After switching side, after 2 years as a red .... I must agree with some claim

[StG2_Manfred]

I don't see how videos of online multiplayer could be used to prove anything other than connection issues.

 

If you want a real test do it offline where it is 100% certain your rounds are hitting (provided you aim correctly).

 

Well, you just have to do the test for both sides. If connection is an issue it also will happen the other way around.

[Dakpilot]

Connection/network issues are not constant, there can be many variables, the whole point is to have repeatable results

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[StG2_Manfred]

Of course there are not constant , but it would be more than coincidences if they would happen only for one side...

[6./ZG26_Loke]

I have flown Pe-2's many times, and been shot down several times in the first attack run.

[Yogiflight]

What has your convergence range to do with the efectivity of your weapons, when you fly a 109 without gunpods???

Your weapons are positioned close together. When you change the convergence, you have to aim to a different point, it is as simple as that.

When you fly with gunpods or a 190 with wingguns it is different, here it plays a role.

[Wulf]

What has your convergence range to do with the efectivity of your weapons, when you fly a 109 without gunpods???

Your weapons are positioned close together. When you change the convergence, you have to aim to a different point, it is as simple as that.

When you fly with gunpods or a 190 with wingguns it is different, here it plays a role.

 

What do you mean, "when you change the convergence, you have to aim to a different point".  No you don't.  When you set your harmonization range, the gun sight and the projectile stream are adjusted to the same aiming point.  When shooting at non-harmonization ranges you may have to aim high or low to compensate for the trajectory of your projectiles, but at your harmonization range (whatever that might be) you simply aim at what you're shooting at, unless it's a deflection shot.

[Yogiflight]

That's the problem, when you are only speaking school english, you learned quite some years ago, what you mentioned above, is exactly what I wanted to say.

[Wulf]

Hahaha, sorry bro..

[FTC_DerSheriff]

maybe just another video passing by.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

I wish people would stop posting anecdotal evidence.

If something in the game is so bad and consistent that it bothers someone so much, then test it and prove it is not how it should be.

I was flying yesterday in Wings and put 5+ 23mm rounds into a 109 and he flew away with half his left wing missing.  Never got a kill so I'm guessing he landed.  

What does this prove?  Absolutely nothing.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

I wish people would stop telling others to stop posting anecdotal reports. It prevents others from highlighting areas of the game that *may* be in need of further testing.

If there were simple tools available to the community to provide consistent firing tests for specific guns, with specific ammunition against exact parts of an aircrafts airframe while in flight that was 100% repeatable, it would have been tested already.

Unfortunately those tools don't exist for us, so anecdotal in this case it is.

All the community has is static testing via tank (different guns), gunner positions from bombers, (again not always the correct guns) or manipulation of position via mission editor (not in flight) which can be very time consuming.

 

 

 

I was flying yesterday in Wings and put 5+ 23mm rounds into a 109 and he flew away with half his left wing missing. Never got a kill so I'm guessing he landed. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing.

 

It demonstrates that 5+ 23mm rounds have the capability to destroy half of a 109's left wing.

 

Assuming this was your most recent wings mission in a Lagg, then the mission ended - so the other pilot was saved from having to bail or crash.

As for whether a plane should be able to fly with half a wing, thats a topic for a different thread.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Tripwire

[Trinkof]

I wish people would stop posting anecdotal evidence.

 

If something in the game is so bad and consistent that it bothers someone so much, then test it and prove it is not how it should be.

 

I was flying yesterday in Wings and put 5+ 23mm rounds into a 109 and he flew away with half his left wing missing. Never got a kill so I'm guessing he landed.

 

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing.

This vid is not annectotal... It is every day .... Without his engine stopping this pe2 would have flown a lot more ....

 

This vid is actually illustrating very well what I meant when I opened this thread.... If you fire the same quantity of ammo without the black smoke and damaged engine .... Well ... It is over.

[Monostripezebra]

This vid is not annectotal... It is every day .... Without his engine stopping this pe2 would have flown a lot more ....

