Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

=621=Samikatz
Just now, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

 

This is the reason 50 cals will suck no matter what.

 

Your average luftie ace is well versed in this bull... and landing 1 20mm vs landing 2-3 50 cals on that thing makes a wold of difference in MP.

 

This sim really needs proper redouts. You absolutely cannot pull that kind of comedy wobbling in Cliffs and you have to stick to more realistic defensive options because of it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

This sim really needs proper redouts. You absolutely cannot pull that kind of comedy wobbling in Cliffs and you have to stick to more realistic defensive options because of it

Are you sure? ;)
 

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
=621=Samikatz
43 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Are you sure? ;)
 

 

 

Wow, I must've overcooked it earlier because I did a hard nose-down at speed and my screen stayed red for ages after, I was completely lost once recovered. I guess I just over-did it before

Link to post
Share on other sites
Legioneod
5 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

 

This is the reason 50 cals will suck no matter what.

 

Your average luftie ace is well versed in this bull... and landing 1 20mm vs landing 2-3 50 cals on that thing makes a wold of difference in MP.

 

Pilot fatigue should really be increased/modeled for things like this. You would tire yourself out doing things like this.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
=DMD=Honza
On 8/17/2020 at 11:45 PM, Legioneod said:

 

Pilot fatigue should really be increased/modeled for things like this. You would tire yourself out doing things like this.

First of all, you wouldnt have done it in real plane at all, you would have loost all of your control and fell into uncontrolled spins. I hate how every german pilot is abusing this monster huge FM fail... 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
CIA_Yankee_

Ultimately, to me the best argument about _something_ being wrong with the 50s is simple: if you were to replace the AP ammo in the game with HE .50 cal ammo (like the Yaks use), the USAAF planes would be far, far more lethal. A p-51 with 6 .50s shooting HE ammo would be monstrous. And if that was a reflection of reality, you can bet the allies would have made the switch. Of course, it's not a reflection of reality. 

 

That simple "thought experiment" is enough to show that there is a problem, and something should be done. AP aero effect should be boosted, or HE effect toned down, or API ammo introduced to bridge the gap. Or, more likely, a combinatino of the above.

 

And, of course, there is the fact that in a historical discourse that has been replete with all parties being quick to point out the follies and failures of each side, comments that USAAF airplanes were poorly armed and had significant trouble shooting down their targets (compared to the other air forces) are curiously absent. In a world where Ronson M4s and Krupp Stalh is  everywhere, that absence is notable.

 

Thank you.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero

Before 4.005 update there was no problems with 0.50 american guns, they were the only good thing in this game when you have to fly american airplane in MP, and then for some reason they decided to change that so you realy have to think americans hated their pilots in ww2 and realy liked german pilots if they build airplanes with 0.50 and on top AP when all other countries used 20mm for some reason. Who ever decided that american airplanes should used 0.50 in ww2 was probably traitor and was working for germans, there is no other way, no sain person would use 0.50 AP we have in game for anything els then scraching old paint from things.

 

This game is realy wonder, we can descover that tempests had top secret of weak wings, 0.50 dont work, slave build german engines were the best and 109 tail was stronger then tiger front armor...

Edited by CountZero
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
=DMD=Honza
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Before 4.005 update there was no problems with 0.50 american guns, they were the only good thing in this game when you have to fly american airplane in MP, and then for some reason they decided to change that so you realy have to think americans hated their pilots in ww2 and realy liked german pilots if they build airplanes with 0.50 and on top AP when all other countries used 20mm for some reason. Who ever decided that american airplanes should used 0.50 in ww2 was probably traitor and was working for germans, there is no other way, no sain person would use 0.50 AP we have in game for anything els then scraching old paint from things.

 

This game is realy wonder, we can descover that tempests had top secret of weak wings, 0.50 dont work, slave build german engines were the best and 109 tail was stronger then tiger front armor...

