Jump to content

P-51 would be devastating weapon of war in this game.


dkoor
 Share

Recommended Posts

With this kind of DM I totally believe that .50cals could do some damage to Königstigers. :cool:

 

Seriously, machine guns really do some punching and I can clearly see how one good burst from .50cals could destroy E/A without probs.

 

I had some tracks and pics from IL-2 where I hit Fw-190 with several good bursts, a lot of bullets ended up hitting the Würger yet he was still airborne.

I can't see it happening in this game.

 

In all honesty I do think this alpha is a much more correct DM presentation in correlation with real life than old IL-2 ever was.

 

Great job, devs!

 

Thank you for great game!

 

 

I'll let the steam out with some fanboy attitude, but these guys totally deserved it for meeting all our expectations and more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the bullets and cannon shells damage effect seems a little more random than other sims I've played. I've nailed several LaGGs with a short burst. A couple of others I'd hit hard so I sat behind them just taking a few pot shots, trying to hit them in the wingtips or a shot into the cockpit. Surprisingly, even at close range a couple took several cannon hits before going down. Others only needed a single burst to burn and go down.

Edited by Rjel
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RvE=Windmills

Tbh seems to me like the damage model is very rough and needs a lot of tweaking and added functionality. Can't agree with calling it superior to Il2 in this state.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=Nomader=Krokodil-1

 

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm

 

Of course, "more than enough" might be interpreted with all the caveats; his memoirs mentions firing at 50-70m range, ("when we could see the rivets") disabling hits might be enough, etc.

 

 

A. S. I thought it was an old wive’s tale, if I can use that expression, when during the Battle of Britain British pilots said that they cut through German aircraft with machine gun fire.

N. G. No, this could be done with Lewises, and of course also with our ShKASes. The ShKAS, in its rate of fire [approximately 1800 rounds/min], was a unique machine gun. From close range, from 50 meters, a battery of four ShKASes could cut off a wing and on occasion did. At this range, if you held the trigger and didn’t economize on the bullets, you would get some dispersion. It was possible to cut off a tail or a wing, literally to cut it off.

Edited by Calvamos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although effective in convergence, you could not picture old Il-2 .303 or .50cal anywhere near those description.

 

Well, it is easy enough to test.

 

A long time ago I made a track on perfect bnz passes on four Fw-190 jabos.

One pass, one Fw down. But those were near perfect hits in convergence.

 

Here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/74855564/il-2/il-2_1946_50cal_power.ntrk

 

Anything less and they most likely wont go down from one burst.

 

Quite a difference between that and our new alpha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frequent_Flyer

The Alpha appears more true to the gun camera footage that we have all seen. A good burst of fire , tell  tale sparks on the target followed by light smoke, than black/dark and finally the flames .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A. S. I thought it was an old wive’s tale, if I can use that expression, when during the Battle of Britain British pilots said that they cut through German aircraft with machine gun fire.

N. G. No, this could be done with Lewises, and of course also with our ShKASes. The ShKAS, in its rate of fire [approximately 1800 rounds/min], was a unique machine gun. From close range, from 50 meters, a battery of four ShKASes could cut off a wing and on occasion did. At this range, if you held the trigger and didn’t economize on the bullets, you would get some dispersion. It was possible to cut off a tail or a wing, literally to cut it off.

 

take everything with a pinch of salt fellas, even when it comes to "old pilot interviews". the ShKAS had an insane rate of fire (albeit the cowl mounted guns were synchronised, so the rate of fire was lower), but the dispersion was quite strong anyway, so it would have been quite difficult to "saw wings and tails off".. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=Nomader=Krokodil-1

Oh, I agree, I mainly posted that part to show the close ranges at which this pilot considered MG armament effective. In regards to the quote about two .50cals being sufficient for the P-40 in its mission.

Edited by Calvamos
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main advantage of extremely close range is that they had very high muzzle velocity and could place their bursts precisely, but it would only work well on aircraft that could have extra short convergence (i.e. aircraft with cowl guns only). 

 

The art of deflection shooting was something seldom seen on the eastern front, and as the war progressed less and less pilots could actually master it properly.

 

Things changed a lot when the USAAF introduced the K-14, which together with the best aircraft gun available at the time (the M2 .50 cal) made the perfect combination for an effective shooting platform.

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is to easy imo.

 

Both in gunnery and damage.

 

I feel like i don't have to be precise on shooting, and a gentle tap of the trigger and its all over.

