.50 cal damage, or lack there of

[messsucher]

2 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

43gr per rounds times 13 rounds per second times 8 guns in the jug is 4472gr per second (4.4kg)

 

Man, that is some serious lead in the air.

[Honza]

27 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Man, that is some serious lead in the air.

And hes being generous with that firerate as hes counting with basically slowest possible rpm of an/m2. 50. - 750-780 but it can go up to 850 and it would. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 hours ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

If 13mm HE behave like you would expect 20mm HE to behave then what do 20mm HE/Minengranate 'in-game' mean to you right now?

Russian 20mm? a small upgrade from their UB 50 cal. They work but you can still have enemy plane run from you even after you landed few of them on it. I personally use them to have the No tracer belt when i do some bad weather flying in Mig. 

 

German 20mm? tactical nuke launcher. One hit will make enemy plane not fly straight and drops its speed to the point where running away is impossible. Very good aerodynamic penalty on anything it hits, be it VVS or Allied. The reason i prefer HMG over the cannon is because the rate of fire, ballistics and ammo count. The damage HMG do is good enough (any hits from them on tail control surfaces makes enemy plane unflyable) and the ease of use makes them just better as it stands now. Bigger is not always better if you cant land it on target. 

 

Allied 20mm? Only viable weapon they poses at the moment. Actually makes Axis planes lose parts and catch fire.  

Edited October 7, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Russian 20mm? a small upgrade from their UB 50 cal.

Indeed they are:

-Same Cartridge length of 145.6mm

-(almost)same ammount of propellant

-the 20mm round itself is even short than the 12.7mm (58mm-63mm for th 20mm and 64mm for th 12.7)

But the capacity of the 20mm for HE and Incendiary is bigger and there is more fragmentation material

but on the opposite is a draggier and slower projectile.

Edited October 7, 2020 by the_emperor

[FTC_Zero]

10 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:

I’ve been saying this for a couple of years now (mainly on the IL-2 Reddit); but the US .50s are, IMO, not modeled accurately, and still aren’t, even (if not especially) post-DM update.

 

I speak from two sources; historical & personal.

 

Historically, pilots speak of 6-8 .50s absolutely decimating anything they touched. Pilots speak of sawing wings/tails off, seeing blood explode on the inside of cockpits, etc, all from a couple of bursts. Look at combat footage from the time. One, maybe two bursts from the .50s and that airframe is at least out of action. Obviously A LOT comes down to good convergence, I’ll readily admit that. But a well-converged 8-gun burst of .50s — do people understand how much lead that is impacting a (relatively) small area?

 

A one-second burst from 8 .50s put out 4.44kg (9.8lbs) of lead. A single MG 151/20 put out 1.38kg/s. This put the 47’s armament in league with x3 151/20s, in terms of burst-mass alone. Now, does it seem that way in-game? Don’t get me wrong; I fully understand that burst-mass isn’t everything, and it certainly doesn’t take into account explosive content (or lack thereof). But it counts for something, which is why it’s a heavily-used metric in any formula that attempts to calculate weapon ‘power.’

 

Then, personal experience; I’ve seen what a single HMG does to engine blocks, vehicles, people, concrete, even steel. And these weren’t special rounds, for the most part they were simple ball rounds. I can’t imagine what a converged 8 would do.

 

In-game, I can chase around 109s, putting burst after burst into them, and the keep on putting along. Yes, occasionally I’ll get a pilot kill. But that’s a rarity. More often than not it’s a long game. Merely from turning the aircraft surface into Swiss-cheese, it should be unflyable. Pieces should instantly fly off when hit with a well-converged blast. But don't take my word for it....

 

I realize this is mostly anecdotal, but what I've noticed is that some folks get really defensive about this. Are we just going to ignore the video posted on the first page? 205 rounds to kill a K-4, lol.

Then we get to the point that no one is denying, and yet some folks act like it's not a big deal; U.S. late war belts absolutely should have API and API-T rounds. Not pure AP with occasional AP-T. According to Flying Guns World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45, early-war .50 belts should be  "...loaded with 40% [M2] AP, 40% [M1] incendiary and 20% [M1] tracer..." while late-war belts were "...loaded with the M8 API..." with the occasional M20 API-T for tracers. Some pilots opted not to load tracers, as "...the tracer fell out of favour when it was realised that it was providing more help to the enemy." Interestingly, the M23 incendiary (carrying a whopping 5.83gr of incendiary composition) saw some late-war use, as well. Accordingly, IMO, we should have two belt options for the 51 and 47; A 'standard' belt with M8 API and the occasional M20 API-T, or a 'stealth' belt of pure M8 API. I truly believe this would go a long way in terms of effectiveness of the current AN/M2s.