There are 2 possibilities. Endurance of damaged plane is aburd compared to real life as most of the guncams in western front from 8th air force show smoking planes with major damage all over the plane, most likely loosing engine extremely quickly. Meanwhile in IL2 i managed to land long burst from P47 into BF109G14.... He's been loosing water, fuel and oil. It took him freaking 2-4 minutes to fall from the sky. Meanwhile, hes been chasing me and slowly catching up to me. This is simply WRONG. After long burs, from 0.50s anywhere into plane, even its body, would result in critical damage of all components here and around that area. BF-109s were fragile planes to heavy MG fire. They were catching fire quite often, they were losing engines after almost every burst into center mass around cockpit and engine. Meanwhile in game they can survive massive damage, outturn you, catch you and then oneshot you. Its that, or damage of .50s is absolutely hammered down as there is absolutely no chance that they were that useless in real life. If we are already forced to face most rare german figters in most common US planes (like why dont we have P47M when germans have K? ). Make their ammo atleast correctly. Another thing is, MGs in US planes have wrong gun convergence. US didnt used ranged covergence like we can set. they used patterns for .50s to make as many hits to as many places on plane. at certain range, they were able to hit wings, tail and engine area at the same time in deflection shooting due to patterns where each pair or even gun were in slightly different angle. Which makes huge difference in aiming and landing shots on target.
 image.thumb.png.bf16061c80c6c9f57f8c79ffc2b2caf6.png

 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cpt_Siddy

There is literally no Aeridynamical drag penalty, i shot up a 109k-4 from  a dead six, despite this, and leaking every imaginable fluid, he managed to catch up with clean intact 150 oct pony on down low. 

 

After flying a full west front TAW campaign on allies (had no issues dunking on allies when i flew west TAW on axis, 30mms works juuuust fine), i have come to conclusion that flying anything without 20mm hispano is exercise in frustration. Even one hit from p-38's hispano is enough to cripple enemy, the 4 50 cal center line guns? not so much...

 

Are this story anecdotal? Yeah, its my personal experience, but quite frankly i am not alone with this. Explosive HMG's don't seem to suffer from this so Russian and German HMG's seems to be fine, tho the next TAW on eastern front will prolly show the truth of the matter. 

 

If this is how things are going to be in MP for a while, i think ill pick up a new hobby until this is issue have had another look by the people with power to change things. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
JG7_X-Man
On 8/6/2020 at 12:00 PM, Tatata_Time said:

...Well..... Let "Experten" & Experts give their opinions based in real & true combat experience,

Well they are human and like the rest of us are prone sometimes to get it wrong

 

Example: Chuck Yeager 4:40 taking about firing the disadvantaged of the 20 mm cannon.

 

As the Luftwaffe fired both HE and AP rounds on the same belt, the HE round would make a large hole then the AP round would rupture anything metal inside (if you look at an engine or wing components) tearing up cables, control rods, frames etc...

 

image.png.5e2c2a9c41a760a80400c3afffd9106c.png

 

My guess is the aircraft Chuck Yeager and co were inspecting are instances where the AP round didn't hit anything important. I am 100% sure that most aircraft where the API rounds hit something important - didn't make it back to base for inspection. 

 

Again it's a matter of difference in ideology (higher rate of fire vs greater lethality). The need to spray rounds and hopefully hit a fuel/hydraulic/oil line with the .50 cal API or ~ 3 hits of a 20 mm (HE AP combo) that could blow the aircraft in two. There is a reason the VVS and RAF went with a 20 mm standard round as well - because they saw the advantage early on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror

The 20mm gun might have an advantage over a group of cal .50s, I won't argue against that.

However the extent of this advantage like we see it in IL-2 Great Battles is a bit hard to believe.

Except for when you follow @CountZero's (sarcastic) argument that the americans hated their pilots.

As it stands, eight cal .50s in game aren't half as deadly as a single 20mm gun.

They're not even as deadly as a single german 15mm gun.

They might be barely on par with a single russian 12.7mm with mixed AP/HE ammo.

And that's clearly off.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
HR_Zunzun
13 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Again it's a matter of difference in ideology (higher rate of fire vs greater lethality). The need to spray rounds and hopefully hit a fuel/hydraulic/oil line with the .50 cal API or ~ 3 hits of a 20 mm (HE AP combo) that could blow the aircraft in two. There is a reason the VVS and RAF went with a 20 mm standard round as well - because they saw the advantage early on.

