Jump to content

.50 cal damage, or lack there of


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

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

 

They did, but it wasn't the plan.

The US's 20mm cannons suffered from manufacturing and design problems all the way through the war and beyond into the early jet age.

By the time the F-86 Sabre was flying, the US Hispano production problems where largely solved, but now the Hispano was also outdated compared to the new revolving cannons, already deployed by other air forces. Once the US developed the M39 revolving 20mm cannon in 1952, the .50cal was finally put to rest as a weapon for new fighter aircraft.

 

The redeeming qualities of the 50cal where that it worked and it was available and that made it the best armament that the US had.

 

  

9 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

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).

 

For the same reason the fought the second war with them; they tried and failed to produce any alternative.

The .50 was a 'good enough' weapon when you put lots on an aircraft, but it was well understood at the time that the US needed to switch to a cannon as it's main air weapon.

 

It's not in the least surprising that US pilots give accounts of their own weapons being devastating, but I doubt there will be any accounts of German or British pilots wishing they had .50cals instead of their own weapons.

 

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

For the same reason the fought the second war with them; they tried and failed to produce any alternative.

The .50 was a 'good enough' weapon when you put lots on an aircraft, but it was well understood at the time that the US needed to switch to a cannon as it's main air weapon.

 

It's not in the least surprising that US pilots give accounts of their own weapons being devastating, but I doubt there will be any accounts of German or British pilots wishing they had .50cals instead of their own weapons.

 

Well, here we are not discussing if the .5 cal was better than 20mm cannon. We have presented many times the equivalence of 3 x.5cal to 1 20mm cannon. That speaks volumes on its own and that the main USA/NAVY had 6/8 of them is a good proof of the same; The cannon was better (just in case is not clear enough).

What we are disccussing in here is if the sim depict the performance of such a gun (.5cal) as a relatively close image of its real counterpart.

I think that nobody would use Zemke´s word to describe current .5 cal sim implementation.

I also do not think that at least 45% (roughly every other one) of fighters going down in flames and/or just exploding in real life (as per real pilot encounter reports) is anything close from what we are experiencing in the sim.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I also do not think that at least 45% (roughly every other one) of fighters going down in flames and/or just exploding is anything close from what we are experiencing in the sim.

 

No, that's not what is experienced in the sim. 

It wasn't the experience in reality either. 

If 50cald caused for and explosions at anything near that rate, then there would have been no attempts to replace the 50cal in the 40s or the 50s, other airforces would have ditched their canons in favour of 50cal clones and American strategic bombers wouldn't have needed escorts.

 

Pilot kill claims are notoriously unreliable. 

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The redeeming qualities of the 50cal where that it worked and it was available and that made it the best armament that the US had.

 

 

Look, you are derailing the convo. The issue in here is that is it realistic that you need to pump 200+ 50 cals in to 109's behind to get desirable results? 

 

I have seen first hand what 50 cals non AP does to trucks and cars. that include engine block, skin, internal and reinforcing steel structures. I have also seen real Finnish G-6 (the thing is TINY, Cessna tier tiny) and know what they are made of, what their tail section is like and i can imagine how it would look like after 50 rounds of .50 cals fired from dead 6, let alone 200+ rounds tested in here.

 

I can safely call BS on the current AP 50 cal performance against that air frame. 

 

At this moment, engaging 109 from dead 6 is exercise in futility, but shooting them at deflection angle gets results. This is indicative of damage model that shields all the important parts from 50cal AP and ignores most of structural damage caused from that shielding. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

No, that's not what is experienced in the sim. 

It wasn't the experience in reality either. 

If 50cald caused for and explosions at anything near that rate, then there would have been no attempts to replace the 50cal in the 40s or the 50s, other airforces would have ditched their canons in favour of 50cal clones and American strategic bombers wouldn't have needed escorts.

 

Then you may go and read the real pilot reportsa and found it certain. Because is what I have done and just by taking note of the damage described, variations of the phrases "bursting into flames" or "e/a blew up" appeared many times. Exactly the first does it 242 times and the second 84 times, for the whole aircraft, and 47, in the local explosion variation. That from a total (so far) of 705 claim´s report. Not difficult to do the maths.

There is still 3 FG pending to review but the average more or less stayed the same since half the way.

Taking into account that the total claim for the p-47 in both 8th and 9th AFs were about 3000-3500 (do not have at hand the exact number) this is a very big sample that I think represent the experience of the 8th and 9th p-47 pilots quite accurately.