 

It´s funny how when your are flying it, the subject in question breaks 9 times out of 10 easy but when you´re up against it, it is super hard! It´s like the game is mobbing you! ;=P

 

No, but on a serious note: I agree that the inner wings and aft fuselage section of the 87 series are overmodeled, especially from some angles. I´ve said that before... but then again, technically, the plane in the vid was down after the first attack run, because with a lost tail bit you can´t really fly on one engine and both where damaged, so it was just a question of time. All the addition al spread damage to the inner wing section did not do much other damage to critical systems. The engines where dying allready. You can have the same experience frontally with a E7, you get the engine smoking, but then all aditional shots in the center of the fuselage are just swollowed up by the mass of the engine and nothing more happens.. But anyways, that Pe2 wasn´t going anywhere.. after a flak hit and the first attack, don´t get fooled by some time gliding to the ground. The second attack did some minor damage... but the 3rd was pretty heafty again, but I guess the engine that stopped can´t really be more then "destroyed"... I mean, yeah, it is odd, that there was no fuel tank fire, which happens to me a lot when struck in that way, but some chance is always in the damage model.

 

Another damage model oddity: The junkers Ju-88 is almost imune to bomb damage. while the heinkel crews die instantly most of the time, the junkers crew dies never and often you don´t even get a kill because no critical systems fail when it stands directly next to a bomb:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqnwoRwwwtY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJn3AL87yU

 

even with a close hit, no crew deaths:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uues_U4A18U

 

but I don´t think it isn´t all that gameplay relevant... as you can shoot down Junkers and Pe2s relative reliably and all that extra damage absorption is not all the time and mostly doesn´t change the end result.. it´s just some more time and bullets wasted, but it would also have gone down the same way, after the first attack alone, as far as I can tell.. And I think it goes for all planes in BoS, that if hit right, they will fall with few bullets. So if it doesn´t go down right now, try another angle.. and usually that should do the trick. Pe2s or Ju88s can be tough, but they also can be dispatched in one often enough..

 

 

oddly enough, when it comes to bomb damage, there isn´t any special resistance at all to the Pe2, it seems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHHbopgtwsQ

Edited December 13, 2016 by Monostripezebra

[Trinkof]

It´s funny how when your are flying it, the subject in question breaks 9 times out of 10 easy but when you´re up against it, it is super hard

Yeah ... My feelings exactly ! Damn game !

 

There are probably quite a lot of things I do wrong as I am new to german gunnery, and fly different planes every day (jake of all trade , master of none)....

 

As I said in the opening, it is a feeling. When I act the same as I did before attacking german bombers .... I just see the peshka eating all my bullets for less impact from my perspective.

[Dakpilot]

Outrageous!!!!

 

I will never fly this sim again until the "hitluminium" bomb resistant armour is fixed on obviously OP Ju-88, I refuse to waste my time flying for hours to bomb indestructible titanium aircraft!!!!

 

I am going to tell all my squad mates not to buy BoK and post this vid on every flight sim site i CAN FIND UNTIL IT IS FIXED NOW!!

 

...or maybe a nice bug report to dev's would suffice, perhaps it is just an error   

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Monostripezebra]

if it helps: I had the same feeling, but under lab conditions against the ai, sideway attack on the Pe2 works best for me: better damage chances and less ai-gunnery hits.

 

Yeah ... My feelings exactly ! Damn game !

[Trinkof]

Outrageous!!!!

 

I will never fly this sim again until the "hitluminium" bomb resistant armour is fixed on obviously OP Ju-88, I refuse to waste my time flying for hours to bomb indestructible titanium aircraft!!!!

 

I am going to tell all my squad mates not to buy BoK and post this vid on every flight sim site i CAN FIND UNTIL IT IS FIXED NOW!!

 

...or maybe a nice bug report to dev's would suffice, perhaps it is just an error

 

Cheers Dakpilot

No need to be sarcastic or ironic mate, .... No one suggested to leave or boycott the game ...

Just sharing thoughts after a recent change of perspective... In a constructive way...

 

S !

[StG2_Manfred]

Outrageous!!!!

 

......

