WTF is wrong with the armament of the mc 202?

[P40eWarhawk]

on mulitple occasions now i shot all my ammo in a mig 3 and it do jackshit to it... i saw debris flying of but it just didnt do anything they just fly in cericles until you out of ammo.. are those 50 cals modeled as confetti blasters or what? ... or maybe just russian bias...

 

this happened multiple times now. also i was on a tail of of an il2 pumpin all the the ammo perfectly in the teil section... but all the surfaces are still and while theyhave holes in them they arent absolutley fucking shredded as they should be ... wtf is going on with this plane...

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.
 
First offense - 3 days ban on entry

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by BlackSix

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Good question, wrong forum.

 

Now go try them against the PE-2!

[No.23_Triggers]

I'll have your .50s for my SPAD XIII if you don't want them ?

[Beazil]

They were a decent weapon, the Italian 12mm, but they were quite a bit slower than the American version and were found to be pretty eneimic for air to air combat - but still better than smaller caliber rounds.  The addition of the 7.7 mm guns did little to offset that.

 

I hope one of our resident local ballistics experts can comment, because I am not an expert.  This is all from my recollection and not necessarily fact.

[J5_Adam]

Wrong forum

[SAS_Storebror]

Had a go at an IL-2 1941 model with a Macchi yesterday, 12.7mm + 7.7mm wing guns.

I've tried all kind of stuff, shooting at tail section from dead six - not much effect, no surprise. Bullets were bouncing off the armour plates as they should.

Hitting the oil cooler endless times - didn't do a thing.

Hitting the fuselage made that thing leak fuel, but no other effect either. None of my rounds managed to set the leaking fuel on fire, which actually is a little surprising as the 12.7mm are supposed to be mixed AP/HE rounds so I would have expected them to set the fuel stream on fire eventually but they didn't.

Hitting the wings only caused the gears of the IL-2 to collapse and depart.

Finally, after hitting the cockpit section endless times, when I was just to run out of ammo, I have managed to kill the pilot.

 

From bums feeling, version 4.x is like this:

Anything smaller than 20mm calibre is just punching holes through unarmoured plane parts without causing much effect if it's AP ammo.

HE ammo smaller than 20mm will illuminate your target's surface and that's it.

Anything from 20mm calibre onwards, if HE filled will inflict lethal damage immediately, whereas if it's AP see above.

Now nail me to the cross for this simplification, but honestly that's what it feels like.

 

Mike

Edited May 2, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[Feathered_IV]

Maybe the bullets went right pasta

[Velxra]

The il2 cockpit can soak up quite a few 20mm rounds from a 109. I gave an il2 a pretty good dose of that the other day in a few passes right into the back/side of the cockpit. Knowing the devs overhauled the damage model I feel like the il2 is producing authentic resistance as was reported in the war. But if the devs do a double check with their software of the il2's armor I see nothing wrong with it.

As for the 202, always take the 7.7s as there is little downside in bringing them and the smaller rounds may light some fuel fires. Also set the convergence for like 300 metres as you will need to get in close to do damage. Overall the 202 is a fun aircraft even if it tends to give me mixed results. Some flights go great and others seem like I'm doing nothing to the target. You will see a lot more damage with the 20mm gun pods. Though in my opinion the drag penalty just is not worth the little bit of ammo. The italian rounds are just lackluster in aircraft. So pour all your ammo into one or two targets and go home.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Geronimo553

[Mac_Messer]

2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Had a go at an IL-2 1941 model with a Macchi yesterday, 12.7mm + 7.7mm wing guns.

I've tried all kind of stuff, shooting at tail section from dead six - not much effect, no surprise. Bullets were bouncing off the armour plates as they should.

Hitting the oil cooler endless times - didn't do a thing.

Hitting the fuselage made that thing leak fuel, but no other effect either. None of my rounds managed to set the leaking fuel on fire, which actually is a little surprising as the 12.7mm are supposed to be mixed AP/HE rounds so I would have expected them to set the fuel stream on fire eventually but they didn't.

Hitting the wings only caused the gears of the IL-2 to collapse and depart.

Finally, after hitting the cockpit section endless times, when I was just to run out of ammo, I have managed to kill the pilot.

 

From bums feeling, version 4.x is like this:

Anything smaller than 20mm calibre is just punching holes through unarmoured plane parts without causing much effect if it's AP ammo.

HE ammo smaller than 20mm will illuminate your target's surface and that's it.

Anything from 20mm calibre onwards, if HE filled will inflict lethal damage immediately, whereas if it's AP see above.