 

The M2 was a very effective weapon. The reason for changing to cannon was not the efficacy against fighters during ww2. It was that the cannon achieved the same effect but you needed only a fraction of the number of guns, the ammo and all the logistic involved. Also, with the advent of the jets that use kerosen (less inflammable) and expecting to fly at much higher heights, the possibility of causing fires (one of the main strenghts of the .5s) was much lower.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Also, with the advent of the jets that use kerosen (less inflammable) and expecting to fly at much higher heights, the possibility of causing fires (one of the main strenghts of the .5s) was much lower.

 

Also, average jet was build far far faaaar more sturdier than your 109.

 

Planes got bigger, faster and less maneuverable.  It was not untill gen3+ jets that we started to see Fly-by-wire, over 1:1 thrust:weight, dynamically unstable hyper maneuverable jets. 

Rotary cannons were big, heavy but offered rate of fire that put them head and shoulders above anything multiple gun setups offered and the growing size and power of jets made them best guns for job. Again, we can discuss reasons why 50 cals were phased out, but lets please not argue of how 50 cals are unable to totally shred the light alloy tail of one of the smallest and lightest of fighter of WW2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

No, that's not what is experienced in the sim. 

It wasn't the experience in reality either. 

If 50cald caused for and explosions at anything near that rate, then there would have been no attempts to replace the 50cal in the 40s or the 50s, other airforces would have ditched their canons in favour of 50cal clones and American strategic bombers wouldn't have needed escorts.

 

Pilot kill claims are notoriously unreliable. 

Exept youre wrong. Brits smacked .50s on their spits in the end with addition to 20s, they all kept cannons as they were simply better, especially against heavy opponents, germs started using 13mms with same ammo as USA in the end... API. Russians used 12.7 through whole war, italians used it too and japs were slapping it into planes at the end aswell. Only US changed 2 cannons for 4-6 additional HMGs as it gave much longer fire time and massive ammount of their enemies had exposed fuel tanks quite a lot. Have you tried to ride on horseback and hit RC plane with gun? Thats the same like hitting fast fighter sweeping onto bomber. .50 became lately in korea useless due to full metal sturdy constructions ( faaaaar more sturdy than full metal in 2WW) and jet fuel in that era wasnt as much flamable as 2WW fuel or jet fuel for 262s. 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

So now 303s are better than 12.7mm. When will the goal posts stop moving.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

So now 303s are better than 12.7mm. When will the goal posts stop moving.

 I will try to be as generic as you:

 

as "303's are better than 12.7mm." as "axis won the WW2". 

The answer to your second sentence: They will stop as soon as any solid fix will be implemented. As easy as your sentences

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

 

So now 303s are better than 12.7mm. When will the goal posts stop moving.

Oh please, that's not what I'm saying that all.   I was merely pointing out that if planes armed with 8 x .303s were sufficient to shoot down a good portion of the German air force including two engine bombers than certainly 6 or 8 x .50s armed planes should be more than enough for the job, but in this game they are not.   The British would have lost BOB if the AP armed guns work like they do here.   Hopefully, you can understand now.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I was merely pointing out that if planes armed with 8 x .303s were sufficient to shoot down a good portion of the German air force including two engine bombers than certainly 6 or 8 x .50s armed planes should be more than enough for the job, but in this game they are not.

I get your point, but let me play Devil's Advocate here: in BOB, 303s were not sufficient to shoot down two engine bombers. They could cripple them, they could injure or even kill gunners, they could make their crew ask for more fighters to cover them, but they could only shoot them down under exceptional circumstances and as a consequence of cumulative damage to engines, airframe, and the crew.

 

I made some limited tests in the QMB: I parked my P-40 behind friendly bombers (4xA-20, 4xB-25, 4xHe-111, and 4xJu-52s) and opened fire at convergence range.  I could kick all four out all the time with my limited ammo and with a hit ratio that could be somewhere between 20% and 30%. Still my experience was that my "kills" were very much different.

 

Ju-52: It was not easy to set them on fire, but their pilots and co-pilots were prone to get killed before any real damage was done to the aircraft -- I was shooting from dead six, and the bullets must have gone through the whole fuselage. With a short, concentrated burst at the wing section between fuselage and engine it was easily possible to saw off a wing. All four crashed within a minute.

 

B-25 and A-20: No PKs here, no serious structural damage either, but it was very easy to set them on fire, even though I aimed at the fuselage, not the engines. Apparently some stray bullets did the job and all four went down in flames.

