Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Night0wl said:

Sure if API hits a fuel tank thats a big difference compared to ball hitting the fuel tank.

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

Yeah thats true i believe even mythbusters covered this. Only the vapor is flammable but if fuel spurts out of a leaking tank it will make quite a vapor trail. Dont know how well self sealing tanks prevents this though.

 

Just saying i dont think ball or API is going to make a difference in hole size.

Edited by Night0wl
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

And in a given 1 second burst you might have a few punctures made and then fire started immediately from the following bullets hitting the vapour stream. So it could in theory happen very quickly, just not likely from a single bullet. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Night0wl said:

 

I really doubt API .50 is really going to make a different size hole compared to ball .50 Its not gonna explode into shrapnell like a HE round.

 

Except that shrapnel is not the major cause of aero damage of HE rounds. If that was the case, the mineshells would not be very effective at all, as the whole point of the mineshell is maximizing explosive through minimizing the shell casing. What makes the mineshells so effective in the current modeling is the explosive effect, and the large explosive charge, not the shrapnell.

 

Granted, API has a much smaller explosive effect, indeed it's more of a conflagration than anything like a grenade blast, but there is still an effect. Against aircraft aluminium it would have some sort of effect on top of the bullet's kinetic impact (and any additional effects caused by oblique entry/tumble/what have you). And of course, it would definitely increase the chances of fires in general, as has been mentioned (that was the whole point, after all).

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@CountZero @71st_AH_BarnaclesThanks for info posted above.
 

Now I know where to look in game files I can see that its all AP rounds in the M2 guns. Not surprising they are not as effective as they should be. Pretty confident the belts in M2 guns in ww2 USA were not just AP/APT rounds, and putting only AP/APT rounds in a belt would never have been done IRL in a fighter plane

 

6 hours ago, Night0wl said:

 

I really doubt API .50 is really going to make a different size hole compared to ball .50 Its not gonna explode into shrapnell like a HE round.

 

Sure if API hits a fuel tank thats a big difference compared to ball hitting the fuel tank.

 

I'm also pretty confident API rounds would make quite a difference  if/when they get added, based info I've seen and read.

 

Its also interesting to see APHE is is in game , just not in American planes, (looks like only Italian , German and Russian bullets have this in their ammo belts). Not saying APHE should be in the American M2 just that its likely why the Russian 12.7mm  "UB" rounds seem to be a lot more effective compared to M2 rounds.

 

I did not realise the limited ammo types modeled in IL-2,(esp compared to IL-2 COD which I also own), especially in the M2 on American fighters.

 

image.png.93be1bba963ca8a237556e3127de88c7.png

 

Some info I found on the M2, and other ww2 ammo types used in ww2 planes (see link for full details) its an interesting read.

Quote

The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges.

 

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

 

A further validation of the calculations is provided by the outcome of tests by the USN, which stated that the 20 mm Hispano was about three times as destructive as the .50 M2. In the above table, the ratio between their scores is 3.3.

 

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS (REF LINK)

Not sure of accuracy of this information, but it seems plausible , its certainly an interesting read.

 

In regards to aerodynamic penalty of AP/APT current rounds, I'd like to see this re-evaluated...

 

At the moment they are great at damaging critical components, and pilot kills, but otherwise do little damage, is that accurate no idea. If it had the API ammo in the belt also I'm sure it would help considerably (in bringing down planes), but more likely it would cause a fire first, and maybe more often than currently is seen in game.

 

Regarding taking down large bombers, Cannons are always far more effective, and I agree with the quote above in this regard.

And why the Germans went to the larger 30mm cannons, like the MK108. Of course the main target for American 50 cal was fighters and ground targets, not bombers that late in the war.

 

 

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
picture added
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

@CountZero @71st_AH_BarnaclesThanks for info posted above.
 

Now I know where to look in game files I can see that its all AP rounds in the M2 guns. Not surprising they are not as effective as they should be. Pretty confident the belts in M2 guns in ww2 USA were not just AP/APT rounds, and putting only AP/APT rounds in a belt would never have been done IRL in a fighter plane

 

 

I'm also pretty confident API rounds would make quite a difference  if/when they get added, based info I've seen and read.