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

You've got 3333 posts in this forum, but you don't appear in any of the relevant online statistics (WoL, TAW, 72AG-DED). Says a lot in my opinion....

[II./JG77_Manu*]

My feelings from just gameplay, not laboratory experiment for PhD thesis: 

Regarding the Pe2 i agree with

 

I agree that the inner wings and aft fuselage section of the 87 series are overmodeled

, but overall i don't think it's particularly hard to destroy. I kill Pe2 at least 80% on my first attack run (with single cannon 109) - ok i don't feel the need to blow it up in mid-air, when both engines are smoking black i am fine. I think the IL2 1941 is harder to destroy, but that matches historical sources. It also compares fine to Ju87, which wasn't known to be particularly tough.

However i think the 111 is way to easy to destroy. Actually the only German bomber which i read of being quite tough to destroy, very well armored. Early Spitfires were known to not being able to down a 111 spending their whole ammunition on one. In game they seem to catch fire and go down burning with a single burst - even the Mig3 without cannos. Doesn't fit together with what i read about this aircraft. Might be that the conception of the Pe2 being (too) tough comes from the fact, that the 111 is considerably weaker - which should in all honesty be tougher to down then a Pe2

Edited December 13, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

You've got 3333 posts in this forum, but you don't appear in any of the relevant online statistics (WoL, TAW, 72AG-DED). Says a lot in my opinion....

 

You have a short memory, you have called me out on my lack of online stats before

 

but alas down where I live, at the moment, (as I have said before) my sketchy internet prevents me from having a good experience on line for the most part, hopefully in the near future service will improve.

 

As a keen aviation enthusiast, career pilot (many hrs in WWII aircraft) and owner of BoS, I feel I have as much right as any... be they - schoolboy, plumber or Air force Jet pilot, strictly offline player or pure online -, to post on these forums whether you consider my opinion valid or not

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

My feelings from just gameplay, not laboratory experiment for PhD thesis: 

Regarding the Pe2 i agree with

 

, but overall i don't think it's particularly hard to destroy. I kill Pe2 at least 80% on my first attack run (with single cannon 109) - ok i don't feel the need to blow it up in mid-air, when both engines are smoking black i am fine. I think the IL2 1941 is harder to destroy, but that matches historical sources. It also compares fine to Ju87, which wasn't known to be particularly tough.

However i think the 111 is way to easy to destroy. Actually the only German bomber which i read of being quite tough to destroy, very well armored. Early Spitfires were known to not being able to down a 111 spending their whole ammunition on one. In game they seem to catch fire and go down burning with a single burst - even the Mig3 without cannos. Doesn't fit together with what i read about this aircraft. Might be that the conception of the Pe2 being (too) tough comes from the fact, that the 111 is considerably weaker - which should in all honesty be tougher to down then a Pe2

 

I would not know if it should be tougher to down a He-111 than a Pe-2 but it definitely goes down too easily. Agree on the rest of your post.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Haven't had time to resume my tests yet but I encourage others to do the same test and see what numbers you come up with.

 

It does appear that the Pe-2 can take more of a beating than the He111 can so far... but I want a few more data points. The next question is if the Pe-2 has a good reason for being this tough.

 

It's certainly not invulnerable. Only a few hits in and it'll be leaking fuel and oil. Same as the He111 and any other plane. Its the total number of hits to bring it down that differ.

[Dakpilot]

There are many pics of He-111 riddled with literally hundreds of .303 holes, but in the early part of the war (1940) was the main RAF load ball ammo, or have I got that wrong, there being serious shortages of the De wilde type. I am no expert but I imagine there are some BoB people here

 

was this not one of the reasons from moving away from only .303 to .50 and canon (.50cal in Mig 3, without canon)

 

Not saying the He-11 is  correct or too weak/strong, just a conversation point

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 13, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Not saying the He-11 is  correct or too weak/strong, just a conversation point

Aka you have nothing to say to this, but do regardless....

Easy test to replicate - just use 7mm to kill a 111...you won't need hundreds of bullets 

[Bando]

you 2 should meet up and drink some beer.......

