Jump to content
71st_AH_Hooves

.50 cal damage, or lack there of

Recommended Posts

What on earth happened to .50 cals?  It takes on average half my ammo hitting an other airplane to even get damage on it.  But if I get breathed on by a 109 or 190 I'm smokes, something in my airplane is so trashed I cant fly it.  I've downed other planes but it takes WAY too much damage and stays combat effective.  I've seen 5 planes gang up on a 109 and its leaking everything including the pilots piss but still maneuvering like its not even touched.  

 

Anyone else having problem?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got about 20 people who are agreeing whole heartedly on the is Discord.    We just get tapped and our planes are junk and we have to waste SO much ammo to get anything comparable in damage, in the mean time the whole god damn German team converges to help and we are still pecking away while they take .5 second burst and flame us, that's p47s, and Mustangs.  Have to take a SPIT or a Tempest to even have a remote shot at downing a bird in a few bursts.   50 CALS ARE BROKEN.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been under the impression that the lack of varied harmonization that allows us to establish a spread versus the point harmonization we have is likely a key driver of the current issues surrounding the thing. 

 

I'm sure there are more technically oriented folks here than I am that could chime in on this and I definitely might be missing a number of other factors, but as far as my my own experiences go there's too much emphasis on point harmonization that "opportunistic hits" on aircraft subsystems becomes challenging. I suspect the .50s were scarcely made to fire on point harmonization in real life but I only based that on the P-47, so I might be wrong. 

 

If we had the ability to have spread, how much do people think it would improve the .50s, even sans API? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I’m hearing that the boys in WWII had .50 HE? Could that be why it takes so long to down an enemy plane?   Is that really the case that they had HE? If so, why we only have AP is pretty frustrating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50s performed this way IRL then the USAAF would have switched to cannons. They perform like 303s.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I personally don't have a problem.  I can usually down 109s in 1 or 2 quick bursts.  However i do like to fly in close with convergence at 300 meters.  I aim for the engine and it usually stops it very easily.  Like i said 1 burst...2 if i miss.  .50 cals don't do a ton of damage to the wings They aren't designed to blow holes in the wings.  They are designed to damage parts so you need to be a lot more percise with your shots.  If you aren't aiming for individual parts on the plane, you aren't doing .50 cals right.  If you just try to hit the plane with no particular target in mind you can literally put all of your ammo into a plane.  But if you aim for the cockpit and engine you can down fighters in 1 or 2 hits.  Bombers in 4-8.  You can get a double ace without filling up on ammo if you are good.  

 

Now the 109 with its 20mm he rounds you don't have to do this.  Those are designed to blow the skin right off the wings which decreases lift.  with 1 burst you can get rid of all lift on that side of an aircraft and its down.  If you are used to that where you just try to hit the plane anywhere then you may have trouble with the .50 cals.  They are more challenging to use, but when used properly they are just as deadly.  Think of the p-51 and p-47 as sniper rifles and you need to be super accurate with your shots and the other planes like the fw190 and bf-109 as shotgun which don't require accuracy to use well.

Edited by zdog0331
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard US .50s were still not using the API rounds. Not sure if still the case but that certainly makes a difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The fact of do basically almost 0 aerodynamic damage its annoying.

 

The lack of API M8 and API-T M20 ammo to, those type of ammo makes a huge diffence, but, there is also something wrong with the 109F/G/K in the rear fuselage, to be specific, low 6, the dead zone,, wich i have my eye on. With@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard and @LF_Gallahad we've been doing some damage model trials in order to check that and don't say German Bias just for say it. (We didn't do enough tracks yet, there is a lot of planes and no much time)  Results that the 109 can take more damage there without hit the pilot or injure it more than the average planes in the game. We did our test against the P-47D28 and P-47D22 until now for take a "reference", but we did the same thing against 190 and the 190 pilot on the same angle, and is less protected. My suspicious only increases when i do regular sorties. 109 seems to be more durable than 190's, specially on pilot area, but always talking with that LOW 6 FACTOR, when the plane shows its canopy .50 cals are pilot killers of the best in game.