 

He-111: No PKs, no structural damage, and it was easier to get fuel and/or coolant leaks than any fire. I could make them RTB, but they were no instant kills to the extent other 2-engines were.

 

My impression is that the main culprit here are not the 50cals, but the DM of individual aircraft. They resist punishment in a much wider range than expected, particularly when it comes to 50 cals AP damage.

 

I reflew my (limited) tests with a MiG-3 with two HMGs with AP/HE ammo. Hits were more spectacular to watch, but they made less averall damage than 3 times more AP ammo.

 

I can't say 50cals are not wrong, I can only say DMs are questionable for me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Oh please, that's not what I'm saying that all.   I was merely pointing out that if planes armed with 8 x .303s were sufficient to shoot down a good portion of the German air force including two engine bombers than certainly 6 or 8 x .50s armed planes should be more than enough for the job, but in this game they are not.   The British would have lost BOB if the AP armed guns work like they do here.   Hopefully, you can understand now.

 

Very interesting logic! Statistics 101 - Do not confuses correlation with causality!

If your logic were correct, the RAF would never had transitioned to the "C" armament.

 

I cannot say this enough - the reason every Air force transitioned to the canon (some sooner than others) was to reduce time on target.

I.E. to reduce # of hits needed to destroy a target = less time a pilot was concentrating/attacking a single target.

Remember the saying - it's the one you don't see that gets you. 

 

This is my take on this conversation:

The RAF and VVS battled the Luftwaffe when they were at their most formidable state, so they had to adapt by going to the 20mm cannon. 

By the time the USAAF joined with their superior number at 5 to 1 odds, the guy of your six 4/5 times if you were a Allied pilot would be your wingman. 

Thus, the USAAF didn't learn this until Vietnam.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Very interesting logic! Statistics 101 - Do not confuses correlation with causality!

If your logic were correct, the RAF would never had transitioned to the "C" armament.

 

I cannot say this enough - the reason every Air force transitioned to the canon (some sooner than others) was to reduce time on target.

I.E. to reduce # of hits needed to destroy a target = less time a pilot was concentrating/attacking a single target.

Remember the saying - it's the one you don't see that gets you. 

 

This is my take on this conversation:

The RAF and VVS battled the Luftwaffe when they were at their most formidable state, so they had to adapt by going to the 20mm cannon. 

By the time the USAAF joined with their superior number at 5 to 1 odds, the guy of your six 4/5 times if you were a Allied pilot would be your wingman. 

Thus, the USAAF didn't learn this until Vietnam.

Well, the main reason for the RAF transitioning to cannon was because it was, in general, better and also because, at that point, their main concern were the bombers. We can agree that the 303 was not enought to destroy them consistently. But against the 109 and 110 was adequate and enought to bring them down.

Yes, the cannon  reduce time on target. Gun per gun one cannon ensure less time on target than one fifty. But one cannon doesn´t give you less time on target than 8 fifties. Not even two cannon (according to lw and us navy).

Finally, when the p47 started clashing with the lw was in 1943. The LW was at that point still a formidable foe. Yet the only thing that limit the p-47s was range. Not performance or armament.

Regarding the numbers, it is only true in the attrition struggle. Once up in the sky, the reports described many occasion in which one or two flights (4 or 8 planes) engaged 20 or more Lw´s fighters. The way the escort had to be  organized it was in relays. To ensure enough time on escort. Even with the mustangs they have to do it. So, most of the time, was one single fighter group (36 and later 48 planes) that could be facing 100+ defense lw fighters. Obviously there were many occasions too in which the odds were the opposite. But the image of LW in the defense of the reich, fighting a constant battle against an endless stream of USAAF fighters is more a legend than reality (at least during 1943 and a good portion of 44).

But coming back to the effectiveness of the .5cal I have already pointed out in a previous post that my, so far, incomplete exam of Mike Williams´s collection of pilot encounter reports, correlactionated very well with Hubert Zemke´s assertion that the 8 fifites of the -47 were devastating. In the 713 combat descriptions, I have read so far, there are 84 mentions to enemy aircraft exploding. 48 one of local explosions, 246 of the e/a burning, 19 mention of the pilot seeing the engine stopping, 64 in which they see large pieces fallilng off (some times wings, other the tail, ailerons etc..). 24 mentions of gear wheels dropping... And all of this in the majority of occasions described in just one pass.

That is not anecdotical information. It is a sample of about 20% of the actual number of kills conceded to both the 8th and 9th AFs.

