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

[Ace_Pilto]

[Edited]

 

1 soldier wounded

 

Need to be evacuated to a field hospital, triaged, treated, perhaps operated on and convalesced. Total price, tens of thousands

 

1 soldier dead, a $20 wooden box and an hour's work digging a hole. Maybe $500 worth.

 

This is why NATO uses 5.56mm with high muzzle velocity and steel jackets.

 

the .45 is your best bet (pistol, smg) for stopping someone if you want them to die quickly

 

[edited]

 

Please relax. I dont have time to read whole topic right now but will do.

Edited December 21, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[Lusekofte]

A standardised calibre in the army is always a good idea, when nato decided to change calibre down to 223 they took many considerations , like how much ammo can a soldier take with him, are the long distance fighting even relevant, and how much damage do the calibre do. And  the high velocity 223 does a lot of damage at close range, I would call it mean. I rather die with a Cal 45 than get a 223 bullet splintered and ricocheting inside my body. 

I am totally aware that movie cops adore cal 45, but it do nothing for armed forces other than close range fighting.

 

[Edited]

 

 So please accept my deepest sincere wishes of a very good and prosper New year and merry christmas

 

Sorry, Luse had to edit it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[Scojo]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about tests and how they could be done so that the only independent variable is the plane being shot at, so I'd like to suggest a test case that you guys can use and that I may also try at some point when I get the time.

 

Attacker: AI, in the same aircraft for every test

Attacked: Human, allied/german planes

Skill level of AI: Any as long as it's consistent through every test

Height: High enough to avoid ground fire but give clear sight (or remove both)

Wind: None or consistent with consistent headings

Airspeed: Any as long as it's consistent through every test

 

Method:

Player and NPC spawn in, player immediately exposes a desired portion(front, back, left, right) of the plane to the enemy AI and flies straight and level until the player crashes.

Repeat this multiple times for each desired target plane, and portion of target plane exposed to attacker while recording the results.

 

Justifications:

My reasoning behind using the player as the target is that the player will always fly the plane straight and in the same manner for every test. Therefore, the AI should act in a consistent manner every time as well. Also in many people's case, an AI's shooting should be more consistent than a player. The AI may not choose the same component target as the player, however that does not matter for testing purposes as long as they consistently shoot the same component.

 

If players are confident they have a good enough internet connection, two players can run these tests and provide much better tests since both the attacker and attacked can be consistent. If this is the case, the attacker should also keep his variables consistent, such as height/speed/distance to the target.

 

If these steps are all taken, and enough tests are repeated, you should be able to pick out enough sample tests that performed correctly in order to draw a conclusion on the dependent variable desired, which is whether or not a German plane is weaker as a defending plane than an allied plane

Edited December 21, 2016 by Scojo

[Mmaruda]

Finally somone made some sense in this topic. I was already beginning to wonder if this a flight sim forum or the NRA convention.

[Scojo]

Good points. As the human you can put your target plane on auto level too.

 

Another option could be to build a mission with AI on AI where I think you can set the target to have no defence guns and to stick to flight path no matter what. Then just have a human as observer on the side of the attacker?

 

You can then substitute whatever attacker/defender you like?

I didn't know you could stick them to a flight path. In that case, having a human who is good at aiming, keeps their alt, airspeed, and distance to target consistent between tests can provide an even better test.

 

I'll definitely try that. Can you do that through quick mission or do you have to construct a mission for that to happen?

 

It would be even better if you could create a mission that spawns the attacker and defender in the air together with the attacker behind or at a desired attack path, same airspeed, and immediately at convergence range, that way the test could be reran quickly providing an even larger sample size to go off of.

 

I haven't done mission building before, but I guess this is as good a reason as any to get started

Edited December 21, 2016 by Scojo

[Scojo]

The stick to flight path is in the mission building.

 

What I've done for gunnery practice is just set a target plane to the same side as you and I think the stick to flight path option, then you can shoot it up without it turning at all.

Thanks. That's perfect. Can't wait to try it out. That's a perfect test setup.

 

What groupings of planes should be compared? Bf 110 and Pe2, Stuka and IL2?

 

What should the attacking plane be? I'm thinking just straight MGs with the least convergence angle, so a Bf-109 or a Russian fighter with closely mounted nose guns?

[Danziger]

For testing the German cannons the 109 is best with it firing down the centerline. Yak or LaGG for the Russian cannons. They also have nose mounted MGs.

[Scojo]

For testing the German cannons the 109 is best with it firing down the centerline. Yak or LaGG for the Russian cannons. They also have nose mounted MGs.

I thought I read somewhere that people suspected the cannon damage modeling to be broken at the moment. Is that true at all?