 

So there is a lot of factors. But the main thing with the .50 for me are, lack of incendiary ammo, and drag penalty

Edited by -332FG-Ursus_
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, zdog0331 said:

I personally don't have a problem.  I can usually down 109s in 1 or 2 quick bursts.  However i do like to fly in close with convergence at 300 meters.  I aim for the engine and it usually stops it very easily.  Like i said 1 burst...2 if i miss.  .50 cals don't do a ton of damage to the wings They aren't designed to blow holes in the wings.  They are designed to damage parts so you need to be a lot more percise with your shots.  If you aren't aiming for individual parts on the plane, you aren't doing .50 cals right.  If you just try to hit the plane with no particular target in mind you can literally put all of your ammo into a plane.  But if you aim for the cockpit and engine you can down fighters in 1 or 2 hits.  Bombers in 4-8.  You can get a double ace without filling up on ammo if you are good.  

 

Now the 109 with its 20mm he rounds you don't have to do this.  Those are designed to blow the skin right off the wings which decreases lift.  with 1 burst you can get rid of all lift on that side of an aircraft and its down.  If you are used to that where you just try to hit the plane anywhere then you may have trouble with the .50 cals.  They are more challenging to use, but when used properly they are just as deadly.  Think of the p-51 and p-47 as sniper rifles and you need to be super accurate with your shots and the other planes like the fw190 and bf-109 as shotgun which don't require accuracy to use well.

Id normally agree with you, but I had track after track after track of slapping the 109 and 190 with rounds EXACTLY where you are saying to aim for, and nothing, occasionally if I get crazy lucky I’ll get a round in the cockpit, but dude, it wasn’t like this in WWII, you constantly here of the aircraft it encounters getting shredded and crashing in flames, that is so rare in this sim right now it’s almost a miracle when it does, something is really out of whack here.   And on another note the “Floppawulf tactic after the plane has been shredded with 100 -200 rounds and still able to do that is pure

horsecrap.    I had heard these issues when I came back to play, I dismissed them, but I have now witnessed them over and over every round we play.  It’s not random, it’s happening every single engagement. Entirely too much ammo to take down a German plane, while one shot, ONE sets US airplanes ablaze or flat out explodes. You are lucky if it only just severed every god damn control

cable in the airplane.
 

Ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying offline since the previous patch, I find the 109 much harder to kill than a 190. Unless I get a hit in the nose compartment, they fly on and on with dozens of holes in them. I usually try to get in close too but even at convergence from six o’clock, it takes multiple bursts to kill one. I hope it’s just my imagination but the .50s don’t seem as devastating as they did when the Mustang first came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally if you can get a deflection shot with the engine or cockpit exposed they can be pretty effective (engine fires and pilot kills easy to make),

But then when you are attacking a target from it's straight 6 o clock they are rather ineffective, specially in the multiplayer environment where the players will jank the stick and keep going up and down to avoid the fire and force overshoots (the overall pulling and pushing of positive and negative Gs in quick succession not having enough of a negative consequence promotes this behaviour as well).

I think the issue here has multiple things going on at the same time:

  • The lift and aerodynamic penalty is very small or insignificant. They shouldn't be on the same level as explosive ammo of course, but when you get a nice burst with multiple hits concentrated in a determined area all the holes would cause a significant effect, while these are not explosive rounds things like tumbling and keyholing would add up when you get like 20 - 30 impacts. I have been for example in a 109 shot at by a P-51 and he got 21 rounds into my right wing according to the server log, but I didn't have any handling penalty, I was still well in the fight and got an overshoot and got him down.  On the other hand even a single 13mm or Soviet 12.7mm explosive round can have a significant lift penalty on the flight surface they hit, and these rounds had a rather small explosive content, I just don't think 20 rounds of AP wouldn't have nowhere near as an airflow disruption as a single 13mm HE with ~1g of nitropenta (1/20th of that of the 20mm mine shell for example).
     
  • We don't have API yet, I personally think that while it's still in the works we should have increased fire chance against leaking fuel tanks to compensate for the time being for the AP rounds, mind you all nations would be bennefited from this, all of them used API or dedicated Incendiary ammo for all their guns in one way or another (Germans, Soviets, British, Americans, Italians).
     