Arguing that because everybody, in the end, change to cannons to say that the 0.50 weren´t effective is like saying that propeller driven engines were innefective as everybody embraced the jet engine for fighters after the war. 20mm cannon was better but that doesn´t make the correct amount of 0.50s innefective.

There were varied reasons for making the change. You need to get a combo o 6 to 8 MG to be effective. You need a big plane with a big wing to accomodate them (US fighter were built big). They are also heavier than the equivalent cannon (according to US Navy and LW around 3 to 4 MG per cannon). Also, more guns, means more logistic, more time and resources to service them etc... Obviously we cannot forget the problem with US Hispano. If they have had it working they might have changed earlier on but yet they weren´t complaining.

If the 0.5s had been ineffective in the US planes during the ww2 why did they keep them for the F-86? They had plenty of time to solve the cannon functioning problem. Were they sadistic towards the new gen of fighter pilots? No, they have a functioning combo that proved much less effective in a different situation (higher speed encounters with much less firing time, less inflammable fuel and at a higher, less O2 rich atmosphere).

The 0.5 was perfectly adequate for the task the USAAF have in hand during WW2; Dealing with interceptors. Have they had the task to deal with bombers (as did the british) they might have thought otherwise but for dealing with the 109 and 190 they saw no problem.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG7_X-Man

@HR_Zunzun Let me correct you:

 

All I am saying the 20 mm was more effective than the .50 cal to bring down fighter aircraft in WW II. Subsequently, the Spitfire Ib and IIb were introduced by the RAF, but not in big numbers because they were prone to jamming. The VVS were quicker with their development.

 

You want to see the .50 cal cause the same amount of aerodynamic penalty  a 20 mm round would deliver.

  • You will never see it as the 20 mm round had more explosive power (HE) to tear away sheet metal and more penetrating power (AP)

in my my test, it took me  a 2 - 2.5 sec burst to bring down a Me 110 in a P-51, so I am not sure what more you want out of that weapon?

 

That's all I have to say on this topic.

image.gif

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
HR_Zunzun
8 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@HR_Zunzun Let me correct you:

 

All I am saying the 20 mm was more effective than the .50 cal to bring down fighter aircraft in WW II. Subsequently, the Spitfire Ib and IIb were introduced by the RAF, but not in big numbers because they were prone to jamming. The VVS were quicker with their development.

 

You want to see the .50 cal cause the same amount of aerodynamic penalty  a 20 mm round would deliver.

  • You will never see it as the 20 mm round had more explosive power (HE) to tear away sheet metal and more penetrating power (AP)

in my my test, it took me  a 2 - 2.5 sec burst to bring down a Me 110 in a P-51, so I am not sure what more you want out of that weapon?

 

That's all I have to say on this topic.

image.gif

 

I think you did not read my post carefully or I did not explained it properly. I am sorry but English is not my first language. To summarize, I do not want the a parity of 0.50s vs 20mm cannon. I just mentioned that both US Navy and LW considered the fifties equal to 20mm cannon in the proportion of 3:1. So, despite your undefined test, the experience of many of us is very far from that type of relationship. As Storebror has pointed above, more closely to 8 fifties equal to 1 20mm cannon (and not every day of the week).

Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror
13 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

You want to see the .50 cal cause the same amount of aerodynamic penalty  a 20 mm round would deliver.image.gif

 

No one ever said so.

But thanks for letting us know about the different agenda you're following.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just went into a quick fight and shot down some planes with a P-39L, using only 0.50, a Yak-7, using only the 12.7 and a La-5, using 20mm AP munitions only. In order of firepower, theoretically, the La is about twice as good as the P-39, and the Yak somewhere in between.

 

On the bottom line, I typically needed two passes for a kill with the P-39, same as the Yak and typically just one pass with the La-5. So in terms of killing power, the game is pretty much OK imho. The guns are as effective as I'd expect and the relation to each other is also OK.

Maybe the issue is that with 8 guns in a wing, you don't get four times the hitting power, because you're not as accurate with them as you are with just two nose guns.

Using HE shells in the 20mm or API in the 0.50 would certainly change things. But as long as the conditions are comparable, the relative performance seems OK.

