Jump to content
Barnacles

Thoughts on the aerodynamic penalty for .50" cal hits.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, sniperton said:

instead of using the link, you may want to simply search for "events, Second World War / WWII, aerial warfare, aircraft, crashed / damaged, German bomber Dornier Do 17" at the search page of alamy.com.

Did that.
Copy and paste of the search term, no results.
 

:drinks:

Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Copy and paste of the search term, no results.

Strange, it works for me, and I cannot find any other way to reference search results at Alamy (other than creating a lightbox).

Anyway, here are the pictures:

 

BBNBK6.jpg

BBNEBC.jpg

BBNEBF.jpg

BBNEBG.jpg

BBNEC6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit - wrong .50 thread

edit 2 - ignore me, wrong clip & wrong plane

 

I think even with API and a fix to the 109 tail, we still need better penetration and perhaps some slightly more complex modelling of engine damage. 

 

Even if it's just 1 more stage that means a plane has to power down and can't run in combat/emergency otherwise it will blow it. Perhaps add "Heavy Engine Damage" to the technochat so players are aware of this. 

 

https://streamable.com/jfwwd0

 

There are at least 6 strikes to the upper and side cowling there. There was apparently "Engine Damaged" in the technochat, but that plane had no issue running at full/combat for another 5 minutes (before getting shot down by someone else). That's ignoring the wing hits as well, which apparently had no affect on flight performance - including the strikes to the right aileron. 

 

50c1.thumb.PNG.f076d3b0d0571d53e44918ded9fb693a.PNG

 

50c2.thumb.PNG.4e360bb7feeddeb6033ea68830486813.PNG

 

 

I'm in agreement here in that the current system appears to be giving a best case to all HE and a worse case to all AP. 

Edited by Cass
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cass said:

I think even with API and a fix to the 109 tail, we still need better penetration and perhaps some slightly more complex modelling of engine damage. 

 

Even if it's just 1 more stage that means a plane has to power down and can't run in combat/emergency otherwise it will blow it. Perhaps add "Heavy Engine Damage" to the technochat so players are aware of this. 

 

https://streamable.com/jfwwd0

 

There are at least 6 strikes to the upper and side cowling there. There was apparently "Engine Damaged" in the technochat, but that plane had no issue running at full/combat for another 5 minutes (before getting shot down by someone else). That's ignoring the wing hits as well, which apparently had no affect on flight performance - including the strikes to the right aileron. 

 

50c1.thumb.PNG.f076d3b0d0571d53e44918ded9fb693a.PNG

 

50c2.thumb.PNG.4e360bb7feeddeb6033ea68830486813.PNG

 

 

I'm in agreement here in that the current system appears to be giving a best case to all HE and a worse case to all AP. 

This main gist of your post is not really to do with aerodynamics, although this is useful research, perhaps put this in another thread? I saw your video, maybe you could cite it's effects in reference to this document? https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA800394

Edited by Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

This main gist of your post is not really to do with aerodynamics, although this is useful research, perhaps put this in another thread? I saw your video, maybe you could cite it's effects in reference to this document? https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA800394

Posted in the wrong 50 thread! Didn't realise the other one was locked but probably about time on that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-38, fighter kills over Europe. Rather than make a comment, I'll just drop this here:

 

 

 

 

Just go to 3:35...............

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VA_SOLIDKREATE
I submitted a very detailed and researched bug report for War Thunder a few years ago that referenced ballistic testing at Aberdeen Proving grounds. It detailed penetration probabilities for various ammo loading a of the .50 cal, 20mm, and 37mm at different angles as well as probabilities for starting fires at various ranges. Before I go to the trouble, how amenable are the developers of IL2 to make corrections should the proper documentation be provided?

Here’s the report I was referencing. Very interesting if you are into technical data.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

Edited by VA_Spectre7
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VA_Spectre7 said:

@VA_SOLIDKREATE
I submitted a very detailed and researched bug report for War Thunder a few years ago that referenced ballistic testing at Aberdeen Proving grounds. It detailed penetration probabilities for various ammo loading a of the .50 cal, 20mm, and 37mm at different angles as well as probabilities for starting fires at various ranges. Before I go to the trouble, how amenable are the developers of IL2 to make corrections should the proper documentation be provided?

