The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

[Panthera]

1 minute ago, CMBailey said:

I agree 100%.  The Jug was absurdly resistant to the 30mm BEFORE the latest update. 30mm not easy to hit with, if he lays it on you you’ve lost the dogfight. Accept it, get a shiny new plane and try again. Demanding that any plane resist multiple hits from it is basically asking for  a godmode cheat to be coded in.

 

I have to agree. 

 

Now I don't want to offend anyone, but I really do believe that anyone watning to continue arguing against this after having seen the footage & pictures just presented is then being very illogical, or atleast hasty enough that he hasn't allowed himself to really think things trough properly. 

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

I am a big fan of the DM updates, but I have to echo the sentiments that the 30mm seems a bit under powered now. As has been said before, for fighter on fighter combat, the 30mm should be borderline ridiculous.

[CountZero]

109 can now take 3x37mm and not fell apart, ai pilot bails after 3rd hit, so why 47 should fell apart then from few 30mm  all airplanes are now flying tanks compared to 3007

 

9 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

I agree 100%.  The Jug was absurdly resistant to the 30mm BEFORE the latest update. 30mm not easy to hit with, if he lays it on you you’ve lost the dogfight. Accept it, get a shiny new plane and try again. Demanding that any plane resist multiple hits from it is basically asking for  a godmode cheat to be coded in.

same can be said for 37mm vs 109, even harder to score 1 hit with it, but now it takes 3 lol 

Edited December 6, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[Panthera]

Well looking through Tony Williams site for details on the projectiles fired by the Yak's NS37 gun, the 37mm HEI-T projectiles didn't even contain half the HE content of the Mk108's 30mm HE(M) projectiles. So I wouldn't expect the NS37 to be nearly as destructive as the Mk108 upon impact with an aircraft structure. No doubt the NS37 was much better vs armour though, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. 

 

As for why a fighter, any WW2 fighter for that matter, should fall apart after just a few hits by shells from the Mk108? Well because of reality is the only answer really, I mean we've just seen it demonstrated in footage of actual ground testing, the results of which we should even expect to be rather conservative in regards to what damage would be the actual reality once the airframe is under the loads & wind pressure of flight.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Ehret]

6 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

109 can now take 3x37mm and not fell apart, ai pilot bails after 3rd hit, so why 47 should fell apart then from few 30mm  all airplanes are now lying tanks compared to 3007

 

Nothing really new. Even in 3.007 109s/190s could tank at least one 37mm M4 HE shell and dozen of 0.50"s hits and you wouldn't see even a small leak. I have seen the 109 tanking 2-3 HE from M4 in 3.008, already. Please, consider the very slow cycling rate of the M4 cannon (1/3 of the MK-108) and it becomes a borderline lottery.

[Legioneod]

Has anyone here actually been on the receiving end of the 30mm? From fighting with my friend I can assure you that they are very effective even if they don't seem to do much damage on the outside.

 

One 30mm hit usually damages me enough to take me out of the fight or make it very hard to stay alive, more than one and I'll be dead in a short period of time or at the very least I'll be no threat to anyone.

[Panthera]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Has anyone here actually been on the receiving end of the 30mm? From fighting with my friend I can assure you that they are very effective even if they don't seem to do much damage on the outside.

 

One 30mm hit usually damages me enough to take me out of the fight or make it very hard to stay alive, more than one and I'll be dead in a short period of time or at the very least I'll be no threat to anyone.

 

Well I believe what we're looking for here is an accurate representation of the actual damage a real 30mm HE(M) would likely do, not what feels balanced or effective gameplay wise. Just my two cents.

[CountZero]

3007 1x37mm = 109 fell apart:

aint gona see this in 3008

 

4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Well looking through Tony Williams site for details on the projectiles fired by the Yak's NS37 gun, the 37mm HEI-T projectiles didn't even content half the HE content of the Mk108's 30mm HE(M) projectiles. So I wouldn't expect the NS37 to be nearly as destructive as the Mk108 upon impact with an aircraft structure. No doubt the NS37 was much better vs armour though, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. 

 

As for why a fighter, any WW2 fighter for that matter, should fall apart after just a few hits by shells from the Mk108? Well because of reality is the only answer really, I mean we've just seen it demonstrated in footage of actual ground testing, the results of which we should even expect to be rather conservative in regards to what damage would be actually done when the airframe is under the loads & wind pressure of flight.