 

As for the Breda 12.7mm, it didn’t even have half the explosive content of the MG 131 13.2mm round (0.8 grams PETN for the Breda, 1.4 grams PETN & 0.3 grams thermite for the 131). The Breda also had a lower RoF than most .50s, which became abysmal when synchronized to a prop (as in the 202) coming in at 575/min.

 

If anything, I think x2 Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm outperforms x8 well-converged M2s in many cases, which is simply BS. Perhaps they’d be better at igniting a fuel fire, but that’s about it.

Oh, then there's the Soviet UBS round... if I recall it carried quite a lot of explosive filler?

As far I know it was already officially stated that API rounds for M2 50cals are not modelled right know. Please correct me if I am wrong.

7 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

The damage HMG do is good enough

Can't wait for your German 13mm only challenge aces on dogfight servers. As I stated, we were talking about the damage difference between German MG131 and MG151/20

[-SF-Disarray]

If you want to know about the actual performance of the actual 13mm HE rounds used by the actual Germans in the actual war, consider this. They stopped using them in favor of incendiary rounds while fighting a war that was going badly for them. Now, war is a lot of things but the one thing wars, and the people that run them, tend to have in common is pragmatism. You don't go changing something that would require a lot of work from industrial retooling to stop making one kind of bullet and start making another kind of bullet all the way to the logistical headache of pushing these new bullets to the front while simultaneously figuring out something to do with the stock of the old bullets you already have on the front lines unless you have a good reason to do it. If the 13mm HE round was plane killer it is propertied to be in this game, they never would have done this because there would be no need to do this. They wouldn't have done this if they didn't need to doubly so at the time they chose to do this, as the war was turning against them; a time when stopping ammo plants to retool them to make different bullets would mean less ammo is going to the front where it was needed.

 

You could further consider that the 13mm HE round used by the Germans contained about a gram of high explosive charge. This isn't very much. This much HE would do a fair amount of damage to a human body, sure. But airplanes are a little more sturdy than a person. Now if you consider that planes survived getting hit by 20mm, 30mm, and 37mm HE rounds regularly, all containing much more HE filler than 1 gram, like 20 times more at a minimum, and things should start coming into focus for you.

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

As far I know it was already officially stated that API rounds for M2 50cals are not modelled right know. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Can't wait for your German 13mm only challenge aces on dogfight servers. As I stated, we were talking about the damage difference between German MG131 and MG151/20

 

G-6 has 2 HMG's and 1 30mm.

 

Guess how many time i have killed enemy plane with the machine guns doing the job and 30mm was just final "fuck you" in to the cockpit in TAW when the poor sod is trying to pull up and bail out.

The 30mm is slow and sparse in its rate of fire. Good at swatting peshkas but horrible at fighter swatting.

[-Astra-iHellcat]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:31 AM, KW_1979 said:

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

 

 

More people need to see this video.

[von_Tom]

5 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

.....

Why did they swap?  Was it to standardise ammo because the HE wasn’t doing enough damage against bombers?  Was it lack of materials? Any idea when they swapped over?
 

I’d also be grateful if you can point me to the primary sources for your info. 
 

von Tom

[Cpt_Siddy]

HE filled small MG ammo is hard to produce, has sub par ballistics and does not deliver the damage a heavier, rigid ammo with incendiary component does. 

 

HE damage is all or nothing, if the energy of the blast does not overcome the yield strength of material, most of its energy just get dissipated harmlessly. 

As the diameter of the ammo grows, so does the available space for HE filler, but inverse is also true, and when you are having a HE filler amount that is comparable to your average blasting cap, you just not going to achieve good results with it. 

 

In this game however, having a micro gram of HE filler seems to cause disproportionally high damage on planes aerodynamic performance, how it is calculated is a mystery to me but it sure feels a bit on the optimistic side. 

[336th_Ripper*]

We are a P51D Squadron and pre 4.005 the P51D guns were damaging aircraft just about the same as in my DCS P51D-25. But since then , the guns are anemic!  We are at a crossroads here. Many of us might to stop playing iL2 Great Battles and not invest into Normandy. There is plenty of real gun cam footage showing P-51's tearing into FW's but lately we are just pecking away at them even at 200m convergence. It's the first time I am in the complaint forum. I know that many other virtual pilots are talking about it when we are in the SRS coms in Combat Box. Also the K-14 Gunsight does not track very well in Il2 as compared to DCS, so many of us stopped using it altogether. 

 

We are quickly loosing interest in the game. Just my 2 cents on behalf of the 336th. We really appreciate the fix regarding spotting in the last update. I also appreciate the timely fix for we Radeon users. I will try to put up some Il2 Gun Cam footage. 