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

Almost all of these reports would have been made with a belting of some or mostly API, which we all know the game does not model, and should. 

 

The current rounds, however, penetrate the fuel tanks of the 109s through the back armour plate easily.

 

Taking this test for example, with ten trials to see how many shots I had to fire before I got a fuel leak, targets tank 50% full: the results were 4,3,10,9,4,5,2,8,2,2 mean  4.9. As I was typically firing 2-4 shots at a time, the actual number needed to cause the fuel leak would have been 3-4.

 

1650854368_PointofAim.thumb.jpg.b2dbe6426fb2baf066b5c310976705ab.jpg1633540765_Fuelleak.thumb.jpg.0f031f5b92ab13c2256d1475d6feb783.jpg

 

The number of rounds needed to start a fire was 86,90,74 before I got bored. So usually less than 100, by which time the target had also lost its rudder and/or was leaking coolant. In other words it was usually a mission kill even before the fire starts, but it does take an awful lot of hits to start a fire.

 

Now clearly if the ammunition was incendiary the number of hits needed to start a fire would be much lower, otherwise people would not have wanted to use it, but it still has to pass through the armour and create ignition. Ballparking,  maybe 3-4 to create the leak as in the current case and another 3-4 to ignite it once it is leaking:  perhaps an average of 7-10 API hits total to start a fire. Not all fires were terminal or led to an explosion, at least in reality, but if you add more hits you will eventually get a fire that is a sure kill, similar to the  reports. So maybe somewhere between 10-15 hits on the fuel tank area from dead six would usually make the  109 burn heavily or explode. Much depends on temperature and how much fuel is in the tank, and perhaps people will disagree about the typical number needed, but clearly only a fraction of the current.

 

I am not sure why it is a big deal for the developers to model an incendiary round: it may be that the ability to start fires is not a separate variable but instead derived from the impact KE, which could account for why passing through the armour seems to reduce the probability per hit compared to firing from the sides. In which case the DM code would need a new variable similar to the "blast" damage in the HE shells. This is speculation: what is clear is that if the game models an API rounds, the armour is not going to stop a massively increased number of fuel fires and explosions, matching the late war combat reports.

 

And yes, IMHO, this should be a higher priority.

 

 

 

 

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

To those alleging that the AN/M2 was an ineffectual air combat weapon, I would challenge you this:

 

Provide me an account (written during the war) of a US pilot lamenting their armament. Even if you are able to provide such an account — which is certainly plausible, given the size and scope of the war — I can provide dozens of accounts of US pilots that appreciated the number of rounds .50s brought to the table, and found the armament to be a good compromise between hitting power and ammo load.

 

That being said; No one is denying that the US was interested in 20mm armament (and that’s really not the point of this discussion anyways...). But I’d have to see some sources regarding this issue. I know the Navy was very interested for numerous reasons, but as far as I know, USAAF interest in 20mm armament remained relatively tepid until late-war/post-war. I’ve never heard of the US stockpiling 20mm ammo in anticipation of a switchover, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. 
 

But again, we’re moving well beyond the scope of the conversation. 
 

No one is claiming a single .50 round should decimate an aircraft in-game.

 

What we’re saying is that the ability for most aircraft to be raked over and over with batteries of x6-x8 .50s is not realistic in the slightest. 
 

If you’d like to counter this point, please provide reports of German fighters surviving having hundreds of .50 rounds pumped into them.

 

I’ve provided a huge library of US AARs (that will often show it only took a single burst of .50 fire to down an enemy), the math of .50 caliber burst-mass, a (sourced) claim on the actual composition of US .50 air belts, as well as an excellent video that is well-sourced and produced by a reliable and known YouTube author/pilot/amateur historian.

 

In return, I’ve seen entirely unsourced arguments, personal insults, and a derailing of the conversation into entirely unrelated debates.

Edited by KotwicaGoose
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:

 

 

What we’re saying is that the ability for most aircraft to be raked over and over with batteries of x6-x8 .50s is not realistic in the slightest. 
 

 

I think what is also in dispute is the claim that this is likely to happen in the game, except in some highly contrived scenario.  Plenty of people reporting, even in MP, that they have no problems at all regularly scoring multiple kills.  If it does happen sometimes: well that is just RNGs for you.

 

Exaggeration of the issues, combined with the use of emotive terms like "lol" and "BS" is part of the reason why you will sometimes get an exaggerated response. The name calling has gone both ways, so if you want it to stop, stop complaining about it and stick to the facts.