 

so 3x37mm is what it takes to shoot down plane like 109, but plane like 47 should be gone with 1-2 30mm lol

Edited December 6, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

3007 1x37mm = 109 fell apart:

 

 

so 3x37mm is what it takes to shoot down plane like 109, but plane like 47 should be gone with 1-2 30mm lol

 

But didn't you read what I wrote? The 30mm HE(M) round, eventhough it's diameter is smaller, contains over double the high explosive content of the 37mm HEI-T round fired by the NS37.

 

Also I didn't say the P-47 should be "gone" with 1-2 hits by the Mk108, I said that 1-2 hits to the wing should damage the wing to the point of failure - even if I now actually believe a single hit often would've been enough based on the archival footage shown.

[Ehret]

5 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Well looking through Tony Williams site for details on the projectiles fired by the Yak's NS37 gun, the 37mm HEI-T projectiles didn't even content half the HE content of the Mk108's 30mm HE(M) projectiles. So I wouldn't expect the NS37 to be nearly as destructive as the Mk108 upon impact with an aircraft structure. No doubt the NS37 was much better vs armour though, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. 

 

To be precise you should cite difference in velocities and projectile weight:

MK-108 is 330g at 504m/s

NS-37 is 735g at 900m/s

The NS-37 has almost 4x momentum and 8.8x KE more than the MK-108 shell. According to the site NS-37 HE content is (6% from 735g) around 40g, too - not a small amount and explosions don't scale linearly with yields.

[Garven]

9 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

To be precise you should cite difference in velocities and projectile weight:

MK-108 is 330g at 504m/s

NS-37 is 735g at 900m/s

The NS-37 has almost 4x momentum and 8.8x KE more than the MK-108 shell. According to the site NS-37 HE content is (6% from 735g) around 40g, too - not a small amount and explosions don't scale linearly with yields.

Casing thickness likely also has an effect on a shells destructiveness.  I'm going to guess lots of explosive isn't going to do much good if the casing can't contain it long enough to completely ignite and build pressure.  Plus the lighter the weight of shrapnel the quicker it is going to lose energy and velocity. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Kilrain

[Ehret]

Just now, Kilrain said:

casing thickness likely also has an effect on a shells destructiveness.  I'm going to guess lots of explosive isn't going to do much good if the casing can't contain it long enough to completely ignite and build pressure.

 

Perhaps. Heavy thick shell will results in good number of heavy fragments, too. They all will inherit the shell's momentum and KE and spread for longer distances than smaller ones from a slower and lighter shell.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well I believe what we're looking for here is an accurate representation of the actual damage a real 30mm HE(M) would likely do, not what feels balanced or effective gameplay wise. Just my two cents.

Who said anything about balance? And if you want to know the likelihood of a single 30mm causing structural failure to a P-47 you can read the report I posted previously in this thread.

 

Imo the current DM is much more accurate than the previous "de-wing in one shot" dm.

[IRRE_Centx]

2 hours ago, CMBailey said:

WWII aerial guns were perfectly capable of de-winging enemy aircraft if that is where the rounds happened to land. It makes more sense to shoot center of mass in most cases though, because one will almost certainly get a kill that way also. (but not in this game, as of latest update).
In this example, a P-51D makes a deflection shot on a 190. Because the 190 is well within the P-51's convergence the root of each wing is hit by 3 .50s. Both wings immediately fail and fold up like a carrier aircraft's.
 

 

Wait.
Did you just really use 3D computer-generated images taken from the "Dogfights" TV-show produced by History Channel as a proof?

 

 

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

Wait.
Did you just really use 3D computer-generated images taken from the "Dogfights" TV-show produced by History Channel as a proof?

 

 

In all fairness, based off the pilot account that did actually happen but it's an extremely rare occurrence, not the norm.

 

Fact is, dewings were not common during the war, it was a rare occurrence for both sides.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Legioneod

[IRRE_Centx]

Just now, Legioneod said:

In all fairness, based off the pilot account that did actually happen but it's an extremely rare occurrence, not the norm.

 

Sure it CAN happen, but using "Dogfights" as a proof is bad.
This show is... well, a show, using the most over-exagarated extreme situations to please an audience.

[Legioneod]

Just now, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

Sure it CAN happen, but using "Dogfights" as a proof is bad.
This show is... well, a show, using the most over-exagarated extreme situations to please an audience.