[TheSublimeGoose]

11 hours ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

As far I know it was already officially stated that API rounds for M2 50cals are not modelled right know. Please correct me if I am wrong.

They’re not; That was my entire point.

[unreasonable]

8 hours ago, -Astra-iHellcat said:

More people need to see this video.

 

Assuming that the average numbers given are reasonable - I get rather lower numbers for the 109s but still much higher than for the other types - you see that it is not so much that the .50 cal is weak, as that the 109 in particular is very strong. Firing from behind through the back armour plate and fuel tank it seems to be impossible to hurt the pilot through his armour seat, even after many rounds at short range, which I suspect is not right. Against rifle calibre bullets I can accept it: with .50 cal AP or even ball rounds I would take some convincing. 

 

What you do get after a few rounds is a fuel leak which will burn, although it takes many rounds to make this happen.  So the rounds have a chance to penetrate the 109's rear armour plate and defeat the fuel tank.  You cannot see them in that video, but if you run this test and use free camera to "walk" over to the target plane you can see when fuel starts leaking onto the ground, usually after 10-15 rounds.

 

I wonder if the mechanism for AP calculation only allows for one armour layer to be penetrated?

 

This has nothing to do with the allegedly "indestructible" V stab. Test that at 90 degrees and .50 cal bullets go straight through it and damage anything behind. For instance you can shoot the rudder off the plane behind firing through the stab.

 

 

[357th_KW]

What I found in my testing was that if you engage the 109's fuel tank from the side, it burns very similarly to every other plane.  But from the rear is where it gets weird.  Since we knew there was something going on with the vert stab, that's where that theory comes from.  But as you point out it could just be that the alloy bulkhead is getting treated like some sort of fire suppressant.  The fuel tank certainly leaks easily enough, often within the first couple rounds striking it.  I also wonder if the MW50 tanks come into play in this - I say that because I noticed that the 190D9 (while being on the high end of average for durability overall) is MUCH tougher than an A8 (which is surprisingly fragile).  Put the same short burst into both fighters and the A8 is in flames with a dead pilot while the D9 is leaking fuel and running away from you at high speed.  The only real difference in construction between the two that I'm aware of is the MW50 tank behind the fuel tank.

 

The MW50 tanks are an interesting side note - I'm not entirely certain how flammable MW50 was - Methanol burns much like Ethanol, so you'd imagine it would be along the lines of 100 proof liquor which burns, but is hardly gasoline.  Of course if you have a slow burning methanol fire and some gas starts leaking onto it, that could be nasty.   My understanding is that the tanks themselves were made of aluminum (and should offer little protection against AP HMG fire and above) and were pressurized with air tapped from the supercharger - thus if you poke some holes in the tank it's going to depressurize and quit delivering MW50 even if there is still fluid left in the tank.  Would the Kommandogerat pull boost back down if methanol pressure dropped?  I'd guess not in that scenario which should result in a blown engine very quickly if the throttle is up in emergency power.  That would be some neat systems modeling, but is obviously way beyond what we have right now.

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

I'm not entirely certain how flammable MW50

that is a good question, since the flamability of 50% Alcohol is highly depend I guess (temperatur, oxygen content of the sorrounding air etc.?). If any one with a scientific background could enlighten that topic, that would be great . 

Edited October 8, 2020 by the_emperor

[Honza]

30 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

that is a good question, since the flamability of 50% Alcohol is highly depend I guess (temperatur, oxygen content of the sorrounding air etc.?). If any one with a scientific background could enlighten that topic, that would be great . 

It burns pretty damn well and if the pressurisation is made by air with oxygen, thats nice flamethrower if you hit it with api as it is more effective than lighter for example. 

https://youtu.be/vvH_gOXXa4E

Edited October 8, 2020 by =DMD=Honza

[Tempus]

The nowadays 50's API rounds are not the same as WW2 ones (70 years is a lot of time to improve them) but with this video I want to show what a single 0.50 round can do in a thick piece made of  very hard aluminium 6061 alloy. If 50 single rounds can penetrate at this depth this thick pieces it's really easy to extrapolate what damage can generate a 1 sec. spray of 6-8 MG's.