 

Good suggestion

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

^{Let's move all the pistol chat to it's own thread MODS. I didn't derail this one but I'm not going to chew on a bunch of anecdotal information any more than the Dev's are regarding their FM's. NO pistol has stopping or knockdown power. There is simply no such thing and it is borne out by a century of data.}

 

^{Your chart and ballistic gel certainly do not tell the whole story about terminal ballistics no matter how much you want it to or throw around insults. The chart is more indicative of the temporary cavity than anything else. The permanent cavity is far more important than the temporary one and is little different between a 9mm and 12 mm projectile at handgun velocities. Put something like a double thick jean jacket in front of a slow moving, slow expanding, round and you might walk away with a really bad bruise or broken rib. It's documented in numerous FBI, SWAT and police briefings. It is the main reason almost all police forces (except the FBI) have moved away from the .45 and .38 - besides the fact the 1911 is a bit complicated for line use - cocked and locked. I love that gun but it is no duty weapon.}

 

^{Finally, no cop  EVER draws a pistol with the intent of wounding a suspect. In fact, they'd be in violation of both state law and department policy if they did.}

 

^{Simply, the difference between any quality pistol round is negligible and they are all marginal at best for ending a threat.}

[Danziger]

I thought I read somewhere that people suspected the cannon damage modeling to be broken at the moment. Is that true at all?

 

Good suggestion

Some people suspect the German cannons to be made less effective for whatever reason. Reasonable people are thinking if something is wrong it may have to do with HE rounds in general. Since German cannons are loaded with more HE they would suffer more from this.

 

One of the loadout options for the La-5 is pure HE rounds so that could be a good test for the Russian rounds.

[Willy__]

One of the loadout options for the La-5 is pure HE rounds so that could be a good test for the Russian rounds.

 

 

The pure HE rounds for la5 is sure less effective than the pure AP and even the mixed one... so maybe there are something wrong with HE rounds afterall....

Edited December 21, 2016 by JAGER_Staiger

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

it is no duty weapon.

 

-snip-

 

It was the duty weapon for 3/4 of a century.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I thought I read somewhere that people suspected the cannon damage modeling to be broken at the moment. Is that true at all?

 

Good suggestion

 

Though I never got to finish my testing I was testing two different issues simultaneously.

 

First: Is the Pe-2 too strong? I was testing it against the He111 though testing with the Ju88 and Bf110 would also be good as these are all twin engined attack/bomber types. I don't think the Bf110 is really in the same class but if testing is easier than what I was getting it would be good to add to the constellation. My initial result which you can confirm or disprove was that the Pe-2 is definitely stronger than the He111. If this is right or wrong I don't know but at least I had some numbers.

 

Second: Is the MG151/20 appreciably less effective than the ShVAK 20mm. My testing on that was happening at the same time as I was firing both against the Pe-2 and He111. My initial results suggested that the MG151/20, despite complaints, was actually more effective than the ShVAK. I also wanted to test the MG151/15 and see how different it was. There is a theory too that the HE rounds aren't as effective as the AP rounds are which is harder to test but the La-5 with all AP or all HE does give us an opportunity to check that.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It was the duty weapon for 3/4 of a century.

The emphasis should be on WAS, not THE......................

 

It is no longer a preferred duty weapon in the United States for a reason and hasn't been for about 30 years.

Edited December 21, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[SvAF/F19_Tomten]

It's really time for someone to clean up this "muh caliber" debate. Why are you even discussing pistol calibers here?

[Scojo]

 though testing with the Ju88 and Bf110 would also be good as these are all twin engined attack/bomber types.

I guess the Ju 88 would be more kin to a Pe. The 110 is a little smaller and somehow tries to aspire to be a fighter and an attack aircraft

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I guess the Ju 88 would be more kin to a Pe. The 110 is a little smaller and somehow tries to aspire to be a fighter and an attack aircraft

 

I think overall the three aircraft are very similar in size, unless the 3D models in 1946 are wrongly scaled.

 

 

 

 

[Custard]

This legitimate thread has gone so hilariously off topic it's ridiculous.

[Scojo]

Thanks for the comparison pictures, SuperEtendard. Looks like I'll be running 4 planes in my tests. I definitely will need to create a custom mission.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This legitimate thread has gone so hilariously off topic it's ridiculous.

 

Welcome to a flight simulator forum.

 

Soda is available for purchase on your left, popcorn on your right - an attendant will help you find your seat.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Totally happy if the pistol stuff gets moved to it's own thread. I'd like some Junior Mints please.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The 110 is a little smaller and somehow tries to aspire to be a fighter and an attack aircraft

 

Riding that tangent, the Pe-2 was originally designed as a high altitude fighter meant to escort the Pe-8 (factually a Tupolev design) to the target and back, which is partially why its low speed handling and landing performance are somewhere between 'slightly unpleasant' and 'piss poor'. When things got hot, the sideshow Pe-2 evolved into one of the best bombers available in the Soviet Union while the Pe-8 was relegated to a few night incursions and transport duties. Technically, by original design and so on, the Pe-2 is possibly more Bf-110 than Ju-88.