 

WRT to the historical performance - the 0.50 certainly was effective, but it wasn't the most efficient gun around. That's looking at it from a technical perspective. It was very (cost) efficient in an industrialized, all out war.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cpt_Siddy
1 hour ago, JtD said:

I just went into a quick fight and shot down some planes with a P-39L, using only 0.50, a Yak-7, using only the 12.7 and a La-5, using 20mm AP munitions only. In order of firepower, theoretically, the La is about twice as good as the P-39, and the Yak somewhere in between.

 

On the bottom line, I typically needed two passes for a kill with the P-39, same as the Yak and typically just one pass with the La-5. So in terms of killing power, the game is pretty much OK imho. The guns are as effective as I'd expect and the relation to each other is also OK.

Maybe the issue is that with 8 guns in a wing, you don't get four times the hitting power, because you're not as accurate with them as you are with just two nose guns.

Using HE shells in the 20mm or API in the 0.50 would certainly change things. But as long as the conditions are comparable, the relative performance seems OK.

 

WRT to the historical performance - the 0.50 certainly was effective, but it wasn't the most efficient gun around. That's looking at it from a technical perspective. It was very (cost) efficient in an industrialized, all out war.

 

 

One of the problem in our game is that the wing mounted 50 cals are like laser beams. You have one focal point and engaging outside the focal point gets you less than stellar results.

 

The real way to use the 6-8 50cals was to make a fields of fire so that you can saturate an area in front of you with hot lead and raise the hit and kill chance. 

You might argue that "git gud" or "learn to shoot", but remember, average WW2 pilots was far less skilled gunner than most of virtual pilot here, at least when talking in game performance.

 

Right now, only way to get this effect is to overheat your guns. Try it, overheat your gun and look at the dispersion patterns, that is what it should look like normally, not the lazer disco we got now. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 8:26 AM, -SF-Disarray said:

The hammer test is probably the closest approximation, even though the quantity is probably lower than the .9 to 1.9 grams used in these rounds. It would be interesting to see live footage of these rounds impacting. I did a bit of searching but couldn't come up with anything that didn't have a lot of other stuff mixed in with the HE filler and even that didn't make much of a bang.

 

Decades ago I was present for live fire demonstration of a Browning M2 using ball and API at a test target - an old car.

It was at close range - about 50m - so the results will differ somewhat from air-to-air at 200-300mph at typical engagement range of ~200m-400m.

But that car was royally f#$%ed in a matter of seconds. Even the ball rounds punched right through just about everything - the test fire was perpendicular to the vehicle. Rounds passed through all the body panels on each side - structural areas (C-pillar, B-pillar, reinforced quarter panel sections) made no appreciable difference to penetration - as you would expect. I would consider the car body to fairly representative of non-armoured aircraft sections. Skin sections around the entry and exit holes were deformed such that you would expect aerodynamic issues resulting from flow turbulence had the car doors been wings.

 

On switching to API, the penetrator cores went right through the cylinder head but were stopped by the block. Notably, the API flashes were large - not the tiny little bangs in the hammer test - there would be no issue at all with them igniting flammables within a foot of two of the impact point. If you hit a fuel tank I am confident that a single round would have a high kill probability.

Also notable was the secondary fragmentation of the jacket encasing the penetrator - which spread out from the impact points. At 90 degree incidence the secondary effects were localised but I expect - and this is just conjecture - that for lower angles of incidence on wings and empennage struck from astern the fragments might reasonably penetrate nearby skin sections (such as near the wing root) causing wider skin damage. These fragments would also be ignition sources.

As for the penetrators themselves - at 50-100m they will exit the other side of a half-inch hardened steel plate struck at 90 degrees. Aircraft aluminium - skin, spars, whatever - may as well be cheese.

 

For an example of the size of the ignition flash of a .50 API round take a look at the linked video. I have asked the guy who uploaded it what ammunition was used - it is unlikely to be M20. I also don't know exactly what API round was used for the live fire demonstration back in the 90s but the fundamental construction of this ammunition had changed little between 1944 and 1994.