Oh I agree, that's why I said it was a very very rare occurrence.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

and vs a Blenheim bomber:

 

and a B-17, which shows the extra skin tear that will happen due to the high wind speeds in flight:

 

 

I mean by now I'd expect even the most hardcore opponent against Mk108 shells ripping the wings off of fighters SHOULD be convinced.

 

I'm even starting to doubt how right I was in suggesting that it would be ok if it took two to rip the wing off a P-47, as I now seriously question wether a P-47 would actually be able to make it back home after just one hit by one of those rounds to the wing in real life - The videos and pictures up above are just too conclusive if you ask me. The 30mm HE(M) rounds really were extraordinarily destructive. Makes the damage done by 20mm rounds look puny in comparison.

 

The US OR people disagreed with you.  Reading the US report everyone talks about, (a800394) the first thing to notice is that the summary probabilities contain component probabilities with a large margin of error. In other words, while the averages they give are the best estimate they could be considerably off.

 

Table 3 gives Calculation (not a measure) of the Overall Probability of an A kill (downed within five minutes: not the "insta-kill some pine for) or B kill (fails to RTB) for one particular angle.  The A kill probability due to a structure kill is 0.237 for the 3cm cannon.  The probability of surviving  two such hits, if the damage was independent, would be 0.58, for three hits 0.44   There might well be a cumulative effect, so one might guess at a probability of survival somewhat lower than that.

 

So according to the US tests/calculations you can get three 30mm mineshell hits on a P-47 structure it would not go down in five minutes about one third of the time.  The overall probability including all other hit types is 0.288 - so you might get three hits anywhere on the plane and still have only have a 0.36 probability of an A kill .

 

[Panthera]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

To be precise you should cite difference in velocities and projectile weight:

MK-108 is 330g at 504m/s

NS-37 is 735g at 900m/s

The NS-37 has almost 4x momentum and 8.8x KE more than the MK-108 shell. According to the site NS-37 HE content is (6% from 735g) around 40g, too - not a small amount and explosions don't scale linearly with yields.

 

I already noted that the NS37 ofcourse would be better at punching holes in armour, but that's not really very important when we're talking about the general amount of damage to be expected when hitting random areas on an aircrafts' structure, such as the wings for example - here blast effect is far more consistent with results, as against a target as large & spaced out as an aircraft it's far more efficient to blow away big chunks at a time than to hope one of your AP rounds by chance penetrates in a straight line into something vital. And as already mentioned the 30mm HE(M) projectile contains over double the amount of explosives of the 37mm HEI-T round, 85 grams to be exact. So whilst there's little doubt that the 37mm HEI-T is a powerful and destructive round,  it's still on average going to do significantly less damage pr. hit as compared with the 30mm HE(M) round. 

 

As for explosive yield, well it is linear if we use the same type explosive and just change increase/decrease the mass, but ofcourse there are many different types of explosives with higher or lower energy release and brisance levels. The 30mm HE(M) rounds contained 85 grams of either penthrite/PETN (early) or Hexogen (late), both explosives with a high brisance level and an explosive energy 1.24 to 1.5 times that of TNT of equal volume respectively. 

 

As for what explosives were used in the NS37 HEI-T shell I'd assume a mixture of PETN or TNT and thermite (the incendiary part), as IIRC the Russians usually used either TNT or PETN for filling during WW2. 

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[Bremspropeller]

On 11/28/2018 at 7:52 PM, MiloMorai said:

plus 2 1000lb bombs is a lot of weight for the outer wing to carry.

 

On 11/28/2018 at 8:28 PM, Gambit21 said:

Yep - add a belly tank on top of that - and the ability to maneuver with that load -which necessitates a very strong wing. 

 

Weight in the outer wing is good. It acts as bending load relief in flight and acts as structural damping against flutter (the weight reduces the eigenfrequency and more mass requires more energy to make things move/ swing in the first place).

 

Fun Fact: The wing of the A340 is actually lighter than the wing of the A330 - the A340's 4-5t engine out there (situated at about two thirds of the span) helps unload the wing in flight and thus the structure can be built lighter than on the twin-brother A330.

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

So whilst there's little doubt that the 37mm HEI-T is a powerful and destructive round,  it's still on average going to do significantly less damage pr. hit as compared with the 30mm HE(M) round. 

 

 

Again, the US OR study disagrees. The 3cm German round can do more damage against structures, and hence has a significant increase in probability of a B kill, (which include A) but is overall slightly less effective in producing A kills that a 37mm HE.   See the table above.