Here’s the report I was referencing. Very interesting if you are into technical data.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

 

It is a good report, but since that report has been referenced in this forum dozens of times over the last few years and tests in game done and posted here using it as a reference, I would be astonished if the developers have not considered it as part of their DM modelling.

 

Having said that, there may still be elements of the DM that are wildly in conflict with the report's conclusions: there certainly were in earlier DM iterations, where, for instance, 20mm HE hits to the P-47 engine in particular, were twice as likely to cause terminal damage than the report estimated.  Retesting those particular elements might be worthwhile, but it is incredibly time consuming.

 

The report does not, however, support the contention that the current .50 cal implementation is unrealistically ineffective for AP ammunition, since for the .50 cal it only tests API-T and an incendiary round, neither of which we have in the game. (And we all agree that we should).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, the kind of damage info in this report is what a game like IL2 should build their damage model around. Take a look at this page I pulled as an example.

 

C69AEBF6-7DF9-478F-8943-3745BC034FB6.png

12 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The report does not, however, support the contention that the current .50 cal implementation is unrealistically ineffective for AP ammunition, since for the .50 cal it only tests API-T and an incendiary round, neither of which we have in the game. (And we all agree that we should).

 

 


Honestly, the three rounds we should push to be used for the .50 in Bodenplatte are the M-8 API, M-20 APIT, and M-23 incendiary. All 3 of these rounds were NASTY. The M-23 burned exceptionally hot so as to start fires in the ME-262 fuel with the higher flash point. Also, the M-8 and M-20 rounds actually penetrated better than M-2 AP to my recollection. Also, all 3 of these rounds were in theater by the time of Bodenplatte.

This doc references the M-8, M-20, and M-23 all being in the ETO.

 

Here’s the reference for the Air-to-Air document:

http://tothosewhoserved.org/usa/ts/usatso01/chapter15.html

FD77AB35-FF9A-498C-83FB-9BD2DFE63CFD.png

Edited by VA_Spectre7
Reference provided
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The report does not, however, support the contention that the current .50 cal implementation is unrealistically ineffective for AP ammunition, since for the .50 cal it only tests API-T and an incendiary round, neither of which we have in the game. (And we all agree that we should).

Agreed except for who is "we".

From all the feedback we got, including Jason's latest statement on damage model issues, I don't see where devs agree that we should have API(T) ammo for the cal .50s, quite the contrary.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SAS_Storebror
im admittedly new to the IL2 Great Battle game. I wasn’t aware the devs were opposed to allowing the Allies period correct ammunition. That kind of surprises me considering the extent they went to include the many air-to-ground ordnance selections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Agreed except for who is "we".

From all the feedback we got, including Jason's latest statement on damage model issues, I don't see where devs agree that we should have API(T) ammo for the cal .50s, quite the contrary.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

I do not interpret his recent statement that revisiting the DM is not on the list at the moment as ruling out any future wider developments, perhaps as work on BoN nears completion. It just does not look like it will happen any time soon. 

 

While there may be all sorts of practical reasons to rule out adding new ammunition types soon, especially given the unique circumstances of this plague year, I can see no rational reason why the developers would rule out incendiary ammunition types in principle. TBH I think they should have been in the basic game design from the very beginning, but that is just my opinion. I am sure they are aware of the information that has been presented: we just have to be very patient. 

 

Maybe incendiaries could be added as an additional paid package, like a collector plane.  (Before the screaming starts: this is a joke). 

 

2 minutes ago, VA_Spectre7 said:

@SAS_Storebror
im admittedly new to the IL2 Great Battle game. I wasn’t aware the devs were opposed to allowing the Allies period correct ammunition. That kind of surprises me considering the extent they went to include the many air-to-ground ordnance selections.

 

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that "the devs were opposed to allowing the Allies period correct ammunition."

 

They just have a list of tasks to do, and this is not currently one of them.   

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I really don't know where else to ask:

What have I hit here (and how) that it burns?

The attacker aircraft was a Hurri with the standard 8x.303 setup.

Shots were fired from the deflection range of ~100m.

According to TacView, 28 bullets have hit the Stuka first. Nothing spectacular happened that time. Then, after 4 seconds, a second burst whith 11 hits resulted in this nice campfire. The Stuka went down in flames, but the question is:

1. how can AP ammo do this.

2. why is it not possible (at least for me, with the same ammo) to ignite the fuel tank of an E7?