In previous post 43 grs.per round 13 rounds per second of 8 MG's = 4.4 kgs, for 6 Mg's =3.4 kgs. Even you are a greenie in shooting accuracy, like more pilots tend to think and use this to shame you, and you only get to put in place a 25% of that sec. burst rounds. Only 25% is in 8 MG's 25 rounds impacting the objective and in 6 MG's 19 rounds is the magic number. So you have those deep impact penetration rounds doing their work properly well. Then you can guess why most 109 kills ingame have been PK's. So the AP rounds do their work properlly well  if you shoot them in a deflection angle where the magic tail is off the tragectory  of the bullets. These fighting situations are normally in "loops" or in "Chandeles", mostly of those situations are in a close dogfighting generated for a lack of punch-damage  in the first sneaky pass from their belly-pure 6, again due the magic tail, let me call it SpongeBob tail (it's absorbent and stupid). Before DM implementation damage generated by 50's in most cases were plausible realistics and rare ocassions 109 tails or wings ripped off, but, YES, they finished in flames (from the tail not from the engine part) and, YES, the lost a lot of fighting performance due the first past spray. From the point of view of a gamer-virtual pilot, could anybody tell which are the advantages of the nowadays DM implemented model, cause I can only experiment and see an increasing amount of people demanding an increase in the 50's punch (API-APIT implementation, I personally agree on this) and a several 109 models (from Frederics to the Kurfursts) with an unreal SpongeBob tail . I really think, those very complex systems will improve the ingame experience, in a mid-long term, but from 6 months ago til nowadays has been the opposite in terms of game inmersiveness, also in historical terms, also in simulation terms.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Tatata_Time

[unreasonable]

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

 

Everyone seems to like Gustin's site since it corresponds to the "three 50 cal = one 20mm" meme,  but the discussion here suggests that the armour in 109s should have been effective against 50 cals from the rear cone. Note that an AP-I round will certainly have a vastly improved chance of igniting a leaking fuel tank (although this is still by no means a certainty) but it will have slightly worse overall armour penetration. 

 

As shown previously, the results in the game seem not to have anything to do with the V stab issue, which is only invulnerable in the sense that it cannot break off. 

 

In the end, it is just a matter of fact whether 50 cals fired from behind could wound or kill a pilot through the rear armour, fuel tank and seat armour of a 109. It looks as though the developers have concluded that they cannot.  If people do not like that result they need to prove that it is incorrect. 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by unreasonable

[Honza]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

 

Everyone seems to like Gustin's site since it corresponds to the "three 50 cal = one 20mm" meme,  but the discussion here suggests that the armour in 109s should have been effective against 50 cals from the rear cone. Note that an AP-I round will certainly have a vastly improved chance of igniting a leaking fuel tank (although this is still by no means a certainty) but it will have slightly worse overall armour penetration. 

 

As shown previously, the results in the game seem not to have anything to do with the V stab issue, which is only invulnerable in the sense that it cannot break off. 

 

In the end, it is just a matter of fact whether 50 cals fired from behind could wound or kill a pilot through the rear armour, fuel tank and seat armour of a 109. It looks as though the developers have concluded that they cannot.  If people do not like that result they need to prove that it is incorrect. 

 

 

Actually M20 API-T had better penetration values than M2 AP rounds and armor plate covering back of fuel tank in 109/190 is alloy, not true hardened steel, its inferior to steel and by quite a lot. All types of api ammo wouldnt be able to penetrate that 23mm plate if it was solid hardened steel plate but only steel plate wouldnt be enough to stop AP ammo from around 100-150 meters and these "lightweight" alloys had even magnesium in them which incresed ignition effect from APIs. These plates were against shrapnels but not against direct hits from API ammo, they would go straight through and they did and majority of 109s that were shot down, ended up in flames. I'll be more specific abnout armor plating of 109. Multi layered aluminium plating behind fuel tank, this wont stop anything.

Edited October 8, 2020 by =DMD=Honza

[Tempus]

47 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

 

Everyone seems to like Gustin's site since it corresponds to the "three 50 cal = one 20mm" meme,  but the discussion here suggests that the armour in 109s should have been effective against 50 cals from the rear cone. Note that an AP-I round will certainly have a vastly improved chance of igniting a leaking fuel tank (although this is still by no means a certainty) but it will have slightly worse overall armour penetration. 

 

In the end, it is just a matter of fact whether 50 cals fired from behind could wound or kill a pilot through the rear armour, fuel tank and seat armour of a 109. It looks as though the developers have concluded that they cannot. As shown previously, the results in the game seem not to have anything to do with the V stab issue, which is only invulnerable in the sense that it cannot break off.   If people do not like that result they need to prove that it is incorrect. 

Can't understand your point. Please, explain why you come again with the useless & pointless comparisons between 50's & 20's. The web you quoted tells nothing about 109's (sorry only talks about E--4, same models represented ingame, don't they?). Nobody, and I'm 99% sure  about this, is really thinking 50's are a pile of crapp due a bad DM representation because nowadays they cannot cut 109's pieces like a surgeon cutting flesh with his scalpel. I really recomend you to read from the first post of this topic (uffff..... 13 pages) to get an idea of which are the main complains about 0.50 caliber MG's ingame actually have been working til the DM implementation , not how 20's, 30's and 13's are suppoused to be. This is not the first post I got to say people to stay focus in 50's and leave how other MG's or Cannons work, in real life or in game.