  • There seems to be a particular interaction that the later Bf 109 models are particularly resistant to getting it's rear fuselage fuel tank on fire. @KW_1979 has made some tests in the past and he found that the 109 took multiple times the same amount of rounds on average to have it's rear tank catching fire compared to other planes. I think this has to do with the armor protection decreasing the probability of fire, the 109s from the G series had a sandwich of aluminum armor sheets behind the fuel tank, but this was still vulnerable to heavy machine guns and cannons, as we can see in game it does get penetrated and the fuel tank gets leaks quite often, however even with the armor defeated and fuel pouring out there is still some sort of protection against fire starting.


 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been an issue since 4.005 and I've submitted multiple bug reports.  🤷‍♂️

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I dont think the issue is with the 50 cals alone.

The 50 cals are very effective as long as you are hitting important areas (Pilot,Fuel tanks, Controls etc)

since short bursts against such places are enough to destroy an enemy aircraft but for structural damage you need more prolonged fire

(To cut wings,Rudders etc though again im havinge little difficulty in doing so with the 50s it just required more bursts).

 

For me the main issue is getting those repeated hits.

And this is due to the placement of the guns and the fact that we cant set up proper gun harmonization patterns

(With different pairs of guns set for different ranges to create a larger kill box then the current point convergence)

so i think if they gave us the ability to set up different convergence patterns it would help many of those currently struggeling.

 

Becuase when i do hit i avg around 50-80 hits with 50.cal per kill. (using Il2 stats to count the hits)

And given that i primarily fly the P-47 that fires around 100 rounds a second that means a half second burst would be enough if all round hit.

 

So i dont think the issue is the round itself (though sure it could still be perfected) but rather peoples accuracy with it

(which could be greatly helped with the ability to se different convergence ranges for each gun pair).

Edited by mattebubben
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t think accuracy is really the issue. A miss is a miss regardless of the bullet or cannon shell fired. Seeing a plane holed over large portions of its airframe with seemingly no effect does beg the question as to why?

Edited by Rjel
it's is not its

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This again? 

 

Its most likely a combination of your lack of precision shooting and possible packet loss in MP. If you deny that it is a precision issue, post video of you making quality hits at convergence distance without significant damage occuring. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rjel said:

I don’t think accuracy is really the issue. A miss is a miss regardless of the bullet or cannon shell fired. Seeing a plane holed over large portions of it’s airframe with seemingly no effect does beg the question as to why?

 

Its an issue because most aircraft with cannons have them in the nose or close to center making it easier to hit (With the Spit and Tempests being the exceptions)

and in addition due to the much higher effect per round you only need 3-4 rounds to do significant damage

(So its enough if just 1 of your cannons is getting hits due to wrong converge range etc) where as with the 50 you are more dependant on either getting focused fire from multiple guns or hitting vital areas (while with a 20mm cannon getting 3-6 hits on a wing might be enough to make the enemy aircraft an easy target).

 

And its also an issue because im pretty sure players think that they hit more then they actually do.

For example they might say that had to use all of their ammo (lets say 1600 rounds) to kill a single fighter.

But in reality the might only have gotten 50-100 hits.

So in that case its not the guns "fault" that they had to spend all of their ammo since most rounds missed.

 

and 20mm guns should be much more effective then the 50.cals this is something even by the US Navy and airforces at the time.

(IIRC US navy tests considerd a 4x 20mm armament to be twice as effective as a 6x 50.cal armament)

The reason they stayed with the 50.cal is not because it was better or even as good.

Its because it was "good enough" for the targets it was primarily used against (Fighters,Light/medium bombers and strafing ground targets)

and more importantly because it was reliable (while the US 20mm M2 Hispano had significant reliability problems)

it was cheaper to produce and they had large numbers of guns and ammo avaliable.

 

 

So my only request to the devs would be giving us the ability to give difference convergence ranges for each gun pair.

 

And my advice to players that are struggeling with the 50s is to play around with difference convergence ranges to find something that fits them.

(I use 340 meters wich works fine at range and then at close range i tend to just aim to the side of the target to get a single wing of guns to hit the fuselage)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I suggest you test with the P38. Last night I killed 4 Bf109-g6’s and all four went down in flames (SP, not that good of a pilot). By using the P38 you eliminate the problem of not shooting at convergence.

 

My experience with the P47 and P51 are limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

 

Its an issue because most aircraft with cannons have them in the nose or close to center making it easier to hit (With the Spit and Tempests being the exceptions)

and in addition due to the much higher effect per round you only need 3-4 rounds to do significant damage

(So its enough if just 1 of your cannons is getting hits due to wrong converge range etc) where as with the 50 you are more dependant on either getting focused fire from multiple guns or hitting vital areas (while with a 20mm cannon getting 3-6 hits on a wing might be enough to make the enemy aircraft an easy target).