 

It feels like old il2 with realistic gunnery turned off.

 

The DM stuff I am less concerned about, as with what i've seen so far its still very much alpha. The gunnery however concerns me greatly, its pure arcade at the moment.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Clod's damage model has spoiled us, having 6 mgs spray thousands of bullets into a bomber's body only to have it fly off because you just put a thousand little holes into non critical parts is hard to go back from.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main advantage of extremely close range is that they had very high muzzle velocity and could place their bursts precisely, but it would only work well on aircraft that could have extra short convergence (i.e. aircraft with cowl guns only). 

 

The art of deflection shooting was something seldom seen on the eastern front, and as the war progressed less and less pilots could actually master it properly.

 

Things changed a lot when the USAAF introduced the K-14, which together with the best aircraft gun available at the time (the M2 .50 cal) made the perfect combination for an effective shooting platform.

How is the M2 the best aircraft gun available? Even if you ignore all the cannons just look at the UB machine gun, you already get a much lighter gun with higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity.

Edited by ImPeRaToR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MGs appear too effective. A half a second burst from 200 m on anywhere along the fuselage from almost any angle is guaranteed to cause black or greenish smoke (coolant?). 

 

I'm not sure if that is realistic or not. But this is certainly  unlike any other prop sim out there (IL2, CloD, RoF). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the M2 the best aircraft gun available? Even if you ignore all the cannons just look at the UB machine gun, you already get a much lighter gun with higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity.

 

The M2 was the best gun overall, it's not a case it's the machine gun with the longest longevity ever. You don't measure a gun's effectiveness just by its rate of fire and weight. Let's not hijack this thread with this topic, but by all means feel free to start a new one and I'll explain what I'm talking about  :) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IL-2 1946 was almost laughable with some machine gun DM modeling.

 

Select for example LaGG-3 and try to shoot from 7,62 in convergence at it.

Good luck with that. In any kind of normal fight vs AI you wont be able to shoot it down on regular basis.

Only when AI cools down and flies straight you do have a SOME chance after some 100-200 hits.

You will most likely get PK and will never really damage LaGG so much that it catch fire or get engine stoppage.

Try with I-153 too... in the past she almost laughed at 7,62 just like her baby brother I-16 Rata.

As the game progressed with patches they do get more fragile DM but in reality in any kind of normal combat they can count on get away under machine gun fire.

Unless PK-ed.

Last time I shoot I-16 with 7,62, little chubby literally exploded as I pumped a lot of bullets in it.

 

I feel 1946 was rather inconsistent and lacking in DM hitboxes, it simply lack the stuff that can be damaged.

 

Maybe this alpha feels too easy on DM but I guess I'd rather have it this way than the old unrealistically hard way.

But the game will likely get several layers of polish before it hits final release version so this issue may only get better I guess (providing good historical balance).

 

Minutes ago I stumbled upon some article about Hans Joachim Marseille and his averaging 15 bullets and shells needed to down E/A.

With the newest alpha game experience it doesn't sound impossible at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS. I also remember my favourite anti-Sturmo tactic during Prokhorovka (offline) campaign whilst flying Hungarian Friedrichs.

After cannons shells were depleted, I'd close in fast on a low flying Sturmo from above and aim for outer wing section, preferably wingtips.

I noticed if they do get damaged there they would just spirall down in uncontrollable manner, so I exploited it.

High speed makes gunsight less wobbly and rather close range MG convergence makes them suitable for this action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, "more than enough" might be interpreted with all the caveats; his memoirs mentions firing at 50-70m range, ("when we could see the rivets") disabling hits might be enough, etc.

you know, this is could be not really true, have some errors in story by Golodnicov, but anyway it's looks very resonable and good idea of fieldmod for heavy tomahawk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a big fan of the P51, and especially not .50 cals, but would be interesting to see how they model the .50s if we ever get lend-lease aircraft added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MGs appear too effective. A half a second burst from 200 m on anywhere along the fuselage from almost any angle is guaranteed to cause black or greenish smoke (coolant?). 

 

I'm not sure if that is realistic or not. But this is certainly  unlike any other prop sim out there (IL2, CloD, RoF). 

yep, right now its too easy to do damage with pie-shooters. I would love to see ability to see hit vectors just like in old IL2 after modifying some .txt file. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the main problem with .303 and 50 cal was doing enough damage to large aircraft without having to hang around.