Now nail me to the cross for this simplification, but honestly that's what it feels like.

 

Mike

I think the new DM made IL2 problematic, as in too strong. It did have wooden parts succeptible to HEI fire, especially tail section. No armor for the gunner too. Unarmored oil radiator.

Ingame afterpatch IL2 does not burn, loses only moving surfaces, flies very long with radiator shot up, gunner is very hard to kill.  Other bombers have the same issue only with gunners.

 

7mm guns - peanuts for both MP and SP; difficult to cause leaks even; possible to cause engine fire if unarmored.

12mm guns - MP user feedback seems to acknowledge it makes a plane harder to fly, AI seems to take it with impunity. PK possible in some cases.

20mm guns - British is best, German is great, Soviet is comparatively bad, so not always lethal. Good for everything.

30mm onward - results are all over the place, M4 cannon being by far the worst.

 

 

[Toppaso]

3 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

From bums feeling, version 4.x is like this:

Anything smaller than 20mm calibre is just punching holes through unarmoured plane parts without causing much effect if it's AP ammo.

HE ammo smaller than 20mm will illuminate your target's surface and that's it.

Anything from 20mm calibre onwards, if HE filled will inflict lethal damage immediately, whereas if it's AP see above.

Now nail me to the cross for this simplification, but honestly that's what it feels like.

 

Yes, after 4.005 these are more or less my feelings too.

Just a tip: if you try the 13mm MG 131 youll see some effective HE damage as well.

Now the 12.7 breda HE round had more or less half the explosive of the german MG 131 HE round so it makes sense to be much less effective.

 

About the general effectiveness of 12mm AP, they are ceirtainly less effective and reliable in dealing damage now than they were before.

And unfourtunately for my beloved MC 202, having just 2 HMG means it really felt the impact of the change.

However I suspect this has to do with the fact that engine DM was also changed (i.e. made thougher) in the last patch, rather than the more complex changes to airframe DM.

Getting critical and immediate engine damage is just harder'.

 

They said that a more complete engine and fuel DM is coming in the future, so we'll see.

 

[Lusekofte]

Well just fought a ton of migs  with a109 E7 In a coop with mates

and we managed To shoot down 5 to 6 migs divided on 3 players most of it without cannons

[DD_Arthur]

Just tried to down a few IL2's in the QMB with the Macchi' and yes it's hard.  I took an a.i. wingman with me and he was eventually persuaded to engage the IL2s too.

 

I then tried the same thing with the '109F4 and a wingman.  Obviously, with the cannon it was a bit easier but what I found surprising was how much more aggressive and wiling to engage was my wingman in the F4 over his frankly cowardly performance in the 'Macchi. 

[Lusekofte]

14 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Just tried to down a few IL2's in the QMB with the Macchi' and yes it's hard.  I took an a.i. wingman with me and he was eventually persuaded to engage the IL2s too.

 

I then tried the same thing with the '109F4 and a wingman.  Obviously, with the cannon it was a bit easier but what I found surprising was how much more aggressive and wiling to engage was my wingman in the F4 over his frankly cowardly performance in the 'Macchi. 

How can that be?

I do not doubt it, ai shows a huge difference in sp. Did you have ai set on random? 
But the fact that it getting frustrating shooting down a IL 2 Is in my mind a good thing. 
I tell you , this sim should not only be made to entertain fighterjockeys. IL 2 was a respected opponent and its gunners feared. Do not mind the heavy losses it had, that was USSR doctrine. 
Good pilots in 109 got it, but they lost some too

Edited May 2, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[DD_Arthur]

19 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

How can that be?

I do not doubt it, ai shows a huge difference in sp. Did you have ai set on random? 

 

Dunno but give it a go.  A.I. skill level was veteran both times.

 

I'm not sure if the IL2 was a 'respected opponent'.  It was slow, cumbersome and it's gunner was extremely exposed and armed with a peashooter.

Wasn't it the most shot down 'plane in WW2?

[Eisenfaustus]

German reports seem to give much respect to the il2. The plane was very hard to shoot down, the gunner made it even harder to get in a good firing position and the Russian attacker pilots seem to be attested a higher fighting spirit by their German adversaries than the avarage fighter pilot outside of guard units. 

[216th_Jordan]

I remember a report by Erich Hartmann where he specifically approached from below and shot the oil radiator and then let go of the Il-2, leaving it to its fate in the next 5-10 mins. I guess we're just very used to the easy kills. Also keep in mind that gunners in Il-2 (game in general) perform too strongly, also it's a bit too hard to kill them.