 

And its also an issue because im pretty sure players think that they hit more then they actually do.

For example they might say that had to use all of their ammo (lets say 1600 rounds) to kill a single fighter.

But in reality the might only have gotten 50-100 hits.

So in that case its not the guns "fault" that they had to spend all of their ammo since most rounds missed.

 

and 20mm guns should be much more effective then the 50.cals this is something even by the US Navy and airforces at the time.

(IIRC US navy tests considerd a 4x 20mm armament to be twice as effective as a 6x 50.cal armament)

The reason they stayed with the 50.cal is not because it was better or even as good.

Its because it was "good enough" for the targets it was primarily used against (Fighters,Light/medium bombers and strafing ground targets)

and more importantly because it was reliable (while the US 20mm M2 Hispano had significant reliability problems)

it was cheaper to produce and they had large numbers of guns and ammo avaliable.

 

 

So my only request to the devs would be giving us the ability to give difference convergence ranges for each gun pair.

 

And my advice to players that are struggeling with the 50s is to play around with difference convergence ranges to find something that fits them.

(I use 340 meters wich works fine at range and then at close range i tend to just aim to the side of the target to get a single wing of guns to hit the fuselage)

All well known facts to anyone who has a smattering of reading aviation history. It still isn't about accuracy in shooting. It's about whether the results of multiple hits are being accounted for by the sim  correctly.

Edited by Rjel
It's again.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rjel said:

All well known facts to anyone who has a smattering of reading aviation history. It still isn't about accuracy in shooting. It's about whether the results of multiple hits are being accounted for by the sim  correctly.

And do you have any evience that they are not?

 

Also remember that the damage shown in this game is generic damage decals and dose not correspond with how many actuall hits you made.

(So just because you see 10 holes that does not mean you hit with 10 rounds etc).

 

In my experience the 50 cal rounds work as expected (If you hit they punch holes and start fires if you hit fuel tanks)

and an avg of 50-100 hits per kill feels like a very resonable amount considering 4-8 50.cal guns firing at between 750-850RPM will reach that number of rounds with even very short bursts.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Hooves said:

What on earth happened to .50 cals?  It takes on average half my ammo hitting an other airplane to even get damage on it.  But if I get breathed on by a 109 or 190 I'm smokes, something in my airplane is so trashed I cant fly it.  I've downed other planes but it takes WAY too much damage and stays combat effective.  I've seen 5 planes gang up on a 109 and its leaking everything including the pilots piss but still maneuvering like its not even touched.  

 

Anyone else having problem?

 

@71st_AH_Hooves

 

As you probably know, the Bf109 and Fw190 use cannons; the P-51 does not. The Bf 109 has its cannon in the nose, like the P-38 and is therefore more accurate and deadly.

 

There are no fewer than five topics already open about this which your squadron mates from the 71st are aware of. I've attached those topics below in case they forgot where to find them.

 

4 hours ago, 71st_AH_Hooves said:

Well I’m hearing that the boys in WWII had .50 HE? Could that be why it takes so long to down an enemy plane?   Is that really the case that they had HE? If so, why we only have AP is pretty frustrating.  

 

Who is that person? I want to know their name(s). There was no HE round available in WW2 for the .50 calibre M2 and no evidence to support such a claim, this was explained in the bottom two threads attached below very recently. If someone is circulating that misinformation then I recommend they provide the WW2 specification sheet for that particular shell. There was AP and API (Incendiary) available for the .50 calibre.

 

In the modern world, there is a modern APEI shell for the modern FN Herstal M3 machine gun but this was invented after WW2. I'm sure that has been once again conveniently ignored.

 

The fuel systems and its damage modelling are under review as was stated in earlier Dev. Blogs which will then allow for more detailed effects from API and other rounds to be implemented. We are expecting API to be introduced at some point following the fuel system changes, horizontal convergence has also been mentioned but is not a priority for the development team with the other work going on.

 

Please direct your squadron mates to read the other threads for more information.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hooves meant API and why does the US only have AP/ball rounds if API was being used during this time?