 

To be clear, the point of this post is only to show what the flash and jacket fragmentation looks like. I'm not entering into any argument over the modelling of the game M2 either way. One thing I can say though is that a 3 second burst from the M2HB (only about 25 rounds equivalent to about 1.5 seconds from a single AN/M2) ensured that car was never being driven again.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkRyJCOuHc0&pbjreload=101

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
216th_Jordan

So I  my eyes we have 2 basic problems with AP currently:

 

- Large damage was dealt by tumbling bullets after an initial contact, this is not modeled AFAIK (there was this one picture of a drug smuggler plane hit by .50 and it had huge holes on the exit side)

- Internally (almost always) there are a lot more things damagable in a real plane than in a sim plane so we see less effect of that (Electric cables, pneumatic pipes/lines, fuel pipes, wires, rods for all kinds of things)

 

I'd think for an easy fix the .50s should have 1.5x (or even more) the damage they currently deal. 

 

At convergence range I score about same or better with a 2x UBS Mig-3 than with the P-51, and that has got to say something. (The only exception being pilot kills)

 

 

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
On 9/20/2020 at 6:53 AM, 216th_Jordan said:

So I  my eyes we have 2 basic problems with AP currently:

 

- Large damage was dealt by tumbling bullets after an initial contact, this is not modeled AFAIK (there was this one picture of a drug smuggler plane hit by .50 and it had huge holes on the exit side)

- Internally (almost always) there are a lot more things damagable in a real plane than in a sim plane so we see less effect of that (Electric cables, pneumatic pipes/lines, fuel pipes, wires, rods for all kinds of things)

 

I'd think for an easy fix the .50s should have 1.5x (or even more) the damage they currently deal. 

 

At convergence range I score about same or better with a 2x UBS Mig-3 than with the P-51, and that has got to say something. (The only exception being pilot kills)

 

 

That picture was a plane that was hit by HEI ammo IIRC, so not exactly AP rounds.

That said, I think the DM doesn't take into account the kind of shredding multiple hits from .50cal AP might do to aircraft skin. Like perforating paper with a pencil, multiple holes in a close area do not remain small holes but become large holes. I think the DM just treats each hit as a cumulative small hole rather than modeling the deterioration that occurs after several hits, and we know from unreasonable's testing that aerodynamic effects occur after a certain number of hits in a particular hit box, not on the wing as a whole. So that may be disadvantaging the M2.

So IMO the drag imposed by AP round damage should definitely be looked at and 1.5x the damage may be something more representative of this. I also think that the HE 12.7mm rounds may be a bit overpowered but that is just a feeling.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2020 at 10:03 PM, gimpy117 said:

We're just luckily that the Germans didn't use a mine shell on New York. They would have won the war. We've all seen the simulations, a single MG/FF mine shell can destroy anything

Except a thunderbolt, those were so rugged and indestructible that even 50 cal's (which we know can move a TANK) cant kill it

Truthfully Il-2 does not simulate this very well at all. 
It is all biased horribly towards the Luftwaffles.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It can move a tank because it cannot penetrate the armor. Therefore it transfers all of it’s energy into the target. Airfoils are thin and .50 cal passes right through it, therefore it keeps most of the energy. This is elementary physics.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HR_Zunzun
7 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

It can move a tank because it cannot penetrate the armor. Therefore it transfers all of it’s energy into the target. Airfoils are thin and .50 cal passes right through it, therefore it keeps most of the energy. This is elementary physics.

It can move a lorry that is as soft skin as a plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

It can move a tank because it cannot penetrate the armor. Therefore it transfers all of it’s energy into the target. Airfoils are thin and .50 cal passes right through it, therefore it keeps most of the energy. This is elementary physics.

Are you seriously saying that a Thunderbolt strafing a Tiger tank will physically PUSH the tank? Because if you are i'd like to thank you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
25 minutes ago, Sunde said:

Are you seriously saying that a Thunderbolt strafing a Tiger tank will physically PUSH the tank? Because if you are i'd like to thank you. 

I mean, technically the energy would get transferred and the tank would move (by vibrating). And technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I mean, technically the energy would get transferred and the tank would move (by vibrating). And technically correct is the best kind of correct.