 

You really need to address the quantitative analysis generated by the experts at the time, rather than just giving off the cuff opinions.

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

The US OR people disagreed with you.  Reading the US report everyone talks about, (a800394) the first thing to notice is that the summary probabilities contain component probabilities with a large margin of error. In other words, while the averages they give are the best estimate they could be considerably off.

 

Table 3 gives Calculation (not a measure) of the Overall Probability of an A kill (downed within five minutes: not the "insta-kill some pine for) or B kill (fails to RTB) for one particular angle.  The A kill probability due to a structure kill is 0.237 for the 3cm cannon.  The probability of surviving  two such hits, if the damage was independent, would be 0.58, for three hits 0.44   There might well be a cumulative effect, so one might guess at a probability of survival somewhat lower than that.

 

So according to the US tests/calculations you can get three 30mm mineshell hits on a P-47 structure it would not go down in five minutes about one third of the time.  The overall probability including all other hit types is 0.288 - so you might get three hits anywhere on the plane and still have only have a 0.36 probability of an A kill .

 

 

I don't really see how that disagrees with what I said? Keep in mind that said calculations (it is important to note that they are calculations) are about the aircrafts ability to fly on after just one hit, it doesn't take into account the accumulative effect of several hits, nor does it assume anything other than the pilot immediately flying nice and straight back home. Ingame people often get hit doing evasive maneuvers whilst the airframe is under great loads, and even continue to do so after the hit, something which in reality would mulitply the lethality of any damage done.

 

13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Again, the US OR study disagrees. The 3cm German round can do more damage against structures, and hence has a significant increase in probability of a B kill, (which include A) but is overall slightly less effective in producing A kills that a 37mm HE.   See the table above.

 

You really need to address the quantitative analysis generated by the experts at the time, rather than just giving off the cuff opinions.

 

Well they were calculations based on what though?

 

I ask since the British conclusion was a very different one, i.e. that a single hit was usually lethal against any fighter or twin engine aircraft, and this was based on actual firing trials, not calculations. So it really had nothing to do with my opinion.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

 

I don't really see how that disagrees with what I said? Keep in mind that said calculations are about the aircrafts ability to fly on after just one hit, it doesn't take into account the accumulative effect of several hits, nor does it assume anything other than the pilot immediately flying nice and straight back home. Ingame people often get hit doing evasive maneuvers whilst the airframe is under great loads, and even continue to do so after the hit, something which in reality would mulitply the lethality of any damage done.

 

"I'm even starting to doubt how right I was in suggesting that it would be ok if it took two to rip the wing off a P-47, as I now seriously question wether a P-47 would actually be able to make it back home after just one hit by one of those rounds to the wing in real life" 

 

is what you said, and it is directly contradicted by the OR study which states that the probability of a P-47 returning to base after one hit by a 3cm shell is 0.576 

 

I am not really interested in what people do in game: we can actually check the survival odds of various planes in the game controlling for that if we test carefully.  Possibly the OR study was wrong anyway, since it had to include a lot of assumptions, but it is the best evidence we have. 

[Panthera]

6 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

"I'm even starting to doubt how right I was in suggesting that it would be ok if it took two to rip the wing off a P-47, as I now seriously question wether a P-47 would actually be able to make it back home after just one hit by one of those rounds to the wing in real life" 

 

is what you said, and it is directly contradicted by the OR study which states that the probability of a P-47 returning to base after one hit by a 3cm shell is 0.576 

 

I am not really interested in what people do in game: we can actually check the survival odds of various planes in the game controlling for that if we test carefully.  Possibly the OR study was wrong anyway, since it had to include a lot of assumptions, but it is the best evidence we have. 

 

I very specifically said the wing, not the overall chance of the P-47 surviving a hit anywhere on the airframe    

 

Because based on the evidence provided I sincerely doubt that the P-47 would in general survive a direct hit to the wing by a 30mm HE(M) shell, or at the very least it would be forced to fly nice and straight from there'on out, avoiding putting any extra loads on the wing until it could reach a friendly airfield. Two hits to the same wing though, that's just not survivable. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Panthera

[FTC_Riksen]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Who said anything about balance? And if you want to know the likelihood of a single 30mm causing structural failure to a P-47 you can read the report I posted previously in this thread.

 

Imo the current DM is much more accurate than the previous "de-wing in one shot" dm.

 

Agreed!