 

It's a feature that has a pretty significant difference in effect and shouldn't be ignored or a low priority to add since it literally dictates the effective combat power of ~50% of people playing on a server.

 

Trying to play moderator and stunting discussion via new threads isn't going to make the problem go away. If so many people are making so many threads (many with undeniable and thorough test results), then that's pretty indicative of an issue, is it not?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 71st_AH_Hooves said:

What on earth happened to .50 cals?  It takes on average half my ammo hitting an other airplane to even get damage on it.  But if I get breathed on by a 109 or 190 I'm smokes, something in my airplane is so trashed I cant fly it.  I've downed other planes but it takes WAY too much damage and stays combat effective.  I've seen 5 planes gang up on a 109 and its leaking everything including the pilots piss but still maneuvering like its not even touched.  

 

Anyone else having problem?

4.005 happend, since then american .50 are great for warning enemy that your on his 6 when he didnt notice you.

 

But 20mm hispanos are still good, so quick fix is leve 51 and 47 in hangar and take proper build airplanes with guns build for war like Tempest and Spitfire 9 :)

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had it both ways, Mustang sortie used all ammo got 2 assists. P-40 sortie, 2 guns removed, 3 kills all nearly instant fires (even double fire on both engines of a bomber). Flying 109s in some cases I have been taken out instantly by good Mustang pilots I underestimated. I'm sure it's all practice and aim to make sure you hit at convergence, and maybe a bit of luck with fire probability and netcode.

 

I don't think being able to create a spread is some magic solution, if you are good at aiming and finding convergence then point setting is more powerful by definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just started flying the P-40 again. I've shot down late war German planes (G-14s, K4s, A5) with the 4 gun set up without too much trouble. That's while still relearning the ballistics. Once I get a good feel for them again; I've no doubt I'll be dropping opponents in one burst. 

 

As others here have said; you just need to learn to aim. Then aim for sensitive parts; pilots, and engines.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

But 20mm hispanos are still good

 

Yes.... on true seems like only 20 mm work fine in this game... explosive for be more exactly. ( and mk108) , many of kills i see on a single burst are made by 2x20 mm minesglosh, or four hispanos....

 

The rest of ammo are practically useless .... u need half live for made a critical hit shoting 0.5 ( kill enemy on single burst is anecdoticaly ) or need a promedium of 2.5 hits of 37mm for destroy enemy fighter.

 

Concerning to 0.5 is funny read here some people teaching to the rest, for shot 0.5 need "sniper" shoting...... this is not the concept of spray and pray.... and spray and pray on  RL works.... maybe on RL have more critical things to hit, or damage inflicted are more huge. I dont know but seems easy to fix.  If we cant do more complex DM or shot pattern...  can do other things to fix it.


Anyway , the most paintful , isnt is cant kill a enemy in a single burst  ( i understand all players cant be hartmans ) ... the most painful is , if you hit well a enemy u expected enemy hitted suffer some damage,  this means  the enemy is in troubles to handle plane, turn or run.... but no.... this is the painful point... many of times , enemy hitted no reflect a less of performance... and is capable to dogfight you like as nothing happened.this is fustrating.

 

For me this last point is the key.  With a bit better simulation of damaged caused by rest of weapons ( 20 mm explosive had enought love ) game will be more interesting , from allied point of view, now game ( on dogfights terms i mean )  is ... if your plane receive a single impact, your plane really fly worst, if you receive a serial of hits , your plane is out.  this is ok i think.  Now need expected something more similar in the other side.

 

For all non usually users of 0.5 mm, now comes here to say us , 0.5 is great and no problem.  I only can say... you only have anecdotically experience and feeling.

:) :) :) 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I've had it both ways, Mustang sortie used all ammo got 2 assists. P-40 sortie, 2 guns removed, 3 kills all nearly instant fires (even double fire on both engines of a bomber). Flying 109s in some cases I have been taken out instantly by good Mustang pilots I underestimated. I'm sure it's all practice and aim to make sure you hit at convergence, and maybe a bit of luck with fire probability and netcode.

 

I don't think being able to create a spread is some magic solution, if you are good at aiming and finding convergence then point setting is more powerful by definition.

Yea a point convergence is more powerfull if you get shots at that exact convergence.

But a spread is more versetile and would probably help a lot of people.