 

You look at the skins of small WW2 aircraft in a museum and even .303 would make a serious mess, of course getting those .303s on target is another thing. With larger aircraft you really need 20mm or upwards. There are pilot reports from the few cannon armed Spits in the BOB, comparing directly the damage done by multiple .303 and 2 x 20mm. Often .303 caused little visible damage other than hit flashes, 20mm hits on the other hand caused obvious critical damage such as engines spewing parts, this was visible even on a fast pass.  

 

 

It'll be interesting to see how easy bombers are to knock down in BOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see how easy bombers are to knock down in BOS.

That might have been my biggest issue while flying the original IL-2. It always seemed far too easy to bring down B-17s and even more so the B-29s. While it might be satisfying from a gaming standpoint, it doesn't seem realistic based on guncam or written history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the main problem with .303 and 50 cal was doing enough damage to large aircraft without having to hang around.

 

You look at the skins of small WW2 aircraft in a museum and even .303 would make a serious mess, of course getting those .303s on target is another thing. With larger aircraft you really need 20mm or upwards. There are pilot reports from the few cannon armed Spits in the BOB, comparing directly the damage done by multiple .303 and 2 x 20mm. Often .303 caused little visible damage other than hit flashes, 20mm hits on the other hand caused obvious critical damage such as engines spewing parts, this was visible even on a fast pass.  

 

 

It'll be interesting to see how easy bombers are to knock down in BOS.

303 yes, 50 no.  50's offered a nice blend of punching power with rate of fire. They could easily put a large amount of rounds on target, while causing significant damage to an airframe. Honestly, comparing a 303 to a 50 is like comparing a bb gun to a howitzer

 

 

 

From_left_to_right_.22_.25_.32_9mm_7.62_

 

second from the right is the 50cal round, in the middle is the 303 round

Edited by -MG-Cacti4-6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slipstream2020

This is to easy imo.

 

Both in gunnery and damage.

 

I feel like i don't have to be precise on shooting, and a gentle tap of the trigger and its all over.

 

It feels like old il2 with realistic gunnery turned off.

 

The DM stuff I am less concerned about, as with what i've seen so far its still very much alpha. The gunnery however concerns me greatly, its pure arcade at the moment.

My thought as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of Dm and gunnery in BOS now:

 

.50 cal bullets in il2-46 nearly didn't not do any damage. a .50 has a lot of kinetic energy and it's diameter is not that small either, fired into a wing it could do alot of internal damage (structure/ important parts..) And API rounds are a lot more devastating than one could think...

 

[media]http://youtu.be/B489u_1ZBIA?t=1m19s[/media]

Edited by Jordan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HeavyCavalrySgt

 

 

I feel like i don't have to be precise on shooting, and a gentle tap of the trigger and its all over.

 

 

 

I was just reading a biographical piece Chuck Yeager wrote.  He said almost exactly the same thing.

Edited by HeavyCavalrySgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
Jason_Williams

.50 Cals were no joke. Plenty of enemy planes were shredded with them. Some American planes would be fun for sure. Someday.

 

:salute:

 

Jason

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarcoRossolini

Err... isn't the 12.7mm MG in the LaGG the same size as a .50 cal? I'm not sure what you guys want here... 50.cals (12.7mm MGs) are already in the game (though obviously not the M2, the ShVaK  (hope I spelt that right...)  ).

 

That said, of course the Soviets didn't place such emphasis on .50 cals as the Amis did.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err... isn't the 12.7mm MG in the LaGG the same size as a .50 cal? I'm not sure what you guys want here... 50.cals (12.7mm MGs) are already in the game (though obviously not the M2, the ShVaK  (hope I spelt that right...)  ).

i agree, in total we can see which will be .50, although, our ammunition it's around 12.7x108 instead 12.7x99 for .50, and most likely UBS had "his" accuracy (quality of ussr ammunition in wartime) and personally i'm not sure what know parameters of all typical bullets for .50 in 42-43 and later, but here could be noticeable difference, in some sence...

 

anyway, posts about .50 and ammunition has meaning, p-40s were used in BOS and he with his 6 MGs one of first lend-lease planes for including in addons, maybe, like and Hurri...

 

p-39, most likely, only from Kuban or some other front in 42-43...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

Honestly, comparing a 303 to a 50 is like comparing a bb gun to a howitzer

 

 

No. Comparing the .303 to the .50 is like comparing a light MG to a heavy MG. A Browning .50 bullet delivers about five times the kinetic energy at a target at (let's say) 100 yrds compared to a 303. Clearly, the .50 can do things the .303 can't, but it's not as though they are in different leagues all together. Compared to a 20 mm cannon shell, the .50 is decidedly paltry.