 

Its also interesting to see APHE is is in game , just not in American planes, (looks like only Italian , German and Russian bullets have this in their ammo belts). Not saying APHE should be in the American M2 just that its likely why the Russian 12.7mm  "UB" rounds seem to be a lot more effective compared to M2 rounds.

 

I did not realise the limited ammo types modeled in IL-2,(esp compared to IL-2 COD which I also own), especially in the M2 on American fighters.

 

image.png.93be1bba963ca8a237556e3127de88c7.png

 

Some info I found on the M2, and other ww2 ammo types used in ww2 planes (see link for full details) its an interesting read.

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS (REF LINK)

Not sure of accuracy of this information, but it seems plausible , its certainly an interesting read.

 

In regards to aerodynamic penalty of AP/APT current rounds, I'd like to see this re-evaluated...

 

At the moment they are great at damaging critical components, and pilot kills, but otherwise do little damage, is that accurate no idea. If it had the API ammo in the belt also I'm sure it would help considerably , but more likely it would cause a fire first, and maybe more often than currently is seen in game

 

 

 

 

I believe you are right it should do more to aerodynamics but i really dont agree with the API going to cause more damage than regular AP rounds only when it hits a fuel tank.. even if it was a wooden plane like say the mosquito the incendiary wont do much when it travels through a plane unless theres fuel vapors it just wont do much when its in such short contact with something even if its wood.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Night0wl said:

I believe you are right it should do more to aerodynamics but i really dont agree with the API going to cause more damage than regular AP rounds only when it hits a fuel tank.. even if it was a wooden plane like say the mosquito the incendiary wont do much when it travels through a plane unless theres fuel vapors it just wont do much when its in such short contact with something even if its wood.

 

 

No not more damage (that was not my meaning), than normal AP rounds, its purpose is to penetrate and /or ignite things *like fuel*. Setting something on fire of course then would be more damage.

I think how game currently models aerodynamic damage is purely hole size, of which explosive shells do the most in this regard (not twisted/peeled  metal as that is not modeled as far as I know)

 

The exit damage of a bullet is where all the damage occurs , not the entry point. If the AP round can go through the thing hit , then you would see more tearing in the surface (of say a wing). If the bullet tumbles or disintegrates  it may do more internal damage, but its also less likely to exit the structure if that happens.

 

I think the AP rounds in game is all about critical thing (plane part/pilot) being damaged. I would expect depending on plane type and structure this will vary alot. The closer u get the more likely rounds will go through the target. Also some rounds will bounce/deflect off the thing hit depending on what is hit ,the angle of the shot , and distance of the target, and closing speed a little too.

 

Maybe the question to ask what is the likelihood the 50 cal AP  rounds goes through the thing it hits and exits, as this impacts the aero the most???

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

as I Have  shot many of AP and API rounds out of a M2 and some Rifles that would be considered sniper rifles in the real, the AP is very effective at that,  Armor penetrating, but the Incendiary round is so much more magical.  This is a crucial missing feature of our M2 Ammo belts in Game.  It wont make it into a Doom God weapon but it brings the very important chemical component to the terminal ballistics, and when we are talking these rounds hitting Air frames and fuel sources this is a very good combo.

  Those incendiary rounds did magic against many a train, ammo depot, and fuel depots when these fellas went looking for tgts of opportunity. 

 

  Now the AP round can tumble as not all AP rounds are created equal, the penetrator in the round itself is not always inlay-ed perfectly and can have a critical effect at or past the max ord of the round.  So in other words the rounds can tumble mid flight for more than one reason or another and when that happens and hits fuselage  and wings it wont create the perfect nail driver holes as a round that had no issues in flight and or manufacture.   

  I think as much as i would love full terminal ballistics being modeled per round and round type its just reality we will have to settle for a compromise in sim.  So at the very least have the API chemical component added to the mix. 

 

m2 is is a nail driver just like a good 1911 is

Edited by MercCrom175
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MercCrom175 said:

  Now the AP round can tumble as not all AP rounds are created equal, the penetrator in the round itself is not always inlay-ed perfectly and can have a critical effect at or past the max ord of the round.  So in other words the rounds can tumble mid flight for more than one reason or another and when that happens and hits fuselage  and wings and can create not the perfect nail driver wholes as a round that had no issues in flight and or manufacture.   