IL-2  Sturmovik  Battle of Stalingrad Screenshot 2020.11.09 - 18.16.37.85.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ammunition can cause a fire in real life: it only takes a spark or heat from a metal on metal impact, or unburnt tracer.  You can set planes on fire with .50 cals in the game as well.  

 

Ju87s have a fuel tank in the inner wing section where it is relatively exposed, Wiki "The fuel system comprised two fuel tanks between the main (forward) and rear spars of the (inner) anhedral wing section of the port and starboard wings, each with 240-litre (63 US gal) capacity.[22] The tanks also had a predetermined limit which, if passed, would warn the pilot via a red warning light in the cockpit. The fuel was injected via a pump from the tanks to the engine." 

 

The E7's tank is in the fuselage protected by the duralumin plate which is immune to .303 rounds. (? I think.)  You should still be able to get fires started with hits from the side, if you can get enough hits.

 

Without knowing the exact mechanism for how fires start in GB, there is probably some sort of RNG and probability table involved, so sometimes it will take more hits, sometimes less, with quite a wide range.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently read a biography of Pat Pattle and it was explained there that much of his success, and the lesson he taught to new pilots, was in the way he always fired two bursts into bombers. The first was a short burst into the fuel tank then he would wait a couple of seconds and fire another short burst into the same place and this almost invariably set it on fire.  This was with a gladiator then later a hurricane with 303s.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The E7's tank is in the fuselage protected by the duralumin plate which is immune to .303 rounds. (? I think.)

As much as I get from german documents, the 20-layer duralumin plate got introduced with the F series (in order to render incendiary rounds useless; it rendered american .50 AP rounds useless as well, which were able to penetrate the plate, but lost so much energy on it that there was no danger from them anymore - later, the M8 .50 API rounds were effective against that plate again).

The E series from my understanding should have an 8mm steel plate in place, which definitely is effective against .303 ball rounds, but is not supposed to be particularly good against any mix including incendiary rounds (de Wilde shell anyone?), which was why the switch to layered duralumin in the F series.

 

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

You should still be able to get fires started with hits from the side, if you can get enough hits.

I tried endlessly but didn't succeed.

Rather than putting the fuel tank on fire, I've always ended up with a pilot kill that way.

Seems you can set the engine on fire with .303s (with a little luck), but not the fuel tank (at least not with any reasonable probability, read: I'm fully prepared to see a screenshot of the "once in a million" odd occasion to pop up right hereafter).

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Typical 109 fight with a group of mustangs. We shot this 109 up with over 150 rounds of ammunition before he dies, and he survived a total of five gunnery passes. I checked the server log. The second and third passes he was hit with 30+ rounds each and fourth pass I put 91 rounds into it which finally damaged him enough to snap the wing off. 

 

The 109 pilot scored a kill with 8 rounds on target. So take from that what you will. 

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-40E-1 .50's work way better than the P-51, P-47 and the P-38. And they aren't even API-T. I shot down an He-111 today with two passes and only two bursts. It was a real pilot and not an AI bird. And the P-38 still goes into a dive after being hit despite a 'fix' being implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SAS_Storebror said:

As much as I get from german documents, the 20-layer duralumin plate got introduced with the F series (in order to render incendiary rounds useless; it rendered american .50 AP rounds useless as well, which were able to penetrate the plate, but lost so much energy on it that there was no danger from them anymore - later, the M8 .50 API rounds were effective against that plate again).

The E series from my understanding should have an 8mm steel plate in place, which definitely is effective against .303 ball rounds, but is not supposed to be particularly good against any mix including incendiary rounds (de Wilde shell anyone?), which was why the switch to layered duralumin in the F series.

 

I tried endlessly but didn't succeed.

Rather than putting the fuel tank on fire, I've always ended up with a pilot kill that way.

Seems you can set the engine on fire with .303s (with a little luck), but not the fuel tank (at least not with any reasonable probability, read: I'm fully prepared to see a screenshot of the "once in a million" odd occasion to pop up right hereafter).

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

I doubt if the early .303 incendiaries would have penetrated anything - they had only a tiny incendiary charge designed to go off on impact and no internal AP penetrator, so even if they got as far as the Emil's plate I do not think it could penetrate.