About the same way accelerating in a car "technically" changes the earths rotation then. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
4 minutes ago, Sunde said:

About the same way accelerating in a car "technically" changes the earths rotation then. :)

 

I always drive faster on Fridays to make the day go by quicker. You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HR_Zunzun

From "Tail end charlie" James E Brown a p-47 pilot in 27th FG

". I squeezed my trigger, too, and hit the truck squarely so that it lurched right off the road. The power of a direct hit at the correct range surprised me."

 

So is not just the energy of the burst bouncing off the skin what makes it move.

When it hit the insides will transfer a lot of energy too. It also interesting to notice that the typical german truck weighted about the same as the typical 109 and was soft skinned too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 10:17 PM, RedKestrel said:

I mean, technically the energy would get transferred and the tank would move (by vibrating). And technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Thank you, somebody understood me 😀

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

Linking this because it's more relevant for the aero penalty.

My main gathering from the actual quantitative findings, are as follows.

It seems that the game's representation of 20mm HE damage, and 50  cal AP damage is actually credible, in so far as you can kind of justify on a case by case basis, most of the hits in game and reconcile it with IRL accounts.

IE

There ARE accounts of planes being hit my one mineshell and losing control.
There ARE accounts of planes being reported as kills by multiple 50 cal hits yet making it home

To from a simplistic point of view, the game is spot on.

However, looking over a large sample of in game kills, the game almost simulates even a single 20mm HE hit as causing massive aero damage. (I did some testing and a single HE was generally at least 65kmh speed loss *almost all* of the time)

The game almost always simulates 50 cals as causing next to nothing (when testing 20-60 50 cal hits *almost always* caused no more than 15kmh speed loss)

*when I say almost all, I mean "in my sample of 10 tests, never.

Now, there are plenty of pictures of HE cannon damage where the size of the holes are nowhere near big enough to cause 65kmh of speed loss
There are plenty of pictures of MG damage which are equal in area to that of an equivalent burst of HE cannon. 

Now ok, it may well be survivor bias. But I'm not trying to demonstrate that small 20mm holes were NORMAL, just POSSIBLE
Or massive ripping from 50 cal was NORMAL, merely POSSIBLE .

So survivor bias is not a factor here.

Currently in game, the way the RNG or whatever works, it is IMPOSSIBLE as far as I can tell, for the game to represent a 20mm HE (hispanos or 151) as doing something like this spitfire-mkiib-p8342-uz-n_2-jpg.283191

IE a nasty hole yes, but not 65kmh + with full stick deflection to counter.

image.png.4edc2d4a7daa3a5e32b81ee8fd4f74c5.pngEqually it is IMPOSSIBLE as far as I can tell, for the game to represent a cluster of 50cal as doing something like this 

(and yes these are actually .303 hits, rather than 50 cals, well spotted) *** Actually the speculation is actually that this has been shot down by a cannon armed plane, so the larger holes are 20mm.

So TLDR my point is 

the game is EXCELLENT at simulating the best of 20mm HE hits but poor at simulating the worst case scenario 20mm HE hits
Likewise, the game is EXCELLENT at simulating the 50 cal hits that are worst case, but poor at simulating the best case scenario.

so they should tweak the RNG.

Because at the moment one 20mm will win a fight.
100 50 cal hits won't even guarantee a victory.
 

PS. before anyone points out YES these pictures are cherry picked to show the extreme cases of the respective damage, but that is exactly my point. The game does one extreme very well, but does not do the extreme represented by these pictures AT ALL.

Unfortunately the've erred to the HE=nukes end of the sample set and AP=pinpricks of the other. So no wonder the effect in game is a bit skewed.

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the aero penalty for .50s is lacking, your real-life example is unfortunately flawed. Your particular example of a He-111 was likely shot down by a french D.520 or MS.406. Those bigger holes are not necessarily from .303 hits clustered together, but the nose-mounted 20mm cannon in those aircraft.

 

The real issue is that the aero penalty from the scores of hits all across an aircraft, including nasty exit gashes, are not modeled.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
On 10/15/2020 at 6:41 PM, DJBscout said:

While I agree that the aero penalty for .50s is lacking, your real-life example is unfortunately flawed. Your particular example of a He-111 was likely shot down by a french D.520 or MS.406. Those bigger holes are not necessarily from .303 hits clustered together, but the nose-mounted 20mm cannon in those aircraft.