 

NAA ingeneers, also Republic's (P-47) ones too, developed the D-K model of  P-51 focused in 2 main P-51B/C pilots reported needs: an improved cockpit visibility and a lack of fire power. Everybody, with historical events in hand, can conclude they changed some things to improve the fighting capabilities related with, let's call it, Boom & Zoom tactics: the advantage of spotting first and the capability of  putting enough fire power concentrated in a narrow point in space in a very short while . The bubble canopy improved their spotting also the situational awarness, the increase from 4x M2 0.50 to 6x improved the amount of rounds per time unit and the imprementation of the K-14 gunsight improved their deflection aiming accuracy. K-14 is everything less a good ingame implementation and you know the rest with 50's issues( otherwise I remind you to read the rest 12-13 topic pages). Let us answer this question: Do you really think everything we are complaining about is well ingame implemented? if your answer is YES then WHY? Explain the reasons why you( another member of "people") prove you're correct and the rest of mortals are incorrect. Also you can give us clues how we can definetly and irrefutably prove these long terms issues. Please enlight all ignorants (I'm included)  in these tech issues and why we, as a simple dudes that burn our free time hopping on a WW2 warbird really need to get more technical resources than the programing team. 

 

Thanks for advance,

 

TT_Time, an ignorant who needs to learn something every day, good or bad, but, at least, something

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

Actually M20 API-T had better penetration values than M2 AP rounds and armor plate covering back of fuel tank in 109/190 is alloy, not true hardened steel, its inferior to steel and by quite a lot. All types of api ammo wouldnt be able to penetrate that 23mm plate if it was solid hardened steel plate but only steel plate wouldnt be enough to stop AP ammo from around 100-150 meters and these "lightweight" alloys had even magnesium in them which incresed ignition effect from APIs. These plates were against shrapnels but not against direct hits from API ammo, they would go straight through and they did and majority of 109s that were shot down, ended up in flames. I'll be more specific abnout armor plating of 109. Multi layered aluminium plating behind fuel tank, this wont stop anything.

 

The 50 cals in the game do go through the 109's back armor plate - you can see this because the fuel tank starts to leak after a fairly small number of rounds. As I stated earlier. They will eventually also cause a fire: just not very quickly, as they are not modelled as incendiaries, which in late war settings they should be. 

 

What they do not do in the game is pass through rear plate, fuel tank and pilot's seat to kill the pilot, at least when I test. Whether they should or not I am open minded. 

 

2 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Can't understand your point.

 

 Too bad about your lack of reading comprehension: and yes I have read the entire thread and all the other ones like it. Just talking about 50 cals in isolation is pointless: it the the relative performance of the various weapons and ammunition that determines game balance.   

 

The problem here is sorting out the valid points are from those that are demonstrably wrong.

 

For instance, it was claimed that the 50 cals cause no aerodynamic penalties when hitting wings. This was proven to be wrong. They do, however, take many more hits than than the German and Soviet HMGs using HE ammo to get the same effects. So that issue is whether the relative effectiveness of the 13mm HE rounds vs a ball/AP round in damaging aircraft skin is about right. You cannot have a sensible view on that unless you consider both types.  Personally I suspect the game's implementation exaggerates the HE effect rather than understating the AP effect, but I suspect that is true across the board: so again consideration of HMG and cannon HE effects is relevant. 

 

Then there is the question of fire from the rear against the tail and fuselage. PKs through all of rear armour, fuel tank and seat armour appear to be almost impossible. Is that correct? Gustin seems to think so. I do not know for sure and I expect nobody here knows either.  

 

Fuel tanks are certainly holed fairly easily through the armour.  With an API round, which we should have for a late war setting, 109s will burn after far fewer hits, even if nothing else in the game is changed, and I suspect the vast majority of the complaints will stop.   

 

 

 

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

So that issue is whether the relative effectiveness of the 13mm HE rounds vs a ball/AP round in damaging aircraft skin is about right.

 

 

I have played my whole childhood with explosives and i can guarantee you that 1g of HE is wasted space on 50 cal.

You get better results just by using the available space for hard metal core, because the stored kinetic energy in it will cause far far more damage on skin and in internals. 

[TheSublimeGoose]

Regarding pilot kills from behind with US AN/M2s;

 

I have not a single doubt in my mind they happened. I’ll most certainly find some primary sources to back this claim, but for now, consider the following:

 

M8 API ammunition (the round that late-war belts should mostly be made up of) could penetrate 25mm of (RHA) steel at 100m and 18mm at 500m.