 

Regarding 'peashooter':

Hits to the front of the aircraft usually deal more damage and Il-2 1943 model has a 12.7mm UBT with explosive charge rounds and high muzzle velocity.

Edited May 2, 2020 by 216th_Jordan

[Beazil]

7 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

Maybe the bullets went right pasta

*Raises hand to comment, stops, shakes head and sits back down snickering*

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, MattS said:

 

It's definitely not a bias issue. The DM update appears to have dramatically increased resistance to mg fire across the board.

 

 

I've been working on my spotting and gunnery skills by fighting 4-man flights of Stukas in QMB. They're much harder to see than bigger bombers, and good at dodging attacks.

 

Even with an 8-gun P-47 I am finding that I can achieve an immediate kill in only two situations: pilot snipes and engine/fuel fires. Otherwise they can soak up immense streams of fire and continue to fly. Sometimes they'll crash on the way home.

 

I have no personal basis to say whether this is right or wrong technically or historically but that's what I'm seeing.

 

Structurally Stukas are pretty robust to withstand the forces of dive bombing and carrying heavy loads. With fifty cals engine damage, fires and dead pilots are just how you kill an airplane.

 

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Dunno but give it a go.  A.I. skill level was veteran both times.

 

I'm not sure if the IL2 was a 'respected opponent'.  It was slow, cumbersome and it's gunner was extremely exposed and armed with a peashooter.

Wasn't it the most shot down 'plane in WW2?

It was extremely numerous, flew low and slow, and was often enough in the early war totally unescorted without a tail gunner. It’s attack profile made it extremely vulnerable, hence the shoot downs. But most Il2s were killed by ground fire IIRC. Attacking ground targets multiple times in asortie is insanely risky and they paid the price.

[jojy47jojyrocks]

9 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Had a go at an IL-2 1941 model with a Macchi yesterday, 12.7mm + 7.7mm wing guns.

I've tried all kind of stuff, shooting at tail section from dead six - not much effect, no surprise. Bullets were bouncing off the armour plates as they should.

Hitting the oil cooler endless times - didn't do a thing.

Hitting the fuselage made that thing leak fuel, but no other effect either. None of my rounds managed to set the leaking fuel on fire, which actually is a little surprising as the 12.7mm are supposed to be mixed AP/HE rounds so I would have expected them to set the fuel stream on fire eventually but they didn't.

Hitting the wings only caused the gears of the IL-2 to collapse and depart.

Finally, after hitting the cockpit section endless times, when I was just to run out of ammo, I have managed to kill the pilot.

 

From bums feeling, version 4.x is like this:

Anything smaller than 20mm calibre is just punching holes through unarmoured plane parts without causing much effect if it's AP ammo.

HE ammo smaller than 20mm will illuminate your target's surface and that's it.

Anything from 20mm calibre onwards, if HE filled will inflict lethal damage immediately, whereas if it's AP see above.

Now nail me to the cross for this simplification, but honestly that's what it feels like.

 

Mike

 

 

Shouldn't hitting the radiator at least render those IL-2 crippled so much that they would disengage and TRY to return home, limping? Somehow, even with radiator shot to hell, they manage to return home. I was hoping with this NEW damage model and regarding tough to kill planes like PE-2 and the IL-2 for example, crashing after their radiator or even those smoking engines of those PE-2 to crash eventually due to overheating issues.

 

I was hoping hitting the so called weak spots or sweet spot could bring them down or at least force them to disengage. In most cases its inconsistent.

 

BTW...I mostly play SP.

1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

I remember a report by Erich Hartmann where he specifically approached from below and shot the oil radiator and then let go of the Il-2, leaving it to its fate in the next 5-10 mins. I guess we're just very used to the easy kills. Also keep in mind that gunners in Il-2 (game in general) perform too strongly, also it's a bit too hard to kill them.

 

Regarding 'peashooter':

Hits to the front of the aircraft usually deal more damage and Il-2 1943 model has a 12.7mm UBT with explosive charge rounds and high muzzle velocity.

 

It is VERY inconsistent at present. I do make sure that I hit the radiator and not wanting to waste ammo. After I see some smoke after hitting the radiator, I disengage and move on to the next one. But they just wont go down...it seems the damage effects are lost on AI planes at most.