 

The facts as I see them are:

 

1) The pilots in 109 are extremely easy to kill with 50 cals at any slight angle off - side or up - that means the shot has to pass through only the seat, or neither seat nor rear armour. In most real fights this is what would be likely to happen at some point.   Firing through both rear plate and the seat appears never to penetrate: whether it should, or under what circumstances is potentially open for discussion. 

 

2) When I test using precisely aimed bursts of 3-4 rounds with pauses for the gun to cool, rather than long bursts which create high dispersion and a larger number of rounds that miss altogether or deflect off surfaces, it never takes "hundreds" of rounds to burn a 109 from dead six through the armour. (I agree with API it should take far fewer).

 

3) Get enough hits in a 109 wing hit box - it does not take an enormous number, about 15-20 worked in my test - and you will get to the second level of surface damage and degrade aerodynamic performance with the current 50 cals.  I think many of us are concerned that the 13mm HE seems to do too much surface damage relative to the 50 cals, but it is simply not true that 50 cals have no aerodynamic effects as was claimed. 

 

4) The allegedly bullet absorbing v stab of the 109 does nothing of the kind.

 

When it is relatively easy to retest the claims made and show that they are either flat out wrong, or cherry picking fluke and unrepresentative results, it is not surprising that the sceptics are sceptical. 

 

If anyone wants to convince sceptics that there is something wrong with the 50 cals, they should be much more careful and specific with their demonstrations. Stopping using absurd, vague, historical arguments might help, too. 

 

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

I get your point, but let me play Devil's Advocate here: in BOB, 303s were not sufficient to shoot down two engine bombers. They could cripple them, they could injure or even kill gunners, they could make their crew ask for more fighters to cover them, but they could only shoot them down under exceptional circumstances and as a consequence of cumulative damage to engines, airframe, and the crew.

"Total losses, and start and end dates for recorded losses, vary for both sides. Luftwaffe losses from 10 July to 30 October 1940 total 1,977 aircraft, including 243 twin <Me: we can assume these were 110's> - and 569 single-engined fighters, 822 bombers and 343 non-combat types." - Hans Ring, "Die Luftschlacht über England 1940", Luftfahrt international Ausgabe 12, 1980 p.580

 

Obviously, .303s could shoot down bombers and in large numbers.  In fact, the count between fighters and bomber is nearly 50/50.  We can also assume that some number of German losses were to AA guns.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, unreasonable said:

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." 

 

I'd agree with you there and I think what you said really strikes at the heart of the problem.  I think the other big glaring issues are that the fuel tank is VERY difficult to ignite (relative to other aircraft in the game), strikes to the tail never seem to produce any real effect (which is not the case against aircraft like the 190, where I've shot the stabilizers off of them on a number of occasions using .50s), and the non-factor of engine/oil/radiator hits (which impacts every airplane, and is hopefully being addressed with the promised improved engine damage modeling).

 

Reports like this one and this one and this one would seem to show that the .50 could definitely kill the pilot from a rear attack.

 

This report is really the daddy of API effectiveness examples.  Basically ideal conditions (non-maneuvering targets in a large formation), and consistently lighting them on fire five times in a row.  Note the round count - 832 rds expended, which is about 138 rounds expended per target and 1.8 seconds of trigger time per target.

 

And finally this example, where less than 3 seconds of fire from a 4 gun P-51B was able to take the tail off a 109.

 

Obviously some of these are best case scenarios, and we shouldn't expect to chop the tail off of every 109 - but at the same time a solid burst from six o'clock should have a REALLY good chance of killing the pilot or igniting the fuel tank and it just doesn't right now.  We just don't see results like this in game, whether in single or multiplayer.  Yeah with some angle off you can get a pilot hit, and sometimes engine strikes will produce a fire.  But that's about it.

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Almost all of these reports would have been made with a belting of some or mostly API, which we all know the game does not model, and should. 

 

The current rounds, however, penetrate the fuel tanks of the 109s through the back armour plate easily.

 

Taking this test for example, with ten trials to see how many shots I had to fire before I got a fuel leak, targets tank 50% full: the results were 4,3,10,9,4,5,2,8,2,2 mean  4.9. As I was typically firing 2-4 shots at a time, the actual number needed to cause the fuel leak would have been 3-4.

 

1650854368_PointofAim.thumb.jpg.b2dbe6426fb2baf066b5c310976705ab.jpg1633540765_Fuelleak.thumb.jpg.0f031f5b92ab13c2256d1475d6feb783.jpg

 

The number of rounds needed to start a fire was 86,90,74 before I got bored. So usually less than 100, by which time the target had also lost its rudder and/or was leaking coolant. In other words it was usually a mission kill even before the fire starts, but it does take an awful lot of hits to start a fire.