  I think as much as i would love full terminal ballistics being modeled per round and round type its just reality we will have to settle for a compromise in sim.  So at the very least have the API chemical component added to the mix. 

 

m2 is is a nail driver just like a good 1911 is

 

While I see AP could be made to tumble in flight , Did the M2 AP rounds used in ww2 tumble before impact?

 

Because I would think that would make them a lot less effective at piecing if that was the case.

And AP rounds used in planes , its all about getting through Armour to kill the pilot or damage something critical like the engine.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to post
Share on other sites

true but its something to consider, even after the round has penetrated it will follow path of least resistance and hopefully that path will create cavitation and critical damage to other components on its route.  If a 50 cal round is tumbling it still will easily pass through the weak skin of an airplane and or light skinned vehicle.  I wish i had pics of stuff from real world comparing a nail driver hole vs and tumbled 50 cal round hole.  But anyways  as far as aerodynamic affects i would imagine with enough holes in the right place it should affect many aspects of flight, but nothing compared to a cannon round blast hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MercCrom175 said:

true but its something to consider, even after the round has penetrated it will follow path of least resistance and hopefully that path will create cavitation and critical damage to other components on its route.  If a 50 cal round is tumbling it still will easily pass through the weak skin of an airplane and or light skinned vehicle.  I wish i had pics of stuff from real world comparing a nail driver hole vs and tumbled 50 cal round hole.  But anyways  as far as aerodynamic affects i would imagine with enough holes in the right place it should affect many aspects of flight, but nothing compared to a cannon round blast hole.

 

yes , so my point is its about the exit damage of the AP round , and the more energy lost inside the object , the less likely to exit. Really depends on energy of the round when it hits target and then the other factors come into play as to whether it exits again. (more likely yes in the wing)

 

Personally I don't believe M2 rounds in ww2 tumbled before impact (in plane guns)

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

yes , so my point is its about the exit damage of the AP round , and the more energy lost inside the object , the less likely to exit. Really depends on energy of the round when it hits target and then the other factors come into play as to whether it exits again. (more likely yes in the wing)

 

Personally I don't believe M2 rounds in ww2 tumbled before impact (in plane guns)

From memory, given the muzzle velocity of the M2 they wouldn't start tumbling until over at least 1200 yds, so for the purpose of hitting planes they should hit true.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you have the best case scenario ballistics for the 50 and no tumbling, but in reality many things can contribute to this, one being bad lot of ammo from the depot.....,  I fully agree since at most 300M engagement range against another Aircraft you should be spot on nail driver, matter of fact most engagements would still fall in the rising branch before hitting max ord so lots of power upon impact.    

 

Sorry Feet and Yards dont compute in my Marksmanship brain.  Meters it is for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MercCrom175 said:

 

Sorry Feet and Yards dont compute in my Marksmanship brain.  Meters it is for me.

 

I'd wager that everyone besides Hans Marseille could use yards and meters interchangeably in this situation with no discernable differences at all. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are anecdotes of WW2 pilots who reported being in a fight and weren't sure if they were hit, returned to base and found out if so or not. If aerodynamic consequences of the average hit were significant, you wouldn't read that sort of report. This is even true for larger aircraft being hit, or not, by cannon shells (even though here the wingmen had an easier time to spot possible damage in flight).

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

There are anecdotes of WW2 pilots who reported being in a fight and weren't sure if they were hit, returned to base and found out if so or not. If aerodynamic consequences of the average hit were significant, you wouldn't read that sort of report. This is even true for larger aircraft being hit, or not, by cannon shells (even though here the wingmen had an easier time to spot possible damage in flight).

That's really good info actually. It'd definitely help me reconcile what I'm seeing with the 50 hits.

But in game there seems to be a wild disparity to that anecdote, and getting hit with even one cannon shell in game at least. Generally if you get hit by 20mm even once your plane obviously takes a massive degradation in ride quality.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interesting to know what the Dev's are trying to approximate with their speed loss: Is it a summation of neat, half inch holes; or does it try to approximate the summation of more serious ripping and tearing to aerodynamic surfaces.