 

If you are firing a large number of 303/.50 cal shots into the side in the area of the fuel tank, you will have a very high probability of a few hitting the pilot, who is much easier to destroy, so PKs are going to happen first almost all the time in hits from this angle in a real fight. The DM does allow for fuel tank fires from this angle, however: this is from the He111 side gun, so rifle calibre MG AP ammunition: the pilot was not hit. This was the first time I tried it BTW, after about 200 (edit) rounds.

 

1912822925_Emilonfire.thumb.jpg.63bf6aed24fc65c1cc00181857c4fcf5.jpg 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying do be smart, has anything been said about the 50s? The 51 dm seems to be back to normal after 6 months. My guys have flown by he 38 and say it's a bit better as well.  Do u have any videos of these 38 " dive" issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I doubt if the early .303 incendiaries would have penetrated anything - they had only a tiny incendiary charge designed to go off on impact and no internal AP penetrator, so even if they got as far as the Emil's plate I do not think it could penetrate.

I think (caution: just brainfart, no evidence here) that the "trick" was to "crack" the steel plate with AP bullets, with incendiary rounds then pretty reliably making use of the tiny little cracks and tiny holes to ignite the fuel tank. Layered duralumin isn't prone to cracks and random tiny splinter holes, that's why it was probably superior to the steel plate in that regard.

But I might be completely wrong. No chance to test right now and no such report at hands either.

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

this is from the He111 side gun, so rifle calibre MG AP ammunition: the pilot was not hit. This was the first time I tried it BTW, after about 200 (edit) rounds.

 

1912822925_Emilonfire.thumb.jpg.63bf6aed24fc65c1cc00181857c4fcf5.jpg 

Yep, with a static single-gun long burst you can create effects which are impossible to achieve in real fights 😉
At least it shows there is a way to ignite the tank, and it shows how much the .303s need the de Wilde shell, since I'd highly doubt that a de Wilde belt would need 200 rounds to ignite a fuel tank like that.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Not trying do be smart, has anything been said about the 50s? The 51 dm seems to be back to normal after 6 months. My guys have flown by he 38 and say it's a bit better as well.  Do u have any videos of these 38 " dive" issue?

Yes it was said. They said that they wont revisit current damage model. So we are left with bb guns. 

@SAS_Storebror

Btw, dural plate in f series was unable to stop .50 AP and it had 30% chance to go through empty part of fuel tank and then penetrate pilots 8mm seat and kill pilot. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Yep, with a static single-gun long burst you can create effects which are impossible to achieve in real fights 😉

 

Yep, what you can actually achieve is ...

 

 ... making nice holes all over the plane (any convergence):

548011833_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.06-17_44_25_27.thumb.jpg.afec6e03d55ae13613fd1c3919cf6f50.jpg

 

... ripping one or both of the flaps (convergence: 100m):

799631435_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_11_26_44.thumb.jpg.dce819a3ecde244360a16b6817c6c14f.jpg

 

... sawing off the vertical stabilizer (convergence: 100m):

657662963_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_02_08_71.thumb.jpg.e8846a591a97e00bd227210e40e48025.jpg

329496334_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_12_56_67.thumb.jpg.ed625ea9c00ecd102340d01165e8c667.jpg

 

This, together with massive fuel and coolant leak, can finally convince the pilot that he should abandon his plane:

318407409_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_15_45_92.thumb.jpg.d6641e7072fa79b5844e2aef3cfb5aa0.jpg

 

BTW, coolant and fuel leaks are relatively easy to achieve even from beyond 200m. Thing is that in most SP scenarios the pilot is not bothered by them: he doesn't disengage, he doesn't even go defensive. (This might be an AI/mission design issue.) The same goes for oil leaks, which seem to be impossible to achieve except from high deflection angles.

51748518_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_18_06_57.thumb.jpg.55847df226235e51e39030e22b129cf9.jpg

 

13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Any ammunition can cause a fire in real life: it only takes a spark or heat from a metal on metal impact, or unburnt tracer.  You can set planes on fire with .50 cals in the game as well. 

 

Once a fuel tank is penetrated and leaking fuel, why only wing tanks catch fire? Here you see multiple hits from 100m on the fuel tank area of a 109 massively leaking fuel. Perhaps the RND number for fuselage tank fires is set much lower than for wing tanks?