 

What makes the Mustang a good aircraft was it being well made and put together, not the weaponry.

 

Here's a lightly written and quite enjoyable article on gun efficiency in 2nd WW fighter planes:

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 12.7mm in common use was the Berezin UB in 12.7x108mm, which had a slightly more powerful charge than the US M2 (12.7x99mm, the second measure being the length of the case). 

 

There was a 12.7mm ShVak which was developed in the middle thirties, which chambered a 12.7x108R round (basically a larger scale version of the existing 7.62x54R used on the ShKas), but by then the Berezin UB design had taken over.

 

These guns operated with very high rates of fire, and during winter the mechanics tended to strip them of all grease to avoid the gun freezing, so the lifespan of these machine guns was VERY limited. The philosophy behind the UB was one of a disposable gun: the UB would be used until a part would damage or break, it would then be substituted completely and the broken one would be sent back to the factories, which would repair them when possible and put them back in stock.

 

As mentioned before the real Achille's heel of such a combination was that the guns were prone to jamming, and accuracy decreased with use, as the high rate of fire meant a higher barrel erosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Comparing the .303 to the .50 is like comparing a light MG to a heavy MG. A Browning .50 bullet delivers about five times the kinetic energy at a target at (let's say) 100 yrds compared to a 303. Clearly, the .50 can do things the .303 can't, but it's not as though they are in different leagues all together. Compared to a 20 mm cannon shell, the .50 is decidedly paltry.

 

What makes the Mustang a good aircraft was it being well made and put together, not the weaponry.

 

Here's a lightly written and quite enjoyable article on gun efficiency in 2nd WW fighter planes:

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

sorry mate, that's a bit of a simplistic conclusion: because of its range, accuracy, penetration, rate of fire, damage, reliability and ease of production (both of guns and ammo), the M2 was by far the best compromise among all the things you would want from an aircraft machine gun, no matter what aircraft it was shot from.

 

Just to give you an idea: a single HE round for the MG151/20 was composed of circa 20 (!!!) components, several of which were machined and the assembly was partly manual; an average M2 round was made of just 5 parts and the assembly was automated. 

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Comparing the .303 to the .50 is like comparing a light MG to a heavy MG. A Browning .50 bullet delivers about five times the kinetic energy at a target at (let's say) 100 yrds compared to a 303. Clearly, the .50 can do things the .303 can't, but it's not as though they are in different leagues all together. Compared to a 20 mm cannon shell, the .50 is decidedly paltry.

 

What makes the Mustang a good aircraft was it being well made and put together, not the weaponry.

 

Here's a lightly written and quite enjoyable article on gun efficiency in 2nd WW fighter planes:

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

Let say that it was the right weapon for the USA's warbirds during the WW2. In the PTO it was really effective against not armored Japanese fighter/bombers, while in the ETO USAAF was mainly escorting bombers against other fighters (until the they gained air superiority and started to make AG missions).

 

It's not surprising that RAF still used the Hispano cannons on their planes.

 

190vunerabilityAdj.jpg

Edited by 6S.Manu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

As mentioned before the real Achille's heel of such a combination was that the guns were prone to jamming, and accuracy decreased with use, as the high rate of fire meant a higher barrel erosion.

 

Higher rate of fire also means more destructive power per weight of gun. This is where the Berezin really shine: it is a light gun with a high ROF, and should be able to do some really nasty things to an enemy plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

sorry mate, that's a bit of a simplistic conclusion: because of its range, accuracy, penetration, rate of fire, damage, reliability and ease of production (both of guns and ammo), the M2 was by far the best compromise among all the things you would want from an aircraft machine gun, no matter what aircraft it was shot from.

 

Just to give you an idea: a single HE round for the MG151/20 was composed of circa 20 (!!!) components, several of which were machined and the assembly was partly manual; an average M2 round was made of just 5 parts and the assembly was automated. 

 

I'm not saying the M2 .50 wasn't a good gun, just that it isn't "a howitzer". It's just a heavy MG, and while very reliable, it was also quite heavy and had a low rate of fire (which is why the USAF put 6 or 8 of them in their fighters). The Berezin wore out a lot faster, but as long as it fired, I'd rather have it than an M2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...