In my old job I had some really good film and pictures of .50" cal hits to engines of speedboats and boat hulls and stuff. I don't have access to them now, but I can assure you it wasn't always just neat .50" cookie cutter holes.

 

I'd argue that their algorithm needs to factor in the possibility that when hitting an aerodynamic surface, there's a good chance, owing to its MV and penetrative properties, that a 50 cal (or indeed any high velocity mg round) will tumble and take a bit of material though the other side with it.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I've been re-reading "Thunderbolt!" by Johnson and am currently working on getting all his descriptions of kills from the book into one post. So far it looks like losing speed to drag increase is the LEAST of your worries when being hit by .50s, at least by 8 of them at convergence. So far his first five kills all more or less follow this pattern. 

IMG_1207.PNG

IMG_1208.PNG

Edited by Rattlesnake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Version 4.007 - We did several simple tests in multiplayer to compare the German 131 (.51 cal) machine gun to the US .50 cal machine gun.   The test was to fly close enough to only target one wing of an airplane and fire one short burst.  When the German 131 (x2 ME 109) hits a wing with a short burst the target immediately loses about 20 - 30 mph of speed and becomes very hard to control.  Please note: No 20mm was fired.   Using the same test when US .50 cal MG (x6 P-51) hits a wing with short burst the target suffers little to no discernible speed loss or handling issues.  The test was repeated several times with the same results.   We tried both P-40 and P-51 wings as targets and results were the same.   The 131 and M2 are comparable in diameter with the M2 having substantially high velocity and 131 having a 200-300 round faster ROF,  however, the US plane should be putting about 2.5x as many rounds on target due to the number of weapons.   There currently seems to be something wrong with the damage model/weapon effects of the M2.  It appears that on wing hits two German 131 are far superior to six US M2.   In fact, the 131 appears to be about as effective as a 20 mm cannon.   This test is easy to perform and repeatable in results.   We did not try to assess the damage on fuselage hits.  Do not know if this is long existing problem or started with new damage model.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Any tracks of the tests?

A track isn't very useful as the results can only be seen by the person that is flying the target airplane.   However, the test is very simple to perform.   Just get one person to fly the target aircraft nice and steady then have another person creep up close enough to target ONLY one wing only and fire a quick burst with the weapon.  We used auto-level then took over the flying after noting the speed loss to check the handling characteristics.  It's very important that you don't shoot up the whole plane (obviously.)  The person flying the target can then note the speed loss and handling changes.   None of our tests involved more than a single short burst, so the planes didn't suffer enough damage to become completely unflyable.   However, you can probably see that crippling damage that could win a battle seems much easier with the 131 then the M2.   We did four tests yesterday and my friends did a few tests last week.  I suggest getting a friend and performing this yourself.  I didn't believe it at first, but I'm a believer after doing the test with the friend that told me about it.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

A track isn't very useful as the results can only be seen by the person that is flying the target airplane.   However, the test is very simple to perform.   Just get one person to fly the target aircraft nice and steady then have another person creep up close enough to target ONLY one wing only and fire a quick burst with the weapon.  We used auto-level then took over the flying after noting the speed loss to check the handling characteristics.  It's very important that you don't shoot up the whole plane (obviously.)  The person flying the target can then note the speed loss and handling changes.   None of our tests involved more than a single short burst, so the planes didn't suffer enough damage to become completely unflyable.   However, you can probably see that crippling damage that could win a battle seems much easier with the 131 then the M2.   We did four tests yesterday and my friends did a few tests last week.  I suggest getting a friend and performing this yourself.  I didn't believe it at first, but I'm a believer after doing the test with the friend that told me about it.

In a track though, you would be able to note the decrease in speed (or lack thereof) after damage and confirm that there was no impact on aerodynamics. 

I'm only saying this because the standard thing for the devs to do with bugs and issues is to ask for a track of the situation for them to look at. I don't think they're just watching the track, they probably have a way to pull a lot more information out of a track file than we can just by watching it. Anyone can make a post, a video and a track of the same situation carries a bit more weight and opens up more avenues for the devs to investigate if it is indeed a bug. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

A track isn't very useful as the results can only be seen by the person that is flying the target airplane.   