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

you 2 should meet up and drink some beer.......

 

Or get a nice room with a jacuzzi tub and work out all of the frustrations over a bottle of bubbly.

[kendo]

You've got 3333 posts in this forum, but you don't appear in any of the relevant online statistics (WoL, TAW, 72AG-DED). Says a lot in my opinion....

 

Says he doesn't play online much. Neither do I.

 

Maybe I shouldn't post here either?

[StG2_Manfred]

Says he doesn't play online much. Neither do I.

 

Maybe I shouldn't post here either?

 

He has 3333 posts, you have 377. And he jumps in in every debate, giving people advice to make tests he never perform on his own, nor has he online experience...

[Dakpilot]

Or get a nice room with a jacuzzi tub and work out all of the frustrations over a bottle of bubbly.

 

You can joke all you like   but I don't make a habit of taking young boys to a jacuzzi bubbly or no bubbly

 

I merely pointed out a historical note, and mention that the Mig also has a .50 cal, no need for him to get his panties in a bunch

 

If he is concerned about He-111 being easy to down, maybe he should do a test with only 7mm and make a nice friendly report with his findings

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I merely pointed out a historical note, and mention that the Mig also has a .50 cal, no need for him to get his panties in a bunch

A million thanks Dakpilot. Without your help i would have never learned those deep-hidden informations about these aircraft, in the whole of my life. 

 

Seriously - "the sky is blue". That's about the information content of your posts

[Trinkof]

My feelings from just gameplay, not laboratory experiment for PhD thesis: 

Regarding the Pe2 i agree with

 

 

, but overall i don't think it's particularly hard to destroy. I kill Pe2 at least 80% on my first attack run (with single cannon 109) - ok i don't feel the need to blow it up in mid-air, when both engines are smoking black i am fine. I think the IL2 1941 is harder to destroy, but that matches historical sources. It also compares fine to Ju87, which wasn't known to be particularly tough.

However i think the 111 is way to easy to destroy. Actually the only German bomber which i read of being quite tough to destroy, very well armored. Early Spitfires were known to not being able to down a 111 spending their whole ammunition on one. In game they seem to catch fire and go down burning with a single burst - even the Mig3 without cannos. Doesn't fit together with what i read about this aircraft. Might be that the conception of the Pe2 being (too) tough comes from the fact, that the 111 is considerably weaker - which should in all honesty be tougher to down then a Pe2

The "problem" I felt might very well be this. I really noticed it because I found the pe2 so much harder to shoot down than a he111... So the problem might be more on the toughness of the 111. Never thought of it that way, but it might fit the feeling I had.

[Dakpilot]

A million thanks Dakpilot. Without your help i would have never learned those deep-hidden informations about these aircraft, in the whole of my life. 

 

Seriously - "the sky is blue". That's about the information content of your posts

 

Then why compare 1940 .303 only Spitfires/Hurricanes to Mig with .50 as a reason you thought He-111 go down in flames too quickly

 

It is not a very good comparison, I politely mentioned that the ammo may be a reason, and asked for further comment from others who may be more knowledgeable on the subject, no insults or arguments..just discussion on a discussion forum?

 

please read your post and my reply

 

anyway I think it is past beer O'clock here   time for a cold one

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Then why compare 1940 .303 only Spitfires/Hurricanes to Mig with .50 as a reason you thought He-111 go down in flames too quickly

 

It is not a very good comparison, I politely mentioned that the ammo may be a reason, and asked for further comment from others who may be more knowledgeable on the subject, no insults or arguments..just discussion on a discussion forum?

 

please read your post and my reply

 

anyway I think it is past beer O'clock here   time for a cold one

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I didn't compare them. Something must have happend in your head i guess. 

[Ace_Pilto]

Well, to be fair, the ShVAK 20mm and VYa-23 Russian guns are, objectively, some of the best auto cannons ever invented in their time period.