[Bremspropeller]

You guys are putting way too much effort in reading things out of that report that just aren't there.

 

This is not a report on aircraft-survivability, but a report on ammo effectivity.

It compares one sample each (B-25 and a P-47) of a bomber-sized target and a fighter-sized target and has them been fired on from a likely attack- angle.

 

The 30mm statistically has a 42% chance of bringing down the P-47 after a single random hit within the next two hours under the conditions tested.

That is a mother-effing silver bullet.

 

Mind you: The report focusses on the probability of a hit anywhere on the projected area. It does not care about critical areas in terms of structure or systems.

Don't put stuff into the report that is not there.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The probability of surviving  two such hits, if the damage was independent, would be 0.58, for three hits 0.44   There might well be a cumulative effect, so one might guess at a probability of survival somewhat lower than that. 

 

There MIGHT be a cumulative effect, so that the survival rate is SOMEWHAT lower? Hahahaha

[Panthera]

3 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

There MIGHT be a cumulative effect, so that the survival rate is SOMEWHAT lower? Hahahaha

 

[JG27*Kornezov]

Why everybody is so attached to the survavibility of the p47 but nobody talks about the Stuka ;). As there is historical evidence in the Book of Rudel, he writes how he survived multiple hits including 30 mm gun hits from  the Cobra and he kept flying. The Stuka was a very tough plane too.

Edited December 6, 2018 by JG27_Kornezov

[Panthera]

Well there might be an issue with aircraft survivability in general, but the most glaring and easy to prove right now is with the Mk108 as we actually have real life testing to compare with.

 

 

[JV69badatflyski]

still not understand the fact people are trying to put the Bolt into the "flying concrete" box.
You see movies and pictures from RAE MK108tests showing planes without any forces/load applied on them being torn apart by a single bullet and still they try to convince the Bolt was something magical able to sustain more 30mm bullets than a B17.

Waiting with anticipation for the Poney's arrival, that will be funny! 

[CountZero]

just check and it takes 2-3x30mm to get 109, so no problem with p-47 and 30mm amount it takes to get him down when compared to other airplanes in game now. It has to be more resistant then 109, and it is to same gun.

[IRRE_Centx]

1 minute ago, CMBailey said:

No, I used a WWII pilot account where he describes this as happening as proof. Go away, you are literally too stupid for this discussion.

 

A WWII pilot "interviewed" by History Channel.
Should I remember you that History Channel considers this guy as an "alien expert" in an other TV-show?

Or that this channel is also programming shows where they demonstrate (seriously) that Nazis built time machines?

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

6 hours ago, Legioneod said:

In all fairness, based off the pilot account that did actually happen but it's an extremely rare occurrence, not the norm.

 

Fact is, dewings were not common during the war, it was a rare occurrence for both sides.

There are factors you don’t know, such as how often pilots actually managed to concentrate fire on the wings.  Remember that the 190 was quite close. Closer to the convergence point the other pilot would have walked fire down the fuselage instead, which would have caused a kill in other ways. 

 

On the contrary, given that this is a deflection shot, that only 3 .50s were required per wing, and that the 190 isn’t exactly known for being weak, the most logical conclusion to draw from this is 4-8 .50s hitting in the same place will easily cause wing failure in fighter-sized aircraft.

 

And remember, 20mms were approximately 3 times as effective as .50s.

 

This “it should take half an ammo load to get a kill” kick  is just the latest example of the more difficult=more realistic fallacy that plagues flight games. These planes were flown by quickly-trained 20 year olds operating under stress . They were not enormously tricky in normal flight, their noses didn’t bounce about like a bobble-head, and with the armament packages eventually chosen by the major players  you didn’t have to snipe the enemy-pilot’s brainstem or hold him in the stream of fire for ten seconds to kill his fighter.

Edited December 6, 2018 by CMBailey

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

Well there might be an issue with aircraft survivability in general, but the most glaring and easy to prove right now is with the Mk108 as we actually have real life testing to compare with.

 

 

 

You have ground testing where the hits were directed at specific points.  You do not have any basis on which to make statistical claims - yet you do.

 

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

You guys are putting way too much effort in reading things out of that report that just aren't there.

 

This is not a report on aircraft-survivability, but a report on ammo effectivity.

It compares one sample each (B-25 and a P-47) of a bomber-sized target and a fighter-sized target and has them been fired on from a likely attack- angle.

 

The 30mm statistically has a 42% chance of bringing down the P-47 after a single random hit within the next two hours under the conditions tested.