 

Then have the person flying the target plane make a track.  Also turn set "mission_text_log = 1" in startup.cfg   This will give another check of how many hits  were made. The developers will be able to check this easily but they will usually only do it if you demonstrate the alleged bug.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree

 

I think the main problem isnt 0.50 .... the problem is DM of Bfs and Fokes. They need a "credible" DM where for example, hit on surfaces causes some apreciable damage. 

Is funny and fustrating , see how this planes can be keep performance for combat, after be hitted several times , like nothing is happening

 

actually, now, this game is like a religion... u need believe . If you don't believe... u will be blame. Victim of your feeling .

 And accept the main ... all u feel strange is a simply internet effect

;)

 

yes i become tired of all of this , and i think im not the only one , cmon, im ready for crucifixion.

 

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
Link to post
Share on other sites

@[Pb]Cybermat47

 

No they did not. They used API (incendiary) later which could be effective, but these had their own issues regarding penetrative power (more hollow round to allow for the incendiary filler - less penetration than a ball round).

 

@BCI-Nazgul

 

Guys we have enough threads about the .50 calibre guns ongoing, can we please not keep creating the same topic over and over again. Its very irritating, please use the threads already active, check under the 'activity tab' if required.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

Did the M2 have explosive rounds like the 131?

 

I might be wrong but the  explosive round, or to be precise the Brandsprengranate Leuchtspur (Incendiary Highexplosive Tracer) only contained 0.9g of PETN and 0.3g of Thermite and was phased out by 1944 in favour of the Brandgranate Leuchtspur (Incendiary tracer) which did work like a little flame thrower or welding torch spewing its incendiary contingent forth over 5m of flight path while beeing able to penetrate  multiple compartments (Schotten) of the aicraft and staying intact (lose translation). So you really dont want to get one of those into your unarmoured wing tank. Looking at you P-51 and Yak-9 ;)

13mm1.thumb.PNG.4deda2e25f9a312231525a41bf96d444.PNG13mm2.thumb.PNG.601fd3d5b26b82d432757db640a99520.PNG

Edited by the_emperor
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

I agree

 

I think the main problem isnt 0.50 .... the problem is DM of Bfs and Fokes. They need a "credible" DM where for example, hit on surfaces causes some apreciable damage. 

Is funny and fustrating , see how this planes can be keep performance for combat, after be hitted several times , like nothing is happening

 

actually, now, this game is like a religion... u need believe . If you don't believe... u will be blame. Victim of your feeling .

 And accept the main ... all u feel strange is a simply internet effect

;)

 

yes i become tired of all of this , and i think im not the only one , cmon, im ready for crucifixion.

 

 

We tested to isolate the DM as well. I'm the other side of the tests Naz is talking about. When a 109 is put in the target position and shot up with M2's and 131's the results track along the lines of other planes we have tested, P-40, P-51, 109, 111, it remains fairly consistent. All the data I can see points to the guns. I don't have a track file from the tests either. It never occurred to me to make one. I will make one if we do further tests.

 

All the other stuff, about the entrenched sides. Well, ya, I've seen that song and dance before. Kind of made me hesitant to even bring this up because I really don't need the drama, but here I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are just dissatisfied with the .50 calibre at the moment. I'd suggest waiting to see the changes in the fuel systems and API rounds which may affect the vulnerability of these fighters. Otherwise this is just chewing the same discussion point out of dissatisfaction. The Dev team has spent an enormous amount of time working the DM's, and its one of the most accurate in any WW2 simulation out there.. so to say the .50 calibre isn't doing what it 'should' or we need "credible" DM's because they don't meet personal expectations is just so insensitive and provocative - its insulting to all the hard work they've done overhauling it.

 

10 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

I agree

 

I think the main problem isnt 0.50 .... the problem is DM of Bfs and Fokes. They need a "credible" DM where for example, hit on surfaces causes some apreciable damage. 

Is funny and fustrating , see how this planes can be keep performance for combat, after be hitted several times , like nothing is happening

 

actually, now, this game is like a religion... u need believe . If you don't believe... u will be blame. Victim of your feeling .