[RedeyeStorm]

Nonsense. If the plane is leaking coolant it will go down. The only time it does not if a friendly airbase is near and they can land in time before running out of coolant. In the new dm coolant and fuel leaks or not one size fits all. Now there are small and big leaks. See patch notes.

 

Further more I regularly see AI-planes try to break off and return home when damaged. They will continue to manoeuvre when they feel threatened by enemy planes (did not see a difference in behavior for AI-planes or player). 

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Wasn't it the most shot down 'plane in WW2?

Yes it was in beginning of operations it was doomed because of very bad logistics and organizing. Escort never showed up, bad intelligence work. After a while things got better organized , but still demands on being over the front trumped lack of escort and several units started to send out escorting IL 2 with bomb laden IL 2. 
When finally they got a gunner behind them very soon they lacked gunners. So they had planes without gunners placed strategic among planes with them. 
Like the Stuka it suffered by operating in airspace without complete control. That make losses. All ground attackers suffer in these conditions. And Soviet simply fed the front with new planes instead of take control of airspace. 

[RedKestrel]

Just now, MattS said:

 

Well be that as it may it is pretty unsatisfying to absolutely bathe a Stuka in tracers over and over, then have him continue to perfectly anticipate every diving attack and pull max performance turns to stay out of my gun envelope...trailing fluids and smoke like no tomorrow LOL.

 

Or even worse as the plexiglass and duralumin around him is getting shredded the gunner says "Hehe turret guns go BBbbbrrrtt" and instantly shoots out my oil system. That is down more to the superhuman AI though, of course.

 

And that experience is why air forces went with larger amounts of guns and cannons later in the war, the capacity of bombers to soak up MG fire was much higher than originally thought.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

48 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

You're pontificating to me about the historical record here like I'm a dope, when that same historical record tells us that the Stukas got mauled so badly by British .303 in the BoB that they had to be withdrawn. 

 

Instead, how about you fly 25 or so QMB missions (to rule out flukes) in a P-47 against a flight of 4 Stukas and then come back and tell us what you think of the new DM against 8 x .50 HMGs. 

 

 

I think the Stukas were going down to reason that weren't .303s chainsawing the wings off.

Probably it was due to the fact that apart from an 8mm back rest, there was no cockpit armor whatsoever for the BoB period Ju-87 Stuka.

The Ju-87 ingame meanwhile , the pilot and gunner are in a 4mm thick "bathtub", the pilot has 8mm backrest and 8 + 8 mm headrest, armored glass in the front, and the gunner has 4mm thick plates around his MG mount (which in effect increase protection for the pilot as well)

Edited May 2, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[RedKestrel]

4 hours ago, MattS said:

 

You're pontificating to me about the historical record here like I'm a dope, when that same historical record tells us that the Stukas got mauled so badly by British .303 in the BoB that they had to be withdrawn. 

 

Instead, how about you fly 25 or so QMB missions (to rule out flukes) in a P-47 against a flight of 4 Stukas and then come back and tell us what you think of the new DM against 8 x .50 HMGs. 

 

 

I don’t know what to tell you. I fly the P47 almost all the time. Against bombers even before the patch I have to aim for engines or cockpits with MGs to get reasonable kills. I haven’t run into a Stuka yet since the patch I fly mostly online and in MP they are death traps, and pretty rare. The only one I ran into lately was a guy who was trolling by flying it as a fighter, and I was busy with ground attack.

 

 Punching holes in duralumin is a low margin way to kill a plane, even with fifty cals. I wouldn’t expect wing hits to produce fast kills unless you put a lot of rounds into it.

[jojy47jojyrocks]

3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

I don’t know what to tell you. I fly the P47 almost all the time. Against bombers even before the patch I have to aim for engines or cockpits with MGs to get reasonable kills. I haven’t run into a Stuka yet since the patch I fly mostly online and in MP they are death traps, and pretty rare. The only one I ran into lately was a guy who was trolling by flying it as a fighter, and I was busy with ground attack.

 

 Punching holes in duralumin is a low margin way to kill a plane, even with fifty cals. I wouldn’t expect wing hits to produce fast kills unless you put a lot of rounds into it.

 

 

There is difference of damage and how it affects for AI in SP than in Multiplayer.

 

 

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, jojy47jojyrocks said:

There is difference of damage and how it affects for AI in SP than in Multiplayer.

 

There is no difference in the damage modeling in SP vs Multiplayer.

[jojy47jojyrocks]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

There is no difference in the damage modeling in SP vs Multiplayer.