That is a mother-effing silver bullet.

 

Mind you: The report focusses on the probability of a hit anywhere on the projected area. It does not care about critical areas in terms of structure or systems.

Don't put stuff into the report that is not there.

 

 

 

Yes - and a 29% chance of downing it after 5 minutes - ie 71% chance of surviving for more than five minutes. A variety of people have been claiming that one hit should usually be instantaneously lethal. They are contradicted by the expert opinion. 

 

I am no reading more into the report than it contains - and I have read it all. The reality is that this is the best estimate we have from experts making use of a range of contemporary evidence. In contrast, we have a variety of cherry picking from either single shot tests or .... what exactly?  "Mother-effing" is not AFAIK a recognized statistical measure.

Edited December 6, 2018 by unreasonable

[SCG_motoadve]

19 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

 

 

This “it should take half an ammo load to get a kill” kick  is just the latest example of the more difficult=more realistic fallacy that plagues flight games. These planes were flown by quickly-trained 20 year olds operating under stress . They were not enormously tricky in normal flight, their noses didn’t bounce about like a bobble-head, and with the armament packages eventually chosen by the major players  you didn’t have to snipe the enemy-pilot’s brainstem or hold him in the stream of fire for ten seconds to kill his fighter.

You need to aim better, just shot down 5 P 47s AI in ace in a G 6 in quick mission no problem,  and shot 4 planes in Berloga and still had ammo, its not arcade as it used to be ,  you need to aim properly now, or else you will spend all your ammo..

 

Accept it that is more challenging ,more realistic,  and how it used to be, its not 1 shot 1 kill anymore.

Maybe the 30mm ?, dont know, but this is 100 times better than how it was before the patch.

[Rattlesnake]

7 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

You need to aim better

You’re gonna need to try harder. Calling someone who was actually there a liar didn’t work, calling ME of all people a bad shot won’t work either.

 

Maybe you just want gun effectiveness neutered because you are really bad at flying the plane and you consciously realize that pea-shooter lethality tends to make the outcome more effectively randomized, instead of being about who selects the maneuvers that puts the other guy in front of guns first. Ultimately the less lethal the gunnery the more and more turners are favored over energy fighters because they can effectively “saddle up”, so maybe this is your goal.  Though tbh I kind of doubt you are this insightful enough to have figured these things out on your own. 

 

And certainly the unrealistic lack of gun effectivess enhances pixelated safety for those bold souls who never venture forth without at least half a dozen wingmen on TS along with them. Less chance that one of them will be embarrassed by losing their precious virtual “life” to the overshoot and snapshot by whatever loner they are hording.

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

Whatever, I am done discussing with you, go play War Thunder , its arcade you can shoot down tons of planes and feel like can ace.

Dont bother replying, I wont read it ?

[Voidhunger]

problem is that you hit P47 into tail section with some MK108 rounds and nothing happens.

Maybe in MP its hard to fly after those hits but in SP the AI continue to fight and its still dangerous.

I think that even one solid MK108 shot to the wing, rudder, elevator send you home without fighting anymore. thats the problem.

If you dont hit something important the Jug can fly and fight with 5 hits in the wing and 4 in the tail.

 

[Rattlesnake]

Translation: You just realized you are tossing spitballs at someone who has been doing this for over a decade and can back up his opinions both with logic and  in the virtual “air”. Now you are skedaddling. As you doubtless do often in game whenever you faced with the horrifying prospect of a 1v1 against someone who knows you are there.

32 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Whatever, I am done discussing with you, go play War Thunder , its arcade you can shoot down tons of planes and feel like can ace.

Dont bother replying, I wont read it ?

 

20 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

problem is that you hit P47 into tail section with some MK108 rounds and nothing happens.

Maybe in MP its hard to fly after those hits but in SP the AI continue to fight and its still dangerous.

I think that even one solid MK108 shot to the wing, rudder, elevator send you home without fighting anymore. thats the problem.

If you dont hit something important the Jug can fly and fight with 5 hits in the wing and 4 in the tail.

 

And many Jug pile-its are so lacking in insight that they are celebrating this, instead of realizing that the 30mm just became the most/only viable fighter versus fighter gun package in the game. It should actually be borderline absurd overkill for WWII fighter versus fighter, as opposed to  smaller cannons/HMGs that are easier to hit with.

Edited December 6, 2018 by CMBailey