 

Now, in a real-world situation, the rounds impacting a hypothetical 109 from behind would have their energy, direction, etc disrupted by numerous things, I’ll cede that. But then you must consider the sheer number of rounds impacting the target and the target’s armor.

 

Could both armor plates (assuming the 109 had both) stop a single .50? Absolutely. Could they stop a barrage from x6 or x8 .50 batteries? I doubt it. Metal stress is a thing, which I doubt is modeled in-game.

 

for an excellent reference, watch this (skip to 20:20 for the part about Axis armor plate):

 

 

Greg claims .50s could pierce from behind and pilot-kill, and also claims he’s seen AARs where US pilots claimed from-behind pilot kills.

 

Basically, pilots should not be invulnerable to rear .50s. Yes, I’m sure plenty survived because of their armor. And I’m sure the (somewhat limited) 109 armor failed many pilots.

 

Don’t forget that survivor bias is a very real thing. 

 

[Tempus]

7 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Too bad about your lack of reading comprehension

My issue is not related in reading posts in english. It's more related with empty pointless concepts, but thanks anyway for your "worry" about my reading comprehension.  Take a look at that vid. It's not the bible but it's a solid opinion, also is not from us, extra point. One tip: don't use "balanced game": it's weird and denotes you really know that game is intentionally manipulated for any reason out of any comprehension in any human language.

 

 

[Nolly]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/353-duncan-5jan44.jpg

 

This guy said he wanted more AP, instead of incendary, as he implies they are better a making some "pieces come off" Discuss...?

 

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Tatata_Time said:

My issue is not related in reading posts in english. It's more related with empty pointless concepts, but thanks anyway for your "worry" about my reading comprehension.  Take a look at that vid. It's not the bible but it's a solid opinion, also is not from us, extra point. One tip: don't use "balanced game": it's weird and denotes you really know that game is intentionally manipulated for any reason out of any comprehension in any human language.

 

 

 

Game balance is an issue that has been repeatedly raised by people complaining about the 50 cals in MP: personally I just want the best simulation of what actually happens. 

 

I subscribe to Greg's site - I have watched them all.  Which is partly why I said:   "Firing from behind through the back armour plate and fuel tank it seems to be impossible to hurt the pilot through his armour seat, even after many rounds at short range, which I suspect is not right. Against rifle calibre bullets I can accept it: with .50 cal AP or even ball rounds I would take some convincing."  

 

Yet you ask, in a post responding to my link to Gustin:  "Let us answer this question: Do you really think everything we are complaining about is well ingame implemented? if your answer is YES then WHY? Explain the reasons why you( another member of "people") prove you're correct and the rest of mortals are incorrect. Also you can give us clues how we can definetly and irrefutably prove these long terms issues. Please enlight all ignorants (I'm included)  in these tech issues and why we, as a simple dudes that burn our free time hopping on a WW2 warbird really need to get more technical resources than the programing team. "

 

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has read the thread that I am not convinced that everything people are complaining about is well implemented. Just my post before the one you answered states that clearly.  I simply note that the burden of proof here is with people who want changes - it always has been, and if you do not like that, tough luck. 

 

You are not likely to get changes if the video tests presented to the developers contain misinterpretations of what is actually happening. So I have previously pointed out how the 50 cals do indeed cause aerodynamic penalties, and more recently that the V stab on the 109 does not block bullets. Also that it takes many hits to cause a fuel fire from the rear, but only a few to cause a leak. 

 

Unfortunately there are a number of people here - you are by no means the only one - who treat any attempt at objectivity on these issues as a form of treason.

Edited October 9, 2020 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:

Regarding pilot kills from behind with US AN/M2s;

 

I have not a single doubt in my mind they happened. I’ll most certainly find some primary sources to back this claim, but for now, consider the following:

 

M8 API ammunition (the round that late-war belts should mostly be made up of) could penetrate 25mm of (RHA) steel at 100m and 18mm at 500m.

 

Now, in a real-world situation, the rounds impacting a hypothetical 109 from behind would have their energy, direction, etc disrupted by numerous things, I’ll cede that. But then you must consider the sheer number of rounds impacting the target and the target’s armor.

 

Could both armor plates (assuming the 109 had both) stop a single .50? Absolutely. Could they stop a barrage from x6 or x8 .50 batteries? I doubt it. Metal stress is a thing, which I doubt is modeled in-game.

 

for an excellent reference, watch this (skip to 20:20 for the part about Axis armor plate):

 

Greg claims .50s could pierce from behind and pilot-kill, and also claims he’s seen AARs where US pilots claimed from-behind pilot kills.

