.50 cal damage, or lack there of

[StiIgar]

From my own experience flying both sides I can say the .50 cals feel completely ineffective. I know from what I've heard of accounts from the war that P-51 pilots did not feel like the only hope of downing a 109 was shooting the cockpit. I can tell just in the way I fly something is wrong. When in a 109, I tend to ignore like pot shots from a pursuing P-51, because it usually results in no noticeable change in how the airplane flies. What should make me feel threatened is just a minor nuisance. When the roles are reversed, I'm only confident that I can down a 109 if I have a wingman who can make a second pass. I've sat on a 109's tail multiple times and unloaded on him, to see essentially no change in how he flies. I'm not pretending I'm a crack shot here - I don't expect to always get my target on the first guns pass, but I would expect that if I hose his tail with .50 cal bullets he'd have some trouble maneuvering afterwards.

[-332FG-Zruty]

I must second Stilgar's experience.

 

Every single time I fly in a 51, my plane is incapacitated after the first deflection hit by an enemy 109. 

In the rare occasions when I switch sides and fly a 109, I am able to survive a burst or two from the enemy fighters (not even a deflection shot), without any loss of combat effectiveness. 

 

From my observations, I had far more success online with a 109 than with P-51, even though I fly P-51 10x more often than I fly the 109. 

 

I also often fly wingman to P-51s and P47s, and I firsthand observed many cases when my lead unloads multiple seconds long bursts into an enemy, resulting in 5, 10, 20 hits (I can see the telltale puffs of debris), but the enemy is still flyable. Vast majority of victories I had and (mostly) witnessed were from pilot kills and engine fires, and a very small minority was from a sustained damage by many shots. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

59 minutes ago, -332FG-Zruty said:

I must second Stilgar's experience.

 

Every single time I fly in a 51, my plane is incapacitated after the first deflection hit by an enemy 109. 

In the rare occasions when I switch sides and fly a 109, I am able to survive a burst or two from the enemy fighters (not even a deflection shot), without any loss of combat effectiveness. 

 

From my observations, I had far more success online with a 109 than with P-51, even though I fly P-51 10x more often than I fly the 109. 

 

I also often fly wingman to P-51s and P47s, and I firsthand observed many cases when my lead unloads multiple seconds long bursts into an enemy, resulting in 5, 10, 20 hits (I can see the telltale puffs of debris), but the enemy is still flyable. Vast majority of victories I had and (mostly) witnessed were from pilot kills and engine fires, and a very small minority was from a sustained damage by many shots. 

I third that.  ?  This exactly the problem.  You fire and get hits, but the enemy suffers no loss of capability.  Unless you get an immediate kill (PK, or fire) they often turn around and kill you in-spite of the rounds you've put into them.  This has happened to me more times than I can count.  From what I can tell a single hit with any kind of HE round even .50 HE immediately makes your plane combat ineffective while countless AP hits do nothing to render the enemy disabled.   They can be leaking every fluid and have holes every where, but they are still pretty much good to go for many minutes.  My friend says he only has fun playing the Axis or Russians now because the US MG armed fighters do nothing most of the time.   As far as the devs not responding, that's true.  They have to know about this by now and some of the official "testers" have stated that they do.   My last comment about lack of communication about this was deleted by the admins, so don't expect this post to be here for long.

Edited October 13, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[the_emperor]

47 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

You fire and get hits, but the enemy suffers no loss of capability.  Unless you get an immediate kill (PK, or fire) they often turn around and kill you in-spite of the rounds you've put into them.  This has happened to me more times than I can count.  From what I can tell a single hit with any kind of HE round even .50 HE immediately makes your plane combat ineffective while countless AP hits do nothing to render the enemy disabled.   They can be leaking every fluid and have holes every where, but they are still pretty much good to go for many minutes

 

That would also be my main critique. I dont expect them to alway go down in a blaze of fire but a good burst should reduce the fighting capabilities and should send him limping home or start looking for a nice field to ditch.

[-332FG-Buddy]

9 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

 

Your joking right?

This thread is *14 pages* 

I'm sure they are aware of your complaints.

im sorry was not trying to be smart.  but like you said this thread is 14 pages long, by far the longest in the compliants yet it no dev has posted saying either yes we will take a look at it, no it works the way we want it, or anything.  with this long of a thread and the people it effects, it would nice for a response.  if this was an issue with a different armament or acft,  that did effect me or that i agreed with, it would still be within the peoples right ( that it did effect ) to get a response from the devs if they had a 14 page complaint.  