 I meant as in HOW it affects the AI...in most cases. So far its inconsistent on how they deal with damage. they still keep flying and keeping in fight on most cases..even when they are damaged to the point of trailing white smoke and dark grey smoke.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by jojy47jojyrocks

[PatrickAWlson]

No cannons.  2x 12mm and 2x 7mm.

 

The planes that did not have cannons and were still effective had 6x or 8x .50. cal.  That weaponry was very good against fighters, but iMHO if the Americans had to shoot down something like a B-17 they would have gone to cannons in a hurry.

 

 

[Dutchvdm]

9 hours ago, MattS said:

 

You're pontificating to me about the historical record here like I'm a dope, when that same historical record tells us that the Stukas got mauled so badly by British .303 in the BoB that they had to be withdrawn. 

 

Instead, how about you fly 25 or so QMB missions (to rule out flukes) in a P-47 against a flight of 4 Stukas and then come back and tell us what you think of the new DM against 8 x .50 HMGs. 

 

 

To be fair.. the BOB did indeed show that the 8x303 gun setup was not that great. 
 

Grt M

[blitze]

Mc202 - career armament = anemic but with Il2's, fly low 6 and come up under them going for the Oil Cooler / Radiator (same package as they are sandwiched).

 

Burst of fire at close range ensuring black smoke and them leave them be.  No point wasting ammo.  They eventually fall.

[ShamrockOneFive]

7 hours ago, jojy47jojyrocks said:

 

There is difference of damage and how it affects for AI in SP than in Multiplayer.

 

Aside from the possibility of high latency and packetloss losing the odd bullet... there is no difference. You can repeat the same test online and offline with the same result.

 

[jojy47jojyrocks]

15 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Not to put too many words in other people's mouths, but I think what he's talking about is how well the AI continues to fly despite substantial damage, oil-covered windscreen etc. compared to how these things influence a human online.

 

 

 

 

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

[BlitzPig_EL]

10 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

No cannons.  2x 12mm and 2x 7mm.

 

The planes that did not have cannons and were still effective had 6x or 8x .50. cal.  That weaponry was very good against fighters, but iMHO if the Americans had to shoot down something like a B-17 they would have gone to cannons in a hurry.

 

 

Which is why the P 39 and P 38 both had cannon armament.  Both were originally intended as bomber interceptors.

[Lusekofte]

The 12 mm had a slow rate of fire also. 

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, MattS said:

Back on the topic I was discussing with @RedKestrel, I just did a QMB mission with a 4-gun P-40 (with extra ammo) and shot down all of the Stukas...so now I'm not sure what to think. I suspect that my tactic of bearing down on the bad guys and waiting until the last minute to give them a burst into the engine/cockpit area at point-blank range is not really the way to go. Modifying my attacks to be shallower, with a longer firing window (plus more of that firing time closer to convergence) seems to offer more bullet impacts / more dice rolls for a pilot snipe or fire to occur. With the MGs at least there's no replacement for quantity of "hose time".

 

From an online coop last night....

 

Unexpectedly came across six Ju's on the way home.  I thought they were unescorted so foolishly closed the throttle which renders the P47 a truck which can be easily outflown by ai Ju87.

 

Then the escort showed up to drive me off.  After landing I was surprised to see I'd been credited with three of them.

[Avimimus]

On 5/1/2020 at 8:13 AM, P40eWarhawk said:

on mulitple occasions now i shot all my ammo in a mig 3 and it do jackshit to it... i saw debris flying of but it just didnt do anything they just fly in cericles until you out of ammo.. are those 50 cals modeled as confetti blasters or what? ... or maybe just russian bias...

 

this happened multiple times now. also i was on a tail of of an il2 pumpin all the the ammo perfectly in the teil section... but all the surfaces are still and while theyhave holes in them they arent absolutley fucking shredded as they should be ... wtf is going on with this plane...

 

You'll never master flyingthe Mig-3 with that attitude!  

 

Believing the Mig-3 is durable (rather than flammable) is a huge mistake, as is not figuring out how to use a weak machine-gun based armament!

 

It isn't Russian bias - it is just accurately modelling how much more firepower high explosive cannon rounds had! To use machine guns you have to hit pilots or an engine multiple times... basically, you are poking holes in things until they are coated with oil and then shooting more to produce enough sparks to light a fire... so multiple hits to the same area are often needed.

 

As for the Il-2... cannon rounds do damage to a larger area (which is more visibly apparent). I've shot down a Ju-52 using a 37mm cannon with AP rounds - and there were almost no visible holes (because, why would there be anything than a half dozen 4cm holes where the bullets went in)? So visual damage and actual damage can be quite different things.