 

 

Those numbers are well inline with the testing I did in 4.006 - 78.7 and 79.3 average over 10 passes for the K-4 and G-14 respectively if I aimed precisely for the fuel tank.  By comparison my results for the A-8, D-9 and P-51D were: 24.9, 45.2, and 33.5. 

 

To put some perspective on those numbers, against humans in multiplayer it's REALLY hard to get 20% accuracy - it can be done, but most people probably average far below that - maybe 5%.  So if we assume we're doing really well at hitting with 20% of our shots, it would take 5 seconds of trigger time in a P-51D to produce those hits.  And that's assuming that every hit is going into the fuel tank against a reactive, maneuvering target, which is absurdly optimistic.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very wary of combat after action reports.

It's very well known that kills where heavily over claimed. More than once, hundred of kills appear in a single day when German losses when in single figures. On June 14th 1944, for example, the USAAF over-claimed fighter kills by 850%. This was an issue for all air forces.

 

For a pilot to claim a kill without seeing the enemy hit the ground, they would need to report seeing fire, explosions or disintegration of their opponent. As a result, pilots where highly incentivized to report such things and there is no doubt that smoke trails where regularly reported as fires, diving aircraft where reported as out of control, detached rudders as detached tails and other such things that inflated the number of kills reported.

 

Such reports should be looked at very skeptically as simple math shows how often they where wrong.

 

 

Perhaps we should have a separate topic about the 109s damage model? It's certainly an issue, but it also muddies the waters when it comes to 50cal performance. If the 109 had a reasonable DM, perhaps complaints about the 50s would not be so common.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, messsucher said:

Zeros would almost explode when a single .50 cal hits them.

 

They caught on fire (a lot) because as we all know that by 1944 virtually all US fighters were loaded with API.

 

 

The 4 main issues as I see it from online play and SP testing.

 

Lack of API and need for a more complex fuel system

Look at  an option for a better Gun harmonisation system

A further look at the DM for aircraft

possible reevaluation of different ammunition type damage.

 

I will add however that you can still shoot down and cause flight ending damage to aircraft using the .50s however the Achilles heel for this ammunition type seems to be direct 6 shooting into the tail of the 109.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

 Have you tried to ride on horseback and hit RC plane with gun? 

 

Can someone - anyone - please post a video of this now.  Preferably using a belt-fed, heavy mg too.

 

Then we can lock this mother............................:wacko:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

They caught on fire (a lot) because as we all know that by 1944 virtually all US fighters were loaded with API.

 

 

The 4 main issues as I see it from online play and SP testing.

 

Lack of API and need for a more complex fuel system

Look at  an option for a better Gun harmonisation system

A further look at the DM for aircraft

possible reevaluation of different ammunition type damage.

 

I will add however that you can still shoot down and cause flight ending damage to aircraft using the .50s however the Achilles heel for this ammunition type seems to be direct 6 shooting into the tail of the 109.  

 

Remember German build aircraft to higher standards regarding armored plating than the standard as Japanese built aircraft.

However, you can still see the sparks from .50 cals hitting the thin aluminum surfaces causing some damage of the Kawanishis, Nakajima and Mitsubishis until the rounds hit something vital (through the thin /no armor plating) Japanese aircraft had.

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

Remember German build aircraft to higher standards regarding armored plating than the standard as Japanese built aircraft.

Remember Japan discovered the ingenuity of armour plating by the time of 1941 too and subsequently added it, together with self sealing fuel tanks, to almost all mid/late WW2 designs and to later versions of the A6M.

Whereas Germany's "higher standards" dissolved to a degree where in 1944/45 almost no plane left the factory without severe quality issues, despite all the efforts put into making them airworthy at least to a certain degree by the poor "Einflieger" pilots.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I would be very wary of combat after action reports.

It's very well known that kills where heavily over claimed. More than once, hundred of kills appear in a single day when German losses when in single figures. On June 14th 1944, for example, the USAAF over-claimed fighter kills by 850%. This was an issue for all air forces.

 

For a pilot to claim a kill without seeing the enemy hit the ground, they would need to report seeing fire, explosions or disintegration of their opponent. As a result, pilots where highly incentivized to report such things and there is no doubt that smoke trails where regularly reported as fires, diving aircraft where reported as out of control, detached rudders as detached tails and other such things that inflated the number of kills reported.