 

Their robust and simple design features persist into many aerial defense systems even up until today and there's a reason for that, they are very good, reliable and powerful weapons. (In the same vein as the Browning M2 or Colt M1911 which are still used today) German cannons like the Mg-FF or Mg-151 on the other hand get a lot of hype in sim communities from deluded fanbois who use simulations as their yardstick for reality but, in reality, their designs were merely adequate in WW2 and not exceptional. Companies like Mauser didn't persist in autocannon production post-war because their designs weren't that good compared to other available designs. They were slower firing, had inferior muzzle velocity and shot lighter charged projectiles so there was no significant economic or military advantage to be gained in re-tooling production plants to accommodate these designs. (That said some innovative and progressive features pioneered by Mauser were exploited by later companies like ADEN)

 

There are exceptional weapons in the German arsenal like the autocannons made by Rheinmetall Borsig (eg: the Mk-108 which was ahead of it's time in calibre and performance) that were excellent designs and this is validated by the fact that Rheinmetall Borsig/Oerlikon still make autocannons today. Companies like Waffenfabrik Mauser however (Who made the MG-151) were mainly focuses on making infantry rifles and never created designs that were exceptional enough to persist.

[Asgar]

There are exceptional weapons in the German arsenal like the autocannons made by Rheinmetall Borsig (eg: the Mk-108 which was ahead of it's time in calibre and performance) that were excellent designs and this is validated by the fact that Rheinmetall Borsig/Oerlikon still make autocannons today. Companies like Waffenfabrik Mauser however (Who made the MG-151) were mainly focuses on making infantry rifles and never created designs that were exceptional enough to persist.

 

 

you have no idea how wrong you are... Mauser produces the BK-27 cannon. used in the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter a weapon based on the best aircraft cannon of WWII. the MG 213, another Mauser design which was the base for the ADEN, M39, DEFA, 30mm KCA cannon, as well as the Oerlikon 206RK and 302RK. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Dakpilot]

I didn't compare them. Something must have happend in your head i guess. 

 

Perhaps there is something wrong in my head  but this seems like a bit of a comparison..maybe I am mistaken

 

" Early Spitfires were known to not being able to down a 111 spending their whole ammunition on one. In game they seem to catch fire and go down burning with a single burst - even the Mig3 without canons. Doesn't fit together with what i read about this aircraft.

 

Maybe it is just a language thing..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

but this seems like a bit of a comparison

No

 

 

maybe I am mistaken

yes

 

 

Maybe it is just a language thing..

 

no..

 

btw you don't have to rewrite it, that doesn't change the outcome.

 

First i said the 111 was a tough aircraft, and brought an example (the Spits). 

Then i said that in game it is very vulnerable, and mentioned the Mig. There is no comparison. Anyway, i wouldn't necessarily call 2 12,7mm a better armament then 8 7,7mm. Both are not adequate.

 

So that's it my dear Dakpilot, not gonna waste more of my time for you and your needless comments today.

Edited December 13, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Ace_Pilto]

you have no idea how wrong you are... Mauser produces the BK-27 cannon. used in the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter a weapon based on the best aircraft cannon of WWII. the MG 213, another Mauser design which was the base for the ADEN, M39, DEFA, 30mm KCA cannon, as well as the Oerlikon 206RK and 302RK. 

Really, the MG213.

 

How was it the "Best aircraft cannon of WW2" when it was never used in service exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do tell...

[Asgar]

the same way Americans keep saying the P-80 was the best jet fighter of WWII 

 

so be quite now

[Ace_Pilto]

Hehe, the P-80 wasn't even a particularly good jet fighter on the allied side let alone the best of its' time. If you hear people saying otherwise then you play too much War Thunder dude.

 

P.S. If you re-read my post you'll see that I made mention of ADEN (and subsequent licensees/partners) picking up Mauser's innovations. They carried these innovations through until Mauser came back from post war exile making K98s under license in Yugoslavia and got a seat at the big armaments table again. The point was that their WW2 designs for autocannons generally didn't persist as successfully as other WW2 designs did. Mauser was a very different company during the period where the Tornado was being developed and their 27mm design had no basis in their work (actual weapons that saw service, not designs that other companies proved vaild)  during WW2.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Ace_Pilto