 And accept the main ... all u feel strange is a simply internet effect

;)

 

yes i become tired of all of this , and i think im not the only one , cmon, im ready for crucifixion.

 

 

 

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the damage sure doesn't seem to track with historical accounts.   I have NEVER read a pilots account, book, or video where the US pilots said their guns were poor/ineffective or not as good as the German weapons in fighter combat and I've read/watched a lot of WWII material.  The fact that US kept .50s all through the Korean War indicates to me that worked just fine.   A short burst was enough to either destroy or render any fighter combat ineffective.  The closest I've read is that some US pilots regarded the German cannons as more deadly IF they hit you because they were made to shoot down bombers.  Some said they were LESS effective in dogfights due to lower ROF.   Our tests clearly show that they are pretty much incapable of doing any handling damage to a wing without a critical hit.   You all know that long bursts that have a high percentage of hits in IL2 are rare.   You are lucky to get just a couple rounds on target most of the time.   If you consider the wings are probably the largest part of any plane it follows that crippling damage is much less likely by the M2 while nearly ANY hit by the 131 will render a plane combat ineffective.  At point you'll probably lose any dogfight.   The way it stands right now I can say that if I was only trying to get kills it would be stupid to fly any US plane that was only armed with .50s (P-40, P-51, P-47, etc...)

 

12 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

I might be wrong but the  explosive round, or to be precise the Brandsprengranate Leuchtspur (Incendiary Highexplosive Tracer) only contained 0.9g of PETN and 0.3g of Thermite and was phased out by 1944 in favour of the Brandgranate Leuchtspur (Incendiary tracer) which did work like a little flame thrower or welding torch spewing its incendiary contingent forth over 5m of flight path while beeing able to penetrate  multiple compartments (Schotten) of the aicraft and staying intact (lose translation). So you really dont want to get one of those into your unarmoured wing tank. Looking at you P-51 and Yak-9 ;)

13mm1.thumb.PNG.4deda2e25f9a312231525a41bf96d444.PNG13mm2.thumb.PNG.601fd3d5b26b82d432757db640a99520.PNG

.9g of PETN is so negligible as to make it fairly not a factor.   A big firecracker (M-80 3g of low explosive) probably has more explosive power.   As you state, you're better off with an incendiary warhead.

 

3 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

People are just dissatisfied with the .50 calibre at the moment. I'd suggest waiting to see the changes in the fuel systems and API rounds which may affect the vulnerability of these fighters. Otherwise this is just chewing the same discussion point out of dissatisfaction. The Dev team has spent an enormous amount of time working the DM's, and its one of the most accurate in any WW2 simulation out there.. so to say the .50 calibre isn't doing what it 'should' or we need "credible" DM's because they don't meet personal expectations is just so insensitive and provocative - its insulting to all the hard work they've done overhauling it.

 

 

Are we going to get API for the .50s??  I understand all the work that went into the DM.  I'm not disparaging that, but it's possible something is either bugged or their code is missing an important factor that they didn't know about or don't have the correct routines written to handle.   I coded for years and there are bugs/imperfections in even the best software.

 

12 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

@[Pb]Cybermat47

Guys we have enough threads about the .50 calibre guns ongoing, can we please not keep creating the same topic over and over again. Its very irritating, please use the threads already active, check under the 'activity tab' if required.

 

I searched on ".50" and "M2" and got no results.   Maybe I'm not using it correctly.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Spacing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are pretty simple on this issue.  
 

If 6x.50cal can rip open the 1 inch thick (or more) cold-rolled steel boiler of a railroad locomotive, then, someone please explain to me how/why they can’t rip the sh#& out of any airplane made out of 1/4 inch or thinner aluminum?  ...And I don’t need game videos to back up my claim; there are plenty of verifiable US Army Archive Gun Cam videos on YouTube to support that.

 

 

Edited by 352ndOscar
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 352ndOscar said:

I thoughts are pretty simple on this issue.  
 

If 6x.50cal can rip open the 1 inch thick (or more) cold-rolled steel boiler of a railroad locomotive, then, someone please explain to me how/why they can’t rip the sh#& out of any airplane made out of 1/4 inch or thinner aluminum?