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

8 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

im sorry was not trying to be smart.  but like you said this thread is 14 pages long, by far the longest in the compliants yet it no dev has posted saying either yes we will take a look at it, no it works the way we want it, or anything.  with this long of a thread and the people it effects, it would nice for a response.  if this was an issue with a different armament or acft,  that did effect me or that i agreed with, it would still be within the peoples right ( that it did effect ) to get a response from the devs if they had a 14 page complaint.  

 

They are aware of the problem. They probably dont answer because they have no idea how to fix it without creating even worse issues.

 

Right now, we have to accept the 'fact' that a single UBS turret is far more efficient to destroy a 109 than 6x .50 MGs.

[Creep]

2 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

They are aware of the problem. They probably dont answer because they have no idea how to fix it without creating even worse issues.

 

Right now, we have to accept the 'fact' that a single UBS turret is far more efficient to destroy a 109 than 6x .50 MGs.

There is a very simple, short term fix that I mentioned half a dozen pages ago: make .50 cal rounds have an HE component to them until API can be implemented properly. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

3 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

They are aware of the problem. They probably dont answer because they have no idea how to fix it without creating even worse issues.

 

Right now, we have to accept the 'fact' that a single UBS turret is far more efficient to destroy a 109 than 6x .50 MGs.

You know they are aware for sure?   "Creating worse issues"?   How could that be?   Sure there might be a play balance problem that would require the re-examination of their offline campaigns, but that's not as big a problem as the balance we have now with bad guns in the American fighters.  Also, there would be certainly be no harm in simply responding with "We see the problem, but it will require a lot of work to fix it." or "Our new DM updates will fix this when they are released."  They managed to get the HE shells working (maybe too well)  they can certainly get the API working and/or determine if something else is going on with AP rounds or multiplayer shooting.  I'd be happy with just switching the warheads to Russian/German style HE to imitate API.  That certainly wouldn't require much coding.  In fact, I believe it just requires a change in a parameter file that take all of five minutes or less.

Edited October 14, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[-332FG-Buddy]

Here is the 2 second burst video...that u said could take down a 109....as u can see the 109 gets but on fire yet still turns into it's target flying perfectly fine

 

[CrazyhorseB34]

UB,s and M2's only real difference in real life is UB,s had higher rate of fire and HE rounds. UB being gas operated could put out 850- 1050 RPM.

 

Like said above, make the M2's same as UB AP round would be a good place to start if one wanted to improve in game M2 damage performance.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by CrazyhorseB34

[-332FG-Buddy]

2 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

UB,s and M2's only real difference in real life is UB,s had higher rate of fire and HE rounds. UB being gas operated could put out 850- 1050 RPM.

 

Like said above, make the M2's same as UB AP round would be a good place to start if one wanted to improve in game M2 damage performance.

 

You where firing to close. Only hitting the wings. 

maybe so but that's a lot of rounds still going into the target that's still flying, seems like the 109 is made out of the same material as the M1A1 Abrams!

[CrazyhorseB34]

Seems to me like it went down in flames... 

 

 

I was on M1A1s for twenty years. A Bf-109 is not made out of same stuff! ?

[-332FG-Buddy]

Ok so the 109 taking that much rounds and still engaging the target is normal to u?....with all due respect I fly the 190 and the 47, and neither of them have been able to take that much damage for me.....and I have a lot of hours in this game In both aircraft (in multiplayer!!)... and Both where HISTORICALLY more rugged and durable.  The purpose of this thread and all this videos is to provide eveidence of the issue.....there is an issue ....just want some feedback from devs is all, that shouldn't be to much to ask especially with a 14 page thread with an abundance of evidence

8 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Seems to me like it went down in flames... 

 

 

I was on M1A1s for twenty years. A Bf-109 is not made out of same stuff! ?

Lol I was being sarcastic....I was also I'm the army and crewed the OH58 ...I have seen what a single air-cooled 50 can do ... Granted it was a stationary target or not as mobile as an acft OR different munitions ...but still the effect can not be this drastically different.   I might not have all the information in the books like some do but I do have IRL experience... And all I'm saying is it's not accurate in my humble opinion

Edited October 14, 2020 by -332FG-Buddy
Edit

[CrazyhorseB34]

Just because someone plays multiplayer, that does not mean they are Erich Hartmann.

 

I have played several combat flight sim games for over 20 years. To include multiplayer. I prefer to play career and campaign mode.

 

I think we all agree that the post 1943 non Soviet lend-lease M2's need an ammo upgrade.