 

And im pretty sure the players who are the best shots and that have no issues at hitting the target at convergance ranges are not the players that are struggeling with the 50.cals

 

a Point convergence will still be the best choice for the sharpshooters due to its more focused fire.

But having the ability to set up more advanced spreads would help those (like me) who often struggle with being accurate with wing mounted guns.

 

And the key with the 50.cals is repeated hits.

1 or 2 hits are unlikely to be enough but if you get 50+  (which is not that much considering each gun fires at 12-14 rounds per second) you will most likely score a kill

 

and a larger spread will increase the likelyhood to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HRc_Tumu said:

Concerning to 0.5 is funny read here some people teaching to the rest, for shot 0.5 need "sniper" shoting...... this is not the concept of spray and pray.... and spray and pray on  RL works....

 

2 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

Yea a point convergence is more powerfull if you get shots at that exact convergence.

But a spread is more versetile and would probably help a lot of people.

 

Spray and pray did not work IRL either, many planes returned home with many holes in not critical places. The reason planes with .50 cal guns had so many of them is not to spray, but because they are individually weak so you need more, and that's why convergence exists as well.

 

I read I think on this forum somehwere recently that when they tried in WW2 to create spreads with multiple convergence settings for different guns the results were not optimal and point convergence was preferred by IRL pilots too. The guns are not perfect, there is natural spread and if you try to introduce deliberate spread as well the effect is you dilute your firepower too much.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes X51_VC , Maybe planes under spread attack, dont be destroyed, but be damaged enought to avoid combat...  this is what i miss here... i no claim instant kill, i claim some more logical in combat.  I mean, enemy damaged, lost performance on plane and must leave combat..... what you many times find here is ... you archive hits on enemy , but seems are only "visual hits" on fact,  you dont cause damage, then enemy still fighting.

Edited by HRc_Tumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

 

Spray and pray did not work IRL either, many planes returned home with many holes in not critical places. The reason planes with .50 cal guns had so many of them is not to spray, but because they are individually weak so you need more, and that's why convergence exists as well.

 

I read I think on this forum somehwere recently that when they tried in WW2 to create spreads with multiple convergence settings for different guns the results were not optimal and point convergence was preferred by IRL pilots too. The guns are not perfect, there is natural spread and if you try to introduce deliberate spread as well the effect is you dilute your firepower too much.

 

Well it very much depends on the kind of patterns.

And yes those kinds of patterns were not the solution.

 

The solution was training and getting pilots better at aerial gunnery.

 

But different types of spreads saw plenty of use in the war and were part of the manuals.

P-47_gun_harmonization_-_two_types.jpg

 

So its something that did exist and something that i think would help some pilots ingame to score more hits.

 

And as such its something that should be added to the game.

But no its not a magical fix but nothing is

(Just like people seems to think that just adding a ammo type called API would magically turn the 50.cal into a  1 shot wonder)

 

And it would allow pilots to have different typs of patterns depending on what works best for them.

Skilled pilots can use point convergence like now.

Other can use a tight pattern with one gunpair 300,325 and 350 for a pretty dense pattern or loosen it up a little to 250,300 and 350 etc.

Or for P-47s you could have a pattern with 2 pairs at shorter range for air-air and two set for longer ranges for strafing etc.

and so on.

 

And while some pilots preffered Point convergence others  (including some Aces) preferred different patterns.

 

But no its not a magical fix and i never said it was...

All i said is that it would help SOME pilots with their accuracy.

 

Since if people say they spend all of their ammo trying to shoot down a fighter the issue is not the 50.cal its the fact that most of the rounds are missing.

(And this is true for me at times also, But if i miss its not the weapons fault...)

 

Edited by mattebubben
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 cals in DCS have great visuals and they actually work not only on the ground targets.

Blue pilots complained about pilot kills from .50 and the devs took it to the next level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AbortedMan said:

I think Hooves meant API and why does the US only have AP/ball rounds if API was being used during this time?

 

It's a feature that has a pretty significant difference in effect and shouldn't be ignored or a low priority to add since it literally dictates the effective combat power of ~50% of people playing on a server.

 

Trying to play moderator and stunting discussion via new threads isn't going to make the problem go away. If so many people are making so many threads (many with undeniable and thorough test results), then that's pretty indicative of an issue, is it not?