 

Basically, pilots should not be invulnerable to rear .50s. Yes, I’m sure plenty survived because of their armor. And I’m sure the (somewhat limited) 109 armor failed many pilots.

 

Don’t forget that survivor bias is a very real thing. 

 

 

Yes, I agree with all of that. 

 

I suspect that modelling cumulative/compound stress damage to armour sections is a step too far in complexity for the game - especially if it only comes into play in air to air combat in a relatively small number of scenarios, in which a 50 cal barrage from the rear cone of a 109 is one, unfortunately. If armour penetration is calculated using a probability it could just be adjusted upwards a little in this case, where presumably it is zero currently.  You would get some PKs, they would still depend on the number of hits, but the hits would be independent without compound effect. I doubt anyone would notice.   

[TheSublimeGoose]

50 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Yes, I agree with all of that. 

 

I suspect that modelling cumulative/compound stress damage to armour sections is a step too far in complexity for the game - especially if it only comes into play in air to air combat in a relatively small number of scenarios, in which a 50 cal barrage from the rear cone of a 109 is one, unfortunately. If armour penetration is calculated using a probability it could just be adjusted upwards a little in this case, where presumably it is zero currently.  You would get some PKs, they would still depend on the number of hits, but the hits would be independent without compound effect. I doubt anyone would notice.   

Yeah, adjusting probabilities — if that’s indeed how the simulation works — would work.

 

Otherwise, we could model metal stress by simply ‘deleting’ armor plate once it’s taken enough damage.

[BCI-Nazgul]

So I'm hearing that number of systems in the DM isn't correct.  The cumulative effect of  multiple hits isn't correct, etc, etc...  The deal is that it might be impossible with the current state of the internet and PC hardware to do this correctly.  Unreasonable's desire to have a perfect simulation might be unreasonable in MP.  However, this can be fixed.  The devs can bring us into the correct statistical range by changing the damage parameters to line up with historical numbers.

[Cpt_Siddy]

There is sooo many people in here who have never fired a gun, let alone 50 cal, in this thread....

[cardboard_killer]

There's a lot of people that read this thread with advanced degrees and an understanding that science > "feels wrong". Yet the "feels wrong" group continues to whine like the day they got their SAT scores back. And have been doing so since before the USAF pinnned for the day when they could replace their M2s with a decent 20mm aircraft gun, back in the early 1940s.

[[DBS]Browning]

2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

the USAF pinnned for the day when they could replace their M2s with a decent 20mm aircraft gun, back in the early 1940s.

 

The USAAF was so confident that all it's planes would carry 20mm cannon that by 1942 they had stockpiled 40 Million rounds of 20mm ammo.

Before the US entered the war, they where well aware that the .50cal was no longer a modern air weapon. It was heavy and lacked punch, as it does ingame.

Increasing the number of .50cals from 2 to 6 or 8 was a stop-gap that didn't make up for the US's lack of cannon.

 

If the .50 in-game feels weak, then it matches the impression of US aircraft designers in the early '40s who also thought it was under powered as an air weapon.

Clearly some issues with the 109's damage modeling mind.

Edited October 9, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[TheSublimeGoose]

2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

There's a lot of people that read this thread with advanced degrees and an understanding that science > "feels wrong". Yet the "feels wrong" group continues to whine like the day they got their SAT scores back. And have been doing so since before the USAF pinnned for the day when they could replace their M2s with a decent 20mm aircraft gun, back in the early 1940s.

See what I mean? Whenever this topic is brought up, people get defensive, to the point of insulting others. 

[FTC_Zero]

On 10/8/2020 at 8:41 AM, unreasonable said:

 

Assuming that the average numbers given are reasonable - I get rather lower numbers for the 109s but still much higher than for the other types - you see that it is not so much that the .50 cal is weak, as that the 109 in particular is very strong. Firing from behind through the back armour plate and fuel tank it seems to be impossible to hurt the pilot through his armour seat, even after many rounds at short range, which I suspect is not right. Against rifle calibre bullets I can accept it: with .50 cal AP or even ball rounds I would take some convincing. 

In my experience getting PK in a 190 or 109 from behind from M2 50.cal is no.1 death reason. Pucky thin armor plates wont help against 50.cal bullets. Convergence is a bigger issue than the penetration abilities of 50cal IMO.

[Tempus]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has read the thread that I am not convinced that everything people are complaining about is well implemented. Just my post before the one you answered states that clearly.  I simply note that the burden of proof here is with people who want changes - it always has been, and if you do not like that, tough luck. 