 

The real issue is that the aero penalty from the scores of hits all across an aircraft, including nasty exit gashes, are not modeled.

Very good point

I've edited my post. It does also pose the question as to whether they're AP or HE 20mm.

spitfire-mkiib-p8342-uz-n_2-jpg.283191
This seems likely to have been an explosive (the picture said 20mm cannon), but the HE11 might well be AP?

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
unreasonable

HE for sure (at least some of them ) on the He111 tail.  A 20mm AP round's entry hole on a weakly resisting surface will look just like the rifle calibre holes on the elevator, just ~twice as wide. So will the exit holes, if the structure in between has not much in it that could cause an AP warhead to tumble or fragment - which a rudder certainly would not have.  The large holes on the rudder are far too large for 20mm AP rounds.

 

We cannot see both sides of the rudder, but where an HE shell enters you would normally get some blast and splinters backwards, opening up the entry hole, the majority to the sides and forwards in a fan. If the He111 was shot down by a French plane as seems likely the HE shells would have been conventional HE, not the high HE content mineshells.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 3:58 PM, RedKestrel said:

That picture was a plane that was hit by HEI ammo IIRC, so not exactly AP rounds.

That said, I think the DM doesn't take into account the kind of shredding multiple hits from .50cal AP might do to aircraft skin. Like perforating paper with a pencil, multiple holes in a close area do not remain small holes but become large holes. I think the DM just treats each hit as a cumulative small hole rather than modeling the deterioration that occurs after several hits, and we know from unreasonable's testing that aerodynamic effects occur after a certain number of hits in a particular hit box, not on the wing as a whole. So that may be disadvantaging the M2.

So IMO the drag imposed by AP round damage should definitely be looked at and 1.5x the damage may be something more representative of this. I also think that the HE 12.7mm rounds may be a bit overpowered but that is just a feeling.

interesting link about the use of HE ammo in HMGs: https://www.quora.com/During-World-War-II-did-the-allies-use-explosive-50-cal-machine-gun-shells-on-fighter-planes-like-their-German-counter-parts-the-13mm

Link to post
Share on other sites
sniperton

Here you find some pictures of a Do-17 damaged by flak and a British fighter in August 1940 over England

The smaller, regular holes are probably from .303 AP.

Note that the bullets impacting in a shallow angle not only punched a hole larger than the caliber, but also deformed the surface in an area larger than the hole.

I don't think such holes on the fuselage hampered the performance of the aircraft considerably (unless they hit something vital inside, of course).

But I can easily imagine that a dozen such hits on one wing might cause controllability issues due to the slightly disrupted laminar flow (and had to be counteracted with aileron).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
[DBS]Browning

No second war aircraft had any significant degree of laminar flow over it's wing surface.

Thin aluminum sheeting, even without rivets, does not match the extreme smoothness tolerance needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
unreasonable

Good pictures - but bear in mind that during the BoB some of the .303s ammunition used was de Wilde, not simple FMJ: this was similar to  the US API, in that it contained a very small amount of incendiary composition in the tip which ignited on contact. Some of the discoloured area around the holes may simply be where burnt paint has flaked off.  The de Wilde was popular with the pilots, as they could see when the strikes were on target, which they could not easily do with conventional ball/AP.

 

We do not have that problem at least - the impact graphics are already OTT. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
sniperton
58 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Good pictures - but bear in mind that during the BoB some of the .303s ammunition used was de Wilde, not simple FMJ

I'm aware if it, my point was that penetrating bullets not only made 2D holes, but also created small 3D bumps that made the surface similar to that of a cheese grater. Dunno though what difference a cheese grater makes aerodynamically compared to a cheese with only "flat" holes as already modeled in the game.

 

My assumption was that relatively weak forces, applied asymetrically and a few meters apart from the CoG of the aircraft, could result in compromised maneuverability, and the 3D deformation of the sourface might account for a bigger aerodynamic penalty than what's calculated for the small impact holes of AP ammo.

 

But maybe @[DBS]Browningis right and the effect is negligible even if the wing area is affected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...