1020007881_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-14_05_32_49.thumb.jpg.70ae05413cc044611d69c2925db39743.jpg

 

 

Edited by sniperton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unknown.png?width=1443&height=473

Here's an anecdote from a Finnish pilot who got 39 kills with 4x50 cal armed Brewsters. I get the impression here that it supports some of what we see in game. (occasionally you get loads of hits with no kill) but not the fact that lots of 50 cals can rip aircraft skin away, as we don't see significant speed loss for even 30 hits in the wing.

Clearly this is not conclusive, it is anecdotal and open to interpretation, (Ripped apart could mean a lot of things, but importantly he remarks "but the plane didn't go down", suggesting the fact that it didn't was surprising)) but I feel it does support (in a very small way) my initial assertion, that the prob. of kill for 50s is about right in game, just the skin damage for multiple hits is pessimistic, whereas for HE is optimistic.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

Edited by Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for contrast: the Macchi became a killing machine with its "new" HE shells.

1100218253_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-19_08_23_54.thumb.jpg.830f50314b108f491128fc19fa37d2ab.jpg

This is the same E7 after having been hit by 7x .50cal shells from the BREDA. Firing distance was 100m.

Heavy aerodynamic penalty, leaking both coolant and fuel, and trailing smoke. A few seconds later it went ablaze.

It already had an oil leak after the first two (!) rounds which were fired from dead six.

28812241_IL-2SturmovikBattleofStalingradScreenshot2020_11.10-19_14_27_89.thumb.jpg.6ae2667a0fe79ed9f84fc398f07a565a.jpg

Another E7 after 8 hits, just one second before it went ablaze. All hits were scored from 200-250m in deflection.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hastily and unscientifically made conlcusions:

 

(A) AP ammo is right and is historically "on target". In this case the effect of HE ammo is overdone.

(B) HE ammo is right and is historically "on target". In this case the effect of AP ammo is underdone.

Both can''t be right, sorry.

 

(A) AP ammo in-game is meant to be API ammo, and in this case it should be compared to historic API performance. No excuse.

(B) AP ammo in-game is not meant to be API ammo, and in this case it's simply incorrect and historically inadequate. Again, no excuse.

 

Please correct me whenever and wherever I'm wrong in my assumptions and experiences.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 6:45 AM, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

Typical 109 fight with a group of mustangs. We shot this 109 up with over 150 rounds of ammunition before he dies, and he survived a total of five gunnery passes. I checked the server log. The second and third passes he was hit with 30+ rounds each and fourth pass I put 91 rounds into it which finally damaged him enough to snap the wing off. 

 

The 109 pilot scored a kill with 8 rounds on target. So take from that what you will. 

This is very common now with online air battles 2020 .

Its just not the 109s but also the 110s  . 

Has the Allied effect of weapons been Dumb down or nerfed  . ??  by mistake or is this the real deal here . 

I am Axis mainly but switch over to see the effects . 

Been flying Allied for three months now . 

Just two to three hits from Axis will give very poor performance of air-frame . 

Disengage and RTB . 

My thoughts only . 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was originally just messing about during a boring meeting this morning turned into a bit of a .50 Cal test. Quite a of work ended up being not done this morning. 

 

I think individual cases online are always going to be difficult to analyse and shooting at AI has the disadvantage of not knowing what is actually happening to the plane. Therefore I decided to test each of the BoBp planes against .50 cals to understand whether they were slowed down at all by the damage and what was actually breaking. 10 examples with each plane. Unfortunately there were a few pk's in there, but left them in. At the end I let the G14s loose on the planes individually. 

 

I'll probably rerun this at some point as it was difficult to test plane damage due to pilot kills. I had to swerve in some of the planes to stop this as the angle and sheer number of rounds meant they were likely in some of the bubble top planes. Perhaps will use the 4 gun option next time so it's more obvious in terms of the numbers of rounds hit. 

 

 

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://streamable.com/wxe78t

 

This one speaks for itself. I saw it shared on the CB discord yesterday, and I thought it would provide more backing to this discussion. 

 

Ha, looks like Cass beat me to the punch. Regardless, really eye opening stuff.

Edited by QB.Shallot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really eye opening indeed.

I think that this test prove beyond any doubt that the AP rounds do not inflict any significant effect on aerodynamics properties of the planes.