 

P.S. Technically the Breda machine guns were among the weakest in their class, and the UB machine gun is among the best - so, if the designers do model it accurately the MC.202 has a weaker gun than the Mig-3... however the Mig-3 usually only has one 12.7mm and 2x7.62mm guns... so it isn't like it is really much better off.

 

[P40eWarhawk]

18 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

You'll never master flyingthe Mig-3 with that attitude!  

 

Believing the Mig-3 is durable (rather than flammable) is a huge mistake, as is not figuring out how to use a weak machine-gun based armament!

 

It isn't Russian bias - it is just accurately modelling how much more firepower high explosive cannon rounds had! To use machine guns you have to hit pilots or an engine multiple times... basically, you are poking holes in things until they are coated with oil and then shooting more to produce enough sparks to light a fire... so multiple hits to the same area are often needed.

 

As for the Il-2... cannon rounds do damage to a larger area (which is more visibly apparent). I've shot down a Ju-52 using a 37mm cannon with AP rounds - and there were almost no visible holes (because, why would there be anything than a half dozen 4cm holes where the bullets went in)? So visual damage and actual damage can be quite different things.

 

P.S. Technically the Breda machine guns were among the weakest in their class, and the UB machine gun is among the best - so, if the designers do model it accurately the MC.202 has a weaker gun than the Mig-3... however the Mig-3 usually only has one 12.7mm and 2x7.62mm guns... so it isn't like it is really much better off.

 

mate i dont now where that "accurate modeling" comes from i shot mg irl also 50s... they go through that engine block no problem what so ever and one shot lets an engine die i dont dont know where the "accurate" modeling was there also i shot a il2 in the tail all my ammo... if you shoot a tail in the plane with two 50cals not matter how weak they are that tail is absolutley shredded and unuseable... not after wone shot like with a 30 mm but after 100drs?? that think is going down... and yeah i know how to aim thanks very much i also dont spray and pray those shots hit you see how they hitits just absolute nonesense that the whole ammoload that hits a plane wouldnt bring it down and yeah i thx i red the dev blog and i was ecited that 50 cals finally would work (you know how they did IRL) but know... apparently not. and yea the ub has a very high rate of fire but if they make it realistically it should jam every second time you pull the trigger

On 5/1/2020 at 2:41 PM, J28w-Broccoli said:

Good question, wrong forum.

 

Now go try them against the PE-2!

haha i tried ... in the campain .. apparently i hit the gunners so closed i to pointplank range and pumped it full but yeah ... didnt seem too bothered not in the engines nor in the tail .....wheres the forum then?

[Guest deleted@134347]

42 minutes ago, P40eWarhawk said:

. if you shoot a tail in the plane with two 50cals not matter how weak they are that tail is absolutley shredded and unuseable...  that think is going down... and yeah i know how to aim thanks very much i also dont spray and pray those shots hit you see how they hitits just absolute nonesense that the whole ammoload that hits a plane wouldnt bring it down and yeah i thx i red the dev blog and i was ecited that 50 cals finally would work (you know how they did IRL)

 

 

welp.. that's the current DM..

 

if you want an effective shot from .50 cal then you must do a side swipe or a deflective shot. Unloading everything in to the tail section, unfortunately, doesn't do much, I can attest to that myself.    But not sweat, man, the DM is improving. Just to think 2 years ago that we'll have such a drastic change in the projectile calculations in 2020 would be exhilarating.  Give it time... I think the devs just need to figure out the hit box modeling from the dead 6..

 

[gimpy117]

On 5/1/2020 at 8:13 AM, P40eWarhawk said:

on mulitple occasions now i shot all my ammo in a mig 3 and it do jackshit to it... i saw debris flying of but it just didnt do anything they just fly in cericles until you out of ammo.. are those 50 cals modeled as confetti blasters or what? ... or maybe just russian bias...

 

this happened multiple times now. also i was on a tail of of an il2 pumpin all the the ammo perfectly in the teil section... but all the surfaces are still and while theyhave holes in them they arent absolutley fucking shredded as they should be ... wtf is going on with this plane...

 

 

 

 

ap ammo is significantly nerfed with the new damage calculations. 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Technically the Breda machine guns were among the weakest in their class

 

That's something I think a lot of people are overlooking. I've yet to see any assessment that the Breda 12.7 mms were anything more than "barely adequate." So, what do people really expect when going up against a tough target like an Il-2?