantage of not being clearable with a tiny hammer kept in the cockpit ... sorry, wrong war again.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The stated goal (paraphrased) is factory fresh and fully operational for AC. They specifically want survivability to come down to skill as opposed to chance. I doubt they have a different perspective regarding armament.

Edited January 6, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

To add to Pat's comments, even in modern aircraft with wing guns you get this kind of problem. Even modern aircraft that use the Browning .50 design struggle with this (MB-326 and EMB-312 with wing gunpods and EMB-314 with fixed-mounted), and pilots often go home with only one functioning machine gun during live-fire exercises. Part of the reason many machine-gun equipped aircraft in WW2 had so many guns was redundancy - a P-47 with eight machine guns minus two is still a force to be reckoned with, for example.

 

Wing guns also had the disadvantage of not being clearable with a tiny hammer kept in the cockpit ... sorry, wrong war again.

 

Different wars, different hammers... and sickles.

 

 

T-34 drivers did fix problems by smacking the old thing with a hammer

 

On a more serious note, many aircraft - particularly those with nose-mounted guns, as seen in some BoS/M rides - had charge ejectors/loaders extending into the cockpit to make up for this, even the P-39 with the 37mm gun.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Danziger]

Misfires are not the sam as jams.

I was a gunner for a few years in Iraq using the M2, M240B, and M249 in various turrets of various vehicles. I know the difference between a misfire and a jam. My point is would it not be the same effect in an aircraft? The weapon does not fire so all you can do is recharge it and hope the next shot fires. Unless it is a jam that can't be cleared that way which would make it a weapon failure. If you have your hands on the weapon you can clear it but with mounted aircraft weapons all you can do is pull the charging handle. My platoon was using an M2 browning that still had wooden handles and was date stamped from 1927. We frequently had problems with jamming (due to head space and timing issues with ancient worn out M2s) until we were given newer weapons. 

[Wulf]

I was a gunner for a few years in Iraq using the M2, M240B, and M249 in various turrets of various vehicles. I know the difference between a misfire and a jam. My point is would it not be the same effect in an aircraft? The weapon does not fire so all you can do is recharge it and hope the next shot fires. Unless it is a jam that can't be cleared that way which would make it a weapon failure. If you have your hands on the weapon you can clear it but with mounted aircraft weapons all you can do is pull the charging handle. My platoon was using an M2 browning that still had wooden handles and was date stamped from 1927. We frequently had problems with jamming (due to head space and timing issues with ancient worn out M2s) until we were given newer weapons. 

 

 

Yes, a stoppage is a stoppage.  Only difference is that some can be cleared (such as a misfire in a cowl-mounted MG) and some can't  (such as a stoppage in a wing mounted gun or something like a case head separation in a cowl-mounted MG).

 

To my way of thinking, stoppages are possibly a step too far.  Firstly, because they were probably much more commonplace than most people think, secondly because they will probably lead to endless disputes and finally because it would require considerable work.  For example, a stoppage in a wing-mounted cannon would probably cause the aircraft to yaw, which presumably would have to be modeled if stoppages were to be implemented correctly.   Would all this be worthwhile?  Well, I suspect that depends.  

Edited January 7, 2016 by Wulf

[[CPT]milopugdog]

Wing guns were more susceptible to jams than fuselage mounted.  Firing while pulling high Gs also increased the odds of a jam - a fact that is directly related to the grater vulnerability of wing guns.  I'm sure different types of guns were more or less prone but I don't have any information on details.

 

So no, it should not be random.  It should be odds based, with the odds determined by the type of gun, position of the gun, and the maneuver state of the aircraft when the trigger is pulled.

 

Wing guns also had the disadvantage of not being clearable with a tiny hammer kept in the cockpit ... sorry, wrong war again.

[flash=]

[Gunsmith86]

On the German planes a electric or compressed air driven system is used to load the first round and it also clears misfire and similar small problems in flight.

 

Also German planes were used with spezial ammunition which is used for aircraft guns only and there are a lot of test which includes fireing the guns in flight while performing turns and such things before a gun and its installation gets clearing for mass production and usage in aircrafts.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

From what I have read between 1941 and 1943 both German and Soviet aircraft machine-guns and cannons were rather reliable and both sides rated them better than their Hispano/Browning counterparts.

[Gunsmith86]

From what I have read between 1941 and 1943 both German and Soviet aircraft machine-guns and cannons were rather reliable and both sides rated them better than their Hispano/Browning counterparts.

 

Thats true german and Soviets were the leading experts for aircraft armament both tested cannons in fighters in the Spanish Civil War long before other nations used cannons in larger numbers for aircrafts.

 

The german even improved the MG 151 whit the largly unknown "Gerät 6-12 (GL.15)" and Gerät 6-13 (GL.15) which was the final version. This gun was 300mm shorter than the MG151, 5.8kg lighter than the MG 151 and whit 900 rpm faster than the MG 151 but the RLM decided in late 1941 not to change weapon so soon again.