If you run the vid at slow speed you can see that every attack connect more than 40 rounds. The planes don´t loose any significant speed/altitude. The 109s mainly went down by wing lost (not the common cause in reality). There is at least one event (min 13 I think) in wich a 109 lost the left wing tip and has the right wing fractured and bended and about to depart but the plane had only lost 10kph.

 

Thanks a lot for the time to run the test Cass.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cass said:

Perhaps will use the 4 gun option next time so it's more obvious in terms of the numbers of rounds hit.

I don't know how reliable TacView in this respect is, but it gives you timed info on the number of shots and hits per burst.

This way you can establish how many individual or cumulative hits were needed to inflict this or that damage.

For instance I sawed off the vertical stabilizer of the Macchi by landing 70x .303 rounds mostly on its tail.

The alarming fact is that I expended altogether 1032 rounds to do so, although I was firing at a non-maneuvering target from a convergence range of 100m. Online I usually score better against maneuvering targets fired at from 200 to 300 m away. Time to test hit ratios as well.

Edited by sniperton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sniperton said:

Time to test hit ratios as well.

Really interesting. Took the P-40 with 4x .50 cals and fired at a Bf-109-E7 from the convergence ranges of 100 / 200 / 300 / 200 / 100 m, respectivelly.

Target was friendly, not maneuvering, I was aiming a bit above the center line, straight into the top of the fuselage.

Two pilot injuries out of five test cases, but nonetheless I was shooting until the plane went down either burning or trailing thick black smoke.

Rounds expended / hitting / (hit ratio) according to TacView are as follows:

100m: 180 / 9 (5%)

200m: 152 / 3 (2%)

300m: 260 / 7 (2.7%)

200m: 244 / 11 (4,5%)

100m: 100 / 8 (8%)

 

My conclusions, made hastily as always:

1. .50cals AP rounds are indeed very effective if they hit something vital.

2. It's much harder to hit anything vital with wing-mounted guns. They are much less precise than other guns, even if used at the correct convergence range. With wing-mounted guns you have a much lower hit probability. My skills are limited, but under the same test conditions I could score a 10 to 25% hit ratio with the Macchi (in contrast to the 2 to 8% achieved here). How much the difference is realistic, I really can't judge.

3. This thread started with the perception that .50cals don't cause enough aerodynamic penalty. That's the point. As I see now, the problem is not that .50cals cannot kill off targets, but that they cannot help you to get into a situation where you can kill off your target. So back to square zero, aerodynamic penalty caused by .50cals.

Edited by sniperton
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another test. This time 4 x .50 Cal vs 8 x .50 Cal. 10 examples of each.

 

4x 0:00 - 3:05

8x 3:05 - 5:22

 

Probably need a bigger sample size to take anything conclusive from it but there doesn't seem to be a very big difference between the two in most cases. Certainly isn't apparent that 8x gives you double the firepower, but that would be case if the fire power potential is so low to start with. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaand here's where the discussion whether .50 Cals aerodynamic damage is under performing in comparison to other weapons kind of ends in my opinion. 

 

8 .50 Caliber (12.7mm) MGs compared to 2 7.92mm and 1 15mm with a little (2.8g) HE in it. 

 

It's not even remotely close. The fact a single 15mm + a couple of friends has such a significant advantage over 8 12.7mm guns really highlights a drastic issues with the DM. 

 

Yes they work, yes you can do quite well with them. But the fact they have such a glaring obvious weakness means in certain situations you are going to be at a significant disadvantage against the rest of the weapons packages in the game. I mean you already are at a disadvantage against most of the period relevant opposition with .50 Cals even if they were working properly. 

 

I'm not looking for a solution, I know the team are busy and they have done such incredible work this year to get us some amazing updates and content. 

 

All we're looking for is acknowledgment. For someone to say "yeah, not quite right, we'll look into adding it onto what we're trying to do in the future" and then however long it takes, it takes. We've no idea how long the fueling system is going to take to get up and running and regardless of that, even if we get API, the round itself will still be massively under performing in terms of aero damage....we'll just have some more fires. 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been trying to nuke a FW with a P51 in Tip's Lullaby of a Dream campaign, very recommendable BTW.

Seems sheer impossible as if it was invincible ... is that normal, or only since update 4.502?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This isn't exactly related to the OP's question but I'm going to post this before all the whiners start going on about the effectiveness of the .50cal because I can see it coming a mile off. 

 

Watch it before you complain about the .50s. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...