 

Such reports should be looked at very skeptically as simple math shows how often they where wrong.

 

 

Perhaps we should have a separate topic about the 109s damage model? It's certainly an issue, but it also muddies the waters when it comes to 50cal performance. If the 109 had a reasonable DM, perhaps complaints about the 50s would not be so common.

 

With regard to the overclaiming issue - yes it occurred.  Sometimes quite often and to a significant degree.  However in the case of late war 8th AF fighter claims, they seem to be quite accurate.  This is based on Donald Caldwell's research, published in his book "Day Fighters in Defense of the Reich".  (This book, and it's companion "The Luftwaffe over Germany", are really excellent and worth a read for anyone interested in the daylight strategic bombing campaign - these books tell the Luftwaffe's story in incredible detail).  In general, the 8th fighter command claims were quite accurate in these high altitude engagements - around 1.5:1 or so which is really good by WW2 standards.  You'll notice that most of the cases I posted involved either the pilot or one of his squadron mates observing the enemy aircraft crashing.  In the case of George Preddy's exceptional sortie, on that day, 8th AF claims were actually less than the Luftwaffe's losses within the interceptor units sent against them - his claims were almost certainly accurate.

 

I do agree with you that 109 DM plays a major role in complaints about the 50s.  There have been threads on it in the past that run about like this one - I'm sure more will come.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those sparks are caused by API ammo... hence the "catch things on fire" quality of the ammunition.

 

Basically I have no problems using .50 on P-47 or P-51. Convergence set at 300. Use your gun sight to measure range to target, only shoot when at around 300 yards range, two second burst usually does the job. 

 

Read this.  https://combatace.com/files/file/17439-usaaf-wwii-fighter-pilot-gunnery/ Then practice. Period training pamphlet.

 

I do Agree that post 1943 U.S. aircraft should have API/API-T mix that does replicate the incendiary properties.

 

 

Capture.PNG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 4:40 AM, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Those sparks are caused by API ammo... hence the "catch things on fire" quality of the ammunition.

 

Basically I have no problems using .50 on P-47 or P-51. Convergence set at 300. Use your gun sight to measure range to target, only shoot when at around 300 yards range, two second burst usually does the job. 

 

Read this.  https://combatace.com/files/file/17439-usaaf-wwii-fighter-pilot-gunnery/ Then practice. Period training pamphlet.

 

I do Agree that post 1943 U.S. aircraft should have API/API-T mix that does replicate the incendiary properties.

 

 

Capture.PNG


Thanks so much for the tips! Can you please post some of your IL2 sortie logs so that your otherworldly precision against skilled opponents in a multiplayer environment can be verified?

Edited by QB.Creep
typo
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

I don't play multiplayer. 

That's why you don't have a problem.   It's impossible (nearly) to have 2 seconds of time on target in multiplayer.  No one is going to let you do that if they're even half awake.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

That's why you don't have a problem.   It's impossible (nearly) to have 2 seconds of time on target in multiplayer.  No one is going to let you do that if they're even half awake.

 

LOL is it just me or did this statement just support what we "The Against" this conversation have been saying all along.

.50 cal needed at least 2 sec on target. You do know the gun cam footage we see is in slow motion right?

  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

LOL is it just me or did this statement just support what we "The Against" this conversation have been saying all along.

.50 cal needed at least 2 sec on target. You do know the gun cam footage we see is in slow motion right?

No, it's not against.  All I'm saying is that 2 seconds where you can pump rounds into a target that cooperatively stays in your sights is not likely in MP.   I'm going to assume that even the greenest pilot will do something to avoid that MP or "real life".  If you give 2 seconds of laid on fire to ANY weapon/plane in the game the target is going to go down 90% of the time.  That's 70 hits of .50 AP or whatever.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a decent player that is aware of your presence has speed and/or altitude, you’re not getting two seconds of trigger time on them. Most of my kills come from snapshots, and you have to be really lucky to make that happen with .50s currently.

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

You do know the gun cam footage we see is in slow motion right?

 

By your logic it means we should need even less time on target than we see in gun cam footage, considering that the footage is in slow motion and thus the time on target in the footage is much quicker and shorter in real life.