 

If you want to see a picture of it here are some:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16645-der-bos-waffen-und-munitions-thread/?do=findComment&comment=265152

[Willy__]

For example, a stoppage in a wing-mounted cannon would probably cause the aircraft to yaw, which presumably would have to be modeled if stoppages were to be implemented correctly.   Would all this be worthwhile?  Well, I suspect that depends.  

 

But that already happens. Just take the 190 for example. If you take the extra cannons and someone shoot your wing and damage the cannon before you have the chance to use some ammo, the plane will have a strange behavior and will yaw differently because of the different weights in the wings when you spend some ammo.

Edited January 7, 2016 by istruba

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks for the info Gunsmith, really interesting stuff I'm glad there is quite a multinational community here, it gives access to a lot of information most people would otherwise have never read about.

 

If my sources are right the original MG151 remained a reliable gun itself even by the end of the war when reliability problems were actually caused by poor ammo belt links, clearly not the gun's fault.

 

On the Soviet side, there were factually two designs used throughout the war - the ShKAS and the UB, both machine guns. The ShVAK was a redesign of the ShKAS, while the B-20 was a redesigned UB. Noteworthy on the latter is that this 20mm cannon weighted 13 kilos less than the standard Browning M2. The VYa-23 was also an upscaled UB, but unlike the 25kg B-20 it weighted close to 70kg.

[bokepacha]

We have gun damage by physical damage and gun damage by over heat. I am happy with that.

 

Maybe adding certain % of damage chance over xx G's would be a good addition, but I don't see the real need for that. Also if you implement that, someone can perfectly ask for % chance of failures when using 37mm guns and that will make any the game quite hard to balance for devs.

[SCG_Neun]

Just simulate it...and don't fire them....

[Xenunjeon88]

Just simulate it...and don't fire them....

funny...

 

[Wulf]

From what I have read between 1941 and 1943 both German and Soviet aircraft machine-guns and cannons were rather reliable and both sides rated them better than their Hispano/Browning counterparts.

 

While I don't disagree with your statement, I do think it's possibly a little misleading.  An aircraft cannon or MG may well be a highly reliable design, however, if the ammunition being fed through the thing has been poorly manufactured or stored, (both being common problems during wartime) then the chances are malfunctions will occur sooner or later.  

 

 

But that already happens. Just take the 190 for example. If you take the extra cannons and someone shoot your wing and damage the cannon before you have the chance to use some ammo, the plane will have a strange behavior and will yaw differently because of the different weights in the wings when you spend some ammo.

 

Okay, I'm just going to have to trust you on that.  I almost never get hit so I wouldn't know...... 

Edited January 7, 2016 by Wulf

[Cybermat47]

I would appreciate it as an option.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

While I don't disagree with your statement, I do think it's possibly a little misleading. An aircraft cannon or MG may well be a highly reliable design, however, if the ammunition being fed through the thing has been poorly manufactured or stored, (both being common problems during wartime) then the chances are malfunctions will occur sooner or later.

Oh, absolutely. I mentioned that pertaining the MG151 towards the end of the war. The Finns had enough trouble with all kinds of equipment, German and Allied imported/captured because of belt link failures.

 

Likewise the Red Army suffered a lot in 1941 due to poor production standards on different secondary items that neutralised otherwise good designs, like the T-34 debacle that summer.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Gunsmith86]

While I don't disagree with your statement, I do think it's possibly a little misleading.  An aircraft cannon or MG may well be a highly reliable design, however, if the ammunition being fed through the thing has been poorly manufactured or stored, (both being common problems during wartime) then the chances are malfunctions will occur sooner or later.  

 

All german ammunition for aircrafts were made on spezial machines that were capable to produce ammunition more precise than the standart machines were most infantry ammunition was made. They were also made of the best material even by the wars end. A airplane was a expensive device which they didn´t want to risk by useing cheap ammunition. This was going so far that even that special ammunition was once more controlled and tested to find the best ammunition for use with guns that had to fire through the airscrew. All ammunition was delivered in airtight cases. How the ammunition has to be stored is exactly specified in the manuels. If it was not possible to achieve this storage conditions on a frontline airfield than ammunition was flown in with Ju 52 and HE 111 daily. So bad ammunition on german aircrafts not if the armorer wanted to stay alive and not be assigned to a troop that sweep mines in winter.

 

For the Soviet side i know that they used at least controlled ammunition for aircrafts like all other nations too.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I definitely take your word for it I presume the Finns by the end of the war just didn't have the logistics to feed the cannons under proper manufacturer conditions, causing troubles.