 

The 109 damage model is not really the main issue.

 

109's from the rear being engaged by a YaK-7 with twin UB guns shooting through the propeller arc, seem to do more damage than six or eight wing mounted M2s.

 

Yes aware of the fact that UB in game is firing an AP/HE mix with a higher rate of fire.

 

Interesting thing I have observed is P-38 and P-39 with M2 firing  directly through center line of the nose cause more damage because the mass of fire is more concentrated.

[-332FG-Buddy]

15 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Just because someone plays multiplayer, that does not mean they are Erich Hartmann.

 

I have played several combat flight sim games for over 20 years. To include multiplayer. I prefer to play career and campaign mode.

 

I think we all agree that the post 1943 non Soviet lend-lease M2's need an ammo upgrade.

 

The 109 damage model is not really the main issue.

 

109's from the rear being engaged by a YaK-7 with twin UB guns shooting through the propeller arc, seem to do more damage than six or eight wing mounted M2s.

 

Yes aware of the fact that UB in game is firing an AP/HE mix with a higher rate of fire.

 

Interesting thing I have observed is P-38 and P-39 with M2 firing  directly through center line of the nose cause more damage because the mass of fire is more concentrated.

Again meaning no disrespect but nobody saying we're Eric Hartman's... No one's asking how long you played either and I'm not trying to come off as rude but you don't even play multiplayer in this game because even though you played flight simulators they're still different... And in this game this issue seems to be more persistent and multiplayer according to the 15-page thread that we're in....I don't understand why you're trying to be argumentative when we having abundance of evidence and more than just a couple people complaining about the same issue. Most of us love this game and it's been a lot of money to have fun with it.  I can't speak for everyone I can only speak for myself and I know I don't expect to be a top-tier ace that never dies in a multiplayer video game simulation I just like to have fun and recreate history that we all enjoy that IL2 has done a great job of implementing to this point.... With that being said myself and others are not having fun because the aircraft we prefer to fly does not seem historically accurate to us... We are providing evidence and trying to communicate with the devs That's all

 

[CrazyhorseB34]

I am not arguing with anyone. 

 

I am trying to help.

[unreasonable]

The idea that making the 50 cals fire the same ammunition as the MG131 is a solution is truly bizarre - when most of the complaints have been about how OP the MG131 HE round appears to be, (a complaint with which I agree). What would be closer to realism, IMHO, is that the MG131 round is changed to match the current .50 cal!

 

When the testers fire 50 cal into the back of a Spitfire and find that less than 30 rounds on average are needed for destruction, nobody is complaining.  So there is one specific issue of the 109 DM regarding the rear armour plate - from dead six the fuel tank is very hard to ignite and rounds never reach the pilot. Arguably this plate is too effective.  API will improve the chance of igniting the tank, but there may be an additional issue in the code when hitting something through more than one armour plate.  Even if these variables are tweaked, however, it will still be the case that wrecking a 109 from this angle will still take many more rounds than wrecking a plane without rear armour.

 

The other problem is that some people in MP believe that most .50 cal high deflections shots to the wings of enemy aircraft should have an immediate and severe effect on their aerodynamic characteristics. Personally I think this is just plain wrong: a good concentrated burst of 50 cal will do this already, but a few scattered hits should not. Again in comparison with MG131 it is more likely that the MG131 is at fault here: but certainly when you get to a 20mm HE shell the difference in effect on aircraft skin should be huge: this kind of shot is exactly why 20mms were superior: you do not have to hit a critical component.

 

It does no good to complain about realism using examples of weird player behaviour in MP - weird gamers simply do not behave like real pilots much of the time. 

[-332FG-Buddy]

Great point about the mg131 and yes I do agree that most deflections .. especially at high angle, should rarely crit an acft.  With that being said the issue is any sustained burst seems to have no effects, especially Into a 109, what are ur thoughts on that?

[CrazyhorseB34]

WW2 era, 1/2 inch diameter aircraft mounted heavy machine guns can be put into three different catagories.

 

Breda SAFAT and Ho-105. Basically WW1 era Vickers Balloon Guns. Low rate of fire pathetic muzzle velocity.

 

M2 and UB. Pretty much same round. But different operation cycle. Both have same priming system. UB is gas operated. M2 is recoil operated. Thus UB had higher rate of fire. Ammo differences is the UB had a tiny HE warhead in some ammo types. 1943 M2 got APIT. UB faster firing gun. The HE vs. API for those guns puts them as peers, as far as damage is concerned.