 

It really is pretty simple.  Locomotive boilers at work are filled with high pressure steam. Aeroplane structures are not. Make a small hole or holes in a locomotive boiler and the escaping steam will rip the hole wider.  Make a small hole in a plane and nothing much will happen unless you hit a crucial component.

 

If you make lots of hits which tear the skin rather than going straight through you would expect to see some aerodynamic degradation. But to down the target you will usually have to hit pilot, engine, fuel tank or control systems.  No different to 20mm AP in principle. If you get many shots on target this is what will usually happen. Sometimes you will get lucky with just one hit, but generally you need a long burst or a short burst at convergence to give a good probability of a kill.  

 

HE shells shred the skin making large jagged holes in the skin, potentially tearing off whole sheets. You do not need to hit a critical system if you make the target unflyable.

 

4 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Well, the damage sure doesn't seem to track with historical accounts.   I have NEVER read a pilots account, book, or video where the US pilots said their guns were poor/ineffective or not as good as the German weapons in fighter combat and I've read/watched a lot of WWII material.  The fact that US kept .50s all through the Korean War indicates to me that worked just fine. 

 

Cannons were objectively better for air-air combat during WW2, pilots were not the best judge of this. Very few US pilots ever hit a plane using a cannon, or even fired one, how can they make valid comparisons?  Read a800394 on Airplane Vulnerability, US ballistics tests done by people who know what they are talking about. 

 

The USAF stuck with 50 cals throughout because they were adequate when used in numbers, in mass production so plentiful and cheap.  Additionally the US procurement system made a hash of setting the right tolerances to make US mass-manufactured 20mm effective.    

 

BTW I have no idea if the MG 131 is doing too much structural damage.  The wider .50 cal topic has been discussed at length in the forum, but I accept that a forum structure does not lend itself to easy searching.  

 

  

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Well, the damage sure doesn't seem to track with historical accounts.   I have NEVER read a pilots account, book, or video where the US pilots said their guns were poor/ineffective or not as good as the German weapons in fighter combat and I've read/watched a lot of WWII material.  The fact that US kept .50s all through the Korean War indicates to me that worked just fine.   A short burst was enough to either destroy or render any fighter combat ineffective.


Do all of these accounts state that the pilots only ever aimed their .50s at the wings of enemy aircraft? Because every time I’ve seen footage of .50s shredding enemy aircraft from IRL and in-game, it’s been aimed at the fuselage, where the pilot, engine, fuel tank, radiators, etc. are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2020 at 9:16 PM, BCI-Nazgul said:

 When the German 131 (x2 ME 109) hits a wing with a short burst the target immediately loses about 20 - 30 mph of speed and becomes very hard to control.  Please note: No 20mm was fired.   Using the same test when US .50 cal MG (x6 P-51) hits a wing with short burst the target suffers little to no discernible speed loss or handling issues.  The test was repeated several times with the same results. 

 

The reason might be this:

 

 

Fliegerfibel Ammo.jpg

131-1.jpg

131-2.jpg

131-3.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BCI-Nazgul

 

FYI - here's the links to the existing .50 calibre discussions, appreciate its not always easy to find these - but this topic has been saturated already on other threads.

 

 

 

Also.. the back end of the below thread has become a topic for the .50 calibre (especially configuration when mounted in P-51) - part of the new game version topic is the DM changes:

 

 

So please take your pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aurora Stealth

 

I don't insulting anybody.

 

I only say what i think, and i was very polite because my deep feelings about this game i can assure you, are worst.

Im playing from start to this game... i see all evolution, and i aprecciate perfectly what direction takes, and dont like.

 

When i will have enought, my solution will be easy. I will Stop play. thats all. No more problems

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

The reason might be this:

 

 

Fliegerfibel Ammo.jpg

131-1.jpg

131-2.jpg

131-3.jpg

 

You do realize that posting a bunch of technical documents that are all in German into a conversation that is taking part entirely in English with no context and no explanation of their contents is decidedly unhelpful, right? Did it never occur to you that the people having this conversation might not understand a single word of any of this? Somehow I think it might not have. You may be shocked to learn that all of this means nothing to me. It would be as useful as me posting the entire technical manual for the Yak 1 in it's original format and calling that an argument.

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...