[Wulf]

All german ammunition for aircrafts were made on spezial machines that were capable to produce ammunition more precise than the standart machines were most infantry ammunition was made. They were also made of the best material even by the wars end. A airplane was a expensive device which they didn´t want to risk by useing cheap ammunition. This was going so far that even that special ammunition was once more controlled and tested to find the best ammunition for use with guns that had to fire through the airscrew. All ammunition was delivered in airtight cases. How the ammunition has to be stored is exactly specified in the manuels. If it was not possible to achieve this storage conditions on a frontline airfield than ammunition was flown in with Ju 52 and HE 111 daily. So bad ammunition on german aircrafts not if the armorer wanted to stay alive and not be assigned to a troop that sweep mines in winter.

 

For the Soviet side i know that they used at least controlled ammunition for aircrafts like all other nations too.

 

 

Of course, the Luftwaffe wasn't the only air force in WW 2 to get special ammo.  The RAF also received a higher grade of ammo than either the Army or Navy.  I imagine the USAF was  much the same although I don't know that for a fact.  However, the RAF certainly suffered from problems with weapons stoppages, despite these precautions.  I take from your comments that Luftwaffe weaponry didn't have these issues, even towards the end of the War.  Given the material shortages in Germany in the latter stages of the War, the widespread disruption to manufacturing caused by night and day bombing of plant and infrastructure, the heavy reliance on slave labour in the munitions industries, not to mention the difficulties securing an adequate supply of spare parts and industrial lubricants, I find that quite remarkable.   

[Gunsmith86]

Of course, the Luftwaffe wasn't the only air force in WW 2 to get special ammo.  The RAF also received a higher grade of ammo than either the Army or Navy.  I imagine the USAF was  much the same although I don't know that for a fact.  However, the RAF certainly suffered from problems with weapons stoppages, despite these precautions.  I take from your comments that Luftwaffe weaponry didn't have these issues, even towards the end of the War.  Given the material shortages in Germany in the latter stages of the War, the widespread disruption to manufacturing caused by night and day bombing of plant and infrastructure, the heavy reliance on slave labour in the munitions industries, not to mention the difficulties securing an adequate supply of spare parts and industrial lubricants, I find that quite remarkable.   

 

It is remarkable. Only in February 1945 the german sytem of production brocke down because of the destruction of infrastructure! The destruction of roads, bridges, rails and small ships on rivers was by that time so far advanced that it was very difficult to get material to the companies and the products back to were these were needed. After the war allied strategists were astonished when they found out that three months of bombing infrastructure did more damge to the german war production than a hole year of bombing manufacturing plants.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[Tenko]

Kinda would be like DCS when it comes to birds. Totally random, some times rare, sometimes offten. While it would be cool, it would kinda...eh. not worth the time on part of the devs.

 

Would much rather the resources go to better weapon sounds or even allowing users to modify sounds, The guns on the ju87 for example just sound so awful

Edited January 8, 2016 by Tenko

[Dakpilot]

Thought that a lot of German ammunition, especially 20mm (14.5M) was manufactured in Switzerland, so quality was not so much of  an issue even at the end of the war

 

or maybe this was not specifically the aviation kind? I understood they were licenced to manufacture when they received their G model 109's

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Gunsmith86]

Thought that a lot of German ammunition, especially 20mm (14.5M) was manufactured in Switzerland, so quality was not so much of  an issue even at the end of the war

 

or maybe this was not specifically the aviation kind? I understood they were licenced to manufacture when they received their G model 109's

 

Cheers Dakpilot

They tryed to get as mutch ammunition and other equipment from other surces but if you look on the production and how mutch they used than 14.500.000 rounds are like nothing and ammunition quality droped for infantry and artillery from late 1943 to the end of the war .

 

ammunition for Flak and airplane only:

1941 germany produced 77.000.000 rounds of ammunition for Flak and airplane.

1942 germany produced 130.000.000 rounds of ammunition for Flak and airplane.

1943 germany produced 196.000.000 rounds of ammunition for Flak and airplane.

1944 germany produced 263.000.000 rounds of ammunition for Flak and airplane.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Kinda would be like DCS when it comes to birds. Totally random, some times rare, sometimes offten. While it would be cool, it would kinda...eh. not worth the time on part of the devs.

 

Would much rather the resources go to better weapon sounds or even allowing users to modify sounds, The guns on the ju87 for example just sound so awful

 

Yeah, I can't even imagine how many countless man-hours were lost modeling bird strikes...

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Xenunjeon88]

I turned the topic into a poll, so that I could ask the active forum community if they would form some sort of consensus on the question. 

[Sokol1]

Easy games don't have place for weapons wear/jam, a good example is Far Cry 2, the weapons wear of this version lead to much complain that this was removed for ulterior versions.

 

As the weapon wear chase away COD players from S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but the "hardcore" people that enjoy this game love this feature. 

 

In Combat Flight Games the planes, and their weapons last just one flight - on average maybe 15 minutes - so no time for weapons wear,

and all careless weapons technicians have already been shot.  

Edited January 11, 2016 by Sokol1