Sorry if I haven't read between lines what you really want to express.....most people here don't want changes.... don't be mistaken. Most people complain about the changes have been aplied from the implementation of the new DM, and they have not been working properly To be clearly honest I don't like the negative consequences generated due that nowadays incorrect implementation because they're weird and unfare for people that come to this game expecting a very good simulation experience, indepently which side you choose. Before DM things work inside these parameters: acceptable but need to be rechequed in future. 6...oouhhhh 6 months after we have a new DM implemented, good for the game and for all comunity, but nowadays is generating weird situations for players in both sides. I put this DM situation as the same level MIGOTO affair, or even worse cause with migoto not everybody use VR, but here everybody choose a side (in 2D or in 3D). In your way of reaching the best simulator, in which point are you now?  Do you really like hopping on in a 109 with a big blind part not modeled and/or missed in the DM and with 2 MG's in your nose that can evaporate worlds with a few rounds or hopping on in an allied A/C with 50's (almost all models in BoBP and in the upcoming BoN) and enjoy the infinite shooting to the nothing. Are you proud of flying UFO "cheated" A/C's? 

You or them or both (I'm refering to the corporative members) come here once a week with the intention of extinguishing  the "self supoused" fire of a revolution in progress: " be careful in what you wish.... Could it be worse than now? Then monkey bussiness in a close future for EVERYBODY. At this point I suspect scientifics will find the definitive COVID-19 vacine sooner than flying in any side with a corrected DM.  

And please, forget about answering me and concentrate your efforts  in scientific numbers that will save us all from the nowadays dissaster in progress.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Tatata_Time

[BCI-Nazgul]

I'm just wondering if all this thinking, research and typing is going to make any difference.

Edited October 9, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[Cpt_Siddy]

This place serves place to vent frustration after your perfect bounce on 109 tail did no damage, after what the 109 landed few lucky mg shots on your tail when you were pulling away and made your plane unflyable. 

 

Fun things are fun 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[BCI-Nazgul]

5 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

...And have been doing so since before the USAF pinnned for the day when they could replace their M2s with a decent 20mm aircraft gun, back in the early 1940s...

Yet, the British somehow managed to win the Battle of Britain with .303 x 8 armed planes in what arguably could be called an equal or even disadvantaged fight. They were shooting at essentially the same planes US players fight against in multiplayer (except for the 190.)  Clearly, the US .50s even with AP only are not right.

[Cpt_Siddy]

3 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Before the US entered the war, they where well aware that the .50cal was no longer a modern air weapon.

 

 

And yet they continued using it well in to early jet era? Surely, 50 cals offered some redeeming qualities. 

1 minute ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Yet, the British somehow managed to win the Battle of Britain with .303 x 8 armed planes in what arguably could be called an equal or even disadvantaged fight. They were shooting at essentially the same planes US players fight against in multiplayer (except for the 190.)  Clearly, the US .50s even with AP only are not right.

In this game the 303 and russian 7.62s are awesome. They spray allot and cause lots of faults and PK's on plane. 

 

I have many time shot wing tips of 109 and caused them detach in spectacular manner.  

[HR_Zunzun]

3 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The USAAF was so confident that all it's planes would carry 20mm cannon that by 1942 they had stockpiled 40 Million rounds of 20mm ammo.

Before the US entered the war, they where well aware that the .50cal was no longer a modern air weapon. It was heavy and lacked punch, as it does ingame.

Increasing the number of .50cals from 2 to 6 or 8 was a stop-gap that didn't make up for the US's lack of cannon.

 

If the .50 in-game feels weak, then it matches the impression of US aircraft designers in the early '40s who also thought it was under powered as an air weapon.

Clearly some issues with the 109's damage modeling mind.

Exactly in which way did not make up for the lack of cannon? Because the main mission of USAAF was to shoot down enemy fighters and the .5 cal shot them down. Didn´t them?

If the .5 cal was as bad as the game depict why did the USAAF fought the next war with the same guns. Even if the gun was in the end replaced by something clearly better it still did its job in Corea. It gave at least as good as it recieved (the opposition having 23/37mm combo).

Hubber Zemke opinion on p-47 armament was this "Fire power with eight, fifty-caliber heavy machine guns was devastating if a favorable position on an enemy aircraft could be attained. At a range of 250 to 300 yards, with minimum deflection, most enemy aircraft were mortally wounded by a relatively short burst from the eight guns. Perphaps "dispachted" is the word". Other pilot (like Witold Lanowski or Robert Johnson) had the same opinion.

Reading through P-47 pilots report (Mike Williams web page. So far I have gone through just above 700 different claims) the impression is the same. Most of the attack were from dead 6 and just a bit below half of them ended up with the enemy bursting in flames or exploding within the first pass.

That seem to me a bit different from what we have in game. Specially if we talk about dead six classic bounce attack.