 

MG-131, was a completely different weapon. Delayed blowback operation cycle. But electrically primed. Slightly lower muzzle velocity, but firing a round with . 22 grams of PETN plus .4 grams of thermite. 

 

109's are really small aircraft. With armor protection on their most vital parts. Especially the dead six rear. Most complaints about 109's in this "game," can be attributed to not hitting the target.

 

M2 should have damage parity of UB in the " game." From 1943 on. Only on Western Allied aircraft that had API/API-T.

Edited October 14, 2020 by CrazyhorseB34
decimal point

[SAS_Storebror]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

some people in MP believe that most .50 cal high deflections shots to the wings of enemy aircraft should have an immediate and severe effect on their aerodynamic characteristics. Personally I think this is just plain wrong

 

Personally I think that people forget what exit wounds from AP ammo look like.

 

Mike

[-SF-Disarray]

19 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

WW2 era, 1/2 inch diameter aircraft mounted heavy machine guns can be put into three different catagories.

 

Breda SAFAT and Ho-105. Basically WW1 era Vickers Balloon Guns. Low rate of fire pathetic muzzle velocity.

 

M2 and UB. Pretty much same round. But different operation cycle. Both have same priming system. UB is gas operated. M2 is recoil operated. Thus UB had higher rate of fire. Ammo differences is the UB had a tiny HE warhead in some ammo types. 1943 M2 got APIT. UB faster firing gun. The HE vs. API for those guns puts them as peers, as far as damage is concerned.

 

MG-131, was a completely different weapon. Delayed blowback operation cycle. But electrically primed. Slightly lower muzzle velocity, but firing a round with 22 grams of PETN plus 4 grams of thermite. 

 

109's are really small aircraft. With armor protection on their most vital parts. Especially the dead six rear. Most complaints about 109's in this "game," can be attributed to not hitting the target.

 

M2 should have damage parity of UB in the " game." From 1943 on. Only on Western Allied aircraft that had API/API-T.

 

Might want to check your numbers there chief. The HE rounds for the 131 might weigh about 22 grams in total but there is no way they packed 26 grams of filler into that round. Those numbers look closer to the figures for MG151/20 rounds. The 131 HE round packed all of about 1 gram of HE filler into it.

 

And if we are being fair, the above picture is of a very large API round.

[CrazyhorseB34]

Wrong. Chief! The projectile from a MG-131 was considerably longer. 

 

 

[-SF-Disarray]

Go look it up. Here, I did it for you http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mg131.html So hard, I know, I'm the best and that was just the first source with a nice table I could find. Some sources I've come across reference it only holding .8 grams. This one says 1.4 grams. You'll notice that neither of these numbers are 22 grams. They don't even add up to 22 grams. Not even multiplication wise can you get 22 grams; I checked.

Edited October 14, 2020 by -SF-Disarray

[CrazyhorseB34]

I had my decimal point in wrong place! ?

 

Thanks!  Still don't change the fact that it had a more punch than .50 Ball. 

 

?

[-SF-Disarray]

A little more punch sure, but what we see in game is over the top. I'm fairly sure I bought fireworks with more oomph than these rounds as a kid.

[CrazyhorseB34]

The point is UB and M2 should be on parity with each other! ?

 

I agree! 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Personally I think that people forget what exit wounds from AP ammo look like.

 

Mike

 

I cannot confirm the original source, but according to your first posting of that picture, I quote:

"That's a Type L/M 3 cm Brenngranate ohne Zerleger (3 cm Brgr. o. Zerl.), filled with thermite, no HE filling.

Gives an idea of what the damage of non-he rounds looks like on exit side."

 

So this is NOT "an AP" round, according to your own post, it is an incendiary - essentially a mineshell with incendiary rather than HE filling..

 

This shell contains a large quantity of thermite (and little else) which turned into molten metal on ignition and produced a vast amount of heat. What appears to have happened here, is that the shell entered behind and above the rear spar, and the plug of molten metal then streamed above and below the spar, bursting the front seam of the wing.

 

A 3cm thermite shell weighing 330g (not sure weight of thermite: 50-100+?) will do many times more damage than a .50 cal API. (edit with 1.74g of incendiary composition).

Edited October 14, 2020 by unreasonable

[CrazyhorseB34]

Watch this...

Read the manual.

You can smash. With a P-51. Even with old ammo.

 

 

 

Use K-14. Set convergence too 300. Set range on K-14 to match. 300, in this example. 

Set your " wing span distance." According to target. 30- 35 feet for fighters.

Use both reticles at the same time. Your K-14 reticule will show up. When it is in parameters. 