 

@AbortedMan

 

I agree, in an ideal world (which we don't have) we would start with all shell types and we would have a perfect damage model.

 

Back in the real world, it makes no sense spending time to creating API rounds in game if the damage model wasn't (originally) detailed enough to differentiate properly the effects of an incendiary round from a normal AP or a HE round. That's the problem, and its why only after the fuel system and its DM update that will begin to make sense practically - incendiary rounds have to actually light something incendiary to work... i.e. you need a fairly complex fuel systems damage model to make that happen without affecting all the other ammunition types.

 

And unfortunately it does take time to develop this, especially with a relatively small team that is trying to work on so many different areas and manage them. 

 

I'm sure the team and most of the community are already very well aware the API is missing by the existing threads, but what difference will that make if you can't hit the target effectively in the first place? you're merging different issues (convergence, aerodynamic drag from hits, API etc) into each other and expecting a big result.

 

Having API won't vastly change your results, but learning to adjust your technique would.. which means getting in close and being precise before firing. But as we know that's inconvenient and frustrating when chasing evasive pilots. Those are just the disadvantages of a wing mounted, machine gun armament.

 

It's like you're all looking in the kitchen cabinet for the holy grail and getting angry each time you only find a tin of baked beans - what are you expecting to find? most other nations switched to cannon armament because of these perceived weaknesses.

 

The team has already been working on the fuel systems and its damage model for some time. The issues with the Bf 109 and its rear fuselage are documented already in several threads, but - by the way - that issue also affects other airframes but you didn't mention that did you.. it would be a major task to overhaul all that after the work already done... so just crying wolf until everyone else goes deaf isn't going to work either.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd be interested to see what everyones' findings are if they do this:

Go in Quick Mission. (Possibly online dogfight servers aren't the best to work out if .50 cals are 'useless' because of the different way netcode effects bulk bullet hits.)
Shoot at planes in 1/2 or 1/4 time (this way you can 'count' the size of your burst, and ensure the burst is actually hitting)
See what you think.

image.thumb.png.af7bf9f1d0ba87329d8a58b1702d624f.pngNot wanting to prejudice your findings, but you generally really f*** things up if you get a good .50 burst.in. (ie about 6-8 shots from each gun.)


This does not mean that they're perfect, but the 'problem' might be the low aero damage, or a net code effect, or you might find that the experiments you do still seem a bit off with the USN's findings that 6x .50 cals = 2x 20mm guns?

It'd be interesting to hear if anyone's gut instincts are moderated if they test in a more controlled way?

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a MP issue, testing the P47 in quick missions against 109s and 190s I would get 4 to 6 kills consistently, many of those planes set on fire, .50s seems lethal.

.50 cals convergence is important , also deflection shooting helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Must be a MP issue, testing the P47 in quick missions against 109s and 190s I would get 4 to 6 kills consistently, many of those planes set on fire, .50s seems lethal.

.50 cals convergence is important , also deflection shooting helps.

im not sure its 100% a MP issue either.

 

For example jump on the Combat box training server which has areas with AI.

You can easily get 5-7 kills there as well (against a mix of AI and Players).

 

Ive been doing a lot of playing around with the P-47D with 150 octane the last 2 days and have not had any issues with the 50 cals.

 

Pilot kills and fires are very common (i would say 60-80% of my kills is one or both of those)

but its also not uncommon to blow away a Stabilizer,Rudder or part of a wing etc.

 

This is why it confuses me when i hear so many people saying that the 50 cal is completely ineffective etc when

i only see examples of the opposite.

 

Is it the most powerful of armaments no,

and i still prefer cannons that are mounted in the nose or close to the centerline due to the better accuracy and not having to worry about convergence.

But 4-8 .50s mounted in the wings is still highly lethal in Il2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah, @SCG_motoadve

I got similar results.


Update...

Tried it with 4 x g14s in a P47 (8. 50s)

Results.

1. Deflection shot from 250m. 3 hits near wing root. Aircraft lost control and died (AI being rubbish I think this probably wouldn't have been effected in a human controlled plane)
2. High deflection shot. 300m. 6 hits in cockpit/fwd fuselage. PK and engine fire.
3. Gave a good 5 shot burst. Around 10 hits all over from right behind at 250m. Lots of leaks but aircraft continued to fly. (I imagine online he'd have forced an overshoot and shot me down :D)
4. Rear aspect shot from 6:30 O'clock. 5 hits. PK
5. High 6 shot from 250 yards. 5 hits, leak, plane flew as normal. I saddled up on him and hosed himdown from close range from dead six, and after about 8 hits in the wing the wing tip came off.