 

Also considering your self confessed obsession with 'historical accuracy' in other threads, what are your thoughts on the completely non-historical pure HE belts that german 13mm guns are using, or their overblown and unrealistic damage effects that would not occur in real life? Or what about the bugged bullet sponge 109 tail that is capable of soaking up to 3-4 times more rounds than all other fighters in game (as shown in videos in this thread), despite Luftwaffe pilot accounts that talked specifically about how weak the 109's tail was and how prone it was to detaching (even without battle damage). Or what about the 190D-9's ability to fly perfectly fine in-game with almost it's entire tail shot off? Haven't seen you derailing or starting threads over any of those historical inaccuracies.

 

Or are you only interested in 'historical accuracy' when it benefits you? You seem to like ignoring all the evidence of 50's performing better in real life, completely glossing over not just secondary sources like books, but actual real life gun cam footage (as primary as a source can get). Ironically, despite your apparent distrust of all the evidence and sources in this thread, you also seem to blindly trust your own secondary sources that you put in your own threads; for things like getting you a plane you want (the 190A-7), or adding a bit of speed to Fw-190's FM in game. It seems evidence only counts for you when it's for your own benefit.

 

And no I'm not whatever the allied equivalent is of a Luftwhiner. I fly everything, and the 190 and 109's are some of my favorite aircraft (particularly the 190). But at the moment, flying the bugged 109 in Box is a bloody joke, especially against the absolutely pathetic US 50 cals (and every other round considering my tail could absorb even 37mm HE from Yak 9T's) and with the overperforming 13mm (which isn't even necessary considering how good the MG151 is anyways). Flying LW in BoX feels like I'm playing war thunder at this point. And fixing US 50 cal performance to be closer to reality, and not like whatever pathetic peashooter is modelled in game, would go a long way to correcting that.

Edited by Dirtbag_Jim
Formatting
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

That's why you don't have a problem.   It's impossible (nearly) to have 2 seconds of time on target in multiplayer.  No one is going to let you do that if they're even half awake.

 

Only that this is not entirely true.

I (and many others, including yourself if I am not mistaken) have had many kills with a count of 60-100 or even more hits on target according to the log. At an average hit percentage of 10% (that was considered very good in real life) that is 6-10 seconds of firing time on target.

I have sneakly bounced planes and given them 2 second burst only to see a bit of smoke and if had tried to commit my self for the kill found them still pretty much as maneouvrable as before.

Many times, however, is that annoying those 1 second time repeating passes (between several allies) to see the enemy still manoeuvring.

That doesn´t imply that is impossible to kill any target with one pass. I have done too. Most of the time being pilot kills and a very few occasions dewings (Ctp Siddy style) or burn.

 

2 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Have there been any dev news about the US 50s, or the 109 tail.not being smart just curious.  Cause this thread has alot in it and it seems to be going In circles, would really like a dev response

No, as far as I know.

The problem is indeed going in circles. It is well known by now, that is a mix of lack of proper ammo, some lack of aerodynamic effects and problems with 109 and 190 DM. Added to the exagerated blasting effect of the HE explosive ammo and the sound radar to make the situation completely unfair.

Right now is only answering to those that say that the fifities were basically useless.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
grammatical
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess instead of us going In Circles..how can we pass this to the devs without coming off whinny.  The issues ..I have to agree...are probably associated with multiple things ( most that u mentioned).  I'm all for venting but we need to have some sort of response or action from the devs ...cause for me, most of my group, and whatseems to be a good amount of people on here, this is game breaking for multiplayer for us.

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

So I guess instead of us going In Circles..how can we pass this to the devs without coming off whinny.  The issues ..I have to agree...are probably associated with multiple things ( most that u mentioned).  I'm all for venting but we need to have some sort of response or action from the devs ...cause for me, most of my group, and whatseems to be a good amount of people on here, this is game breaking for multiplayer for us.

 

I am sure the devs are fully aware of all the information provided. Hard to miss it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

 

Your joking right?

This thread is *14 pages* :o:

I'm sure they are aware of your complaints.

C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg

I think that beats the record set by Oleg's bar.

 

35 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

 

 

This thread is *14 15 pages* :o:

LMFTFY

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

 

Your joking right?

This thread is *14 pages* :o:

I'm sure they are aware of your complaints.

C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg

 

If they know about this thread and the issues brought up in it, as you have assured us they do, why has there been no official word on the issues raised in this and other threads as has been requested multiple times by multiple people? As far as I can tell, based on any evidence, this has gone unnoticed given the total lack of response be it in dev diaries, patch notes or a simple 'we see the issues and are working on a fix' posts. Even a 'you are wrong and here's why' post would be preferable to the complete silence we've got from them so far.

Edited by -SF-Disarray
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • LukeFF locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...