 

28 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Must be a MP issue, testing the P47 in quick missions against 109s and 190s I would get 4 to 6 kills consistently, many of those planes set on fire, .50s seems lethal.

.50 cals convergence is important , also deflection shooting helps.

 

11 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

im not sure its 100% a MP issue either.

 

For example jump on the Combat box training server which has areas with AI.

You can easily get 5-7 kills there as well (against a mix of AI and Players).

 

Ive been doing a lot of playing around with the P-47D with 150 octane the last 2 days and have not had any issues with the 50 cals.

 

Pilot kills and fires are very common (i would say 60-80% of my kills is one or both of those)

but its also not uncommon to blow away a Stabilizer,Rudder or part of a wing etc.

 

This is why it confuses me when i hear so many people saying that the 50 cal is completely ineffective etc when

i only see examples of the opposite.

 

Is it the most powerful of armaments no,

and i still prefer cannons that are mounted in the nose or close to the centerline due to the better accuracy and not having to worry about convergence.

But 4-8 .50s mounted in the wings is still highly lethal in Il2.

Online I do sometimes have the gut feeling that the shots I'm pulling off shouldn't result in effectively no effect on the enemy's plane.

Of course- sometimes you should get 10-15 hits which unluckily pass though non-essential parts of the aircraft, but to tell whether the damage model is close to reality you have to quantify it and compare it to history.

In reality you could get one-shotted or make it back home looking like a colander. It's the relative likelihood of these two occurrences which matters. (quantified)

On line, I do have a lot of sympathy with people who say .50s are useless, because 6x50s are no way equivalent to 2x20mms in il2 online. (As per the USN's comparisons of PKs etch)

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

im not sure its 100% a MP issue either.

 

For example jump on the Combat box training server which has areas with AI.

You can easily get 5-7 kills there as well (against a mix of AI and Players).

 

Ive been doing a lot of playing around with the P-47D with 150 octane the last 2 days and have not had any issues with the 50 cals.

 

Pilot kills and fires are very common (i would say 60-80% of my kills is one or both of those)

but its also not uncommon to blow away a Stabilizer,Rudder or part of a wing etc.

 

This is why it confuses me when i hear so many people saying that the 50 cal is completely ineffective etc when

i only see examples of the opposite.

 

Is it the most powerful of armaments no,

and i still prefer cannons that are mounted in the nose or close to the centerline due to the better accuracy and not having to worry about convergence.

But 4-8 .50s mounted in the wings is still highly lethal in Il2.

Then they seem fine and might be a matter of aim, and convergence.

Have not had any issues in MP showing that .50s are weak either.

 

Another possibility its  maybe the people having problems are with high ping connection?

Are people also complaining about the effectiveness  of .50s  in single player? If that is the case , proper convergence and deflection shooting, actually makes .50s very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addidtion: What I did find was a lot of the kills off line were PKs, I saw no engine failures, other than engine fires.
When I had a good spray at long range, hitting the wings, generally that did nothing.
(I personally think they've under estimated the size of exit holes, and their associated increase in drag and aerodynamics for multiple 50 hits, but that's another story (IE assumed neat .50 inch holes rather than larger exit holes in accordance with this diagram).)
See the source image

7 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

Are people also complaining about the effectiveness  of .50s  in single player? If that is the case , proper convergence and deflection shooting, actually makes .50s very effective.

I definitely think in single player they seem fine, in terms of system damage and PKs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Addidtion: What I did find was a lot of the kills off line were PKs, I saw no engine failures, other than engine fires.
When I had a good spray at long range, hitting the wings, generally that did nothing.
(I personally think they've under estimated the size of exit holes, and their associated increase in drag and aerodynamics for multiple 50 hits, but that's another story (IE assumed neat .50 inch holes rather than larger exit holes in accordance with this diagram).)
See the source image

I definitely think in single player they seem fine, in terms of system damage and PKs

Are those diagrams for FMJ rounds?  Entry hole and exit hole is going to be massively dependent on the bullet type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...