Don't "pulsate" it. Set it for gun convergence range. Your " Battle Sight Range."  Let it do the work. 

Put the pipper on the cockpit.  Only shoot when target is in the " diamonds." 

Never shoot unless you know you can kill. 

Don't go sniper with K-14. Only shoot at range in which you can get most mass of your shot on the target. 

Your gun convergence don't change. Even with a Gryo Gunsight. 

Your guns are going to hit maximum. At their convergence range. 

So. Set your gunsight. To range of maximum effect of the fall off shot. 

I.E. your convergence range.

 

[JV69badatflyski]

46 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I cannot confirm the original source, but according to your first posting of that picture, I quote:

"That's a Type L/M 3 cm Brenngranate ohne Zerleger (3 cm Brgr. o. Zerl.), filled with thermite, no HE filling.

Gives an idea of what the damage of non-he rounds looks like on exit side."

 

So this is NOT "an AP" round, according to your own post, it is an incendiary - essentially a mineshell with incendiary rather than HE filling..

 

This shell contains a large quantity of thermite (and little else) which turned into molten metal on ignition and produced a vast amount of heat. What appears to have happened here, is that the shell entered behind and above the rear spar, and the plug of molten metal then streamed above and below the spar, bursting the front seam of the wing.

 

A 3cm thermite shell weighing 330g will do many times more damage than a .50 cal API.

Indeed!
to compare a 0.50 with a 30mm canon shell...
Just the frontal surface of the bullet is like 4times  bigger (706mm² vs 147 mm² for the 0.50). LEt's not talk about the flat cone on all the 108 ammo making a bigger shock on the contact with the surface and the splinter effet due to it.
It's like throwing a needle (0.50) on  a sheet of paper and then  a small flat rock (30mm). What will make a bigger hole in the paper sheet?

And for the source of the spitty image with a lot of more of them, that conclude (By the RAF) the mk108 was a 1shot 1 kill , not like in the game (None of the spits survived in the test)  :
https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW
(read the comments)

I'm still disappointed, until now didn't read the 0.50 could kill a Tiger or sink a Destroyer...sad times
 

[CrazyhorseB34]

Simple gunnery training.

Just Eric Cartman.  Not Erich Hartmann. Complaining about " Multi player."

 

M2 should have parity with UB. As far as damage is concerned.

 

[357th_KW]

If you're going to claim that everyone else in the discussion is incompetent, when you've never even played MP, you need to back it up before anyone will listen to you.  Killing the AI is joke compared to facing real people.  You may as well stop posting.

[CrazyhorseB34]

I have played in multi player. 

 

It is a joke. Like War Thunder and Aces High. Same people who complain about " GLOC." 

 

3000 hour "aces." 

 

You know this is a "game." Right? 

Eric Cartman. 

 

[ACG_Cass]

I'm hoping for some changes when the Hurricane arrives. Bar the issues with the 109 tail section, the current implementation of .50s is pretty much spot on for how I'd imagine .303 ball to behave. Whether it's HE or Incendiary, the amounts are so similar between the US API and the LW HE that I very much doubt there would be significant differences in their chemical energy output vs metal sheet (a couple of rounds would certainly not completely destroy the tail section of a plane). This is probably why the LW changed to incendiary rounds. 

 

Maybe with the 12x.303 they've seen some issues that are being fixed but are being quiet about it as they aren't 100% sure how to do it. The game engine is designed for slow bi-planes with a Lewis taped to the hood so it doesn't seem to cope well with 400mph planes firing 8 rapid fire MGs. 

 

I've actually found in MP that long trigger pulls don't seem to register as many hits. Will need to do some more testing to confirm but quick pulls of the trigger over and over again rapidly seems to be a much more effective strat that i've started using. 

[CrazyhorseB34]

Multi player has nothing to do with the game. 

 

The engine. 

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Watch this...

Read the manual.

You can smash. With a P-51. Even with old ammo.

 

 

 

Use K-14. Set convergence too 300. Set range on K-14 to match. 300, in this example. 

Set your " wing span distance." According to target. 30- 35 feet for fighters.

Use both reticles at the same time. Your K-14 reticule will show up. When it is in parameters. 

Don't "pulsate" it. Set it for gun convergence range. Your " Battle Sight Range."  Let it do the work. 

Put the pipper on the cockpit.  Only shoot when target is in the " diamonds." 

Never shoot unless you know you can kill. 

Don't go sniper with K-14. Only shoot at range in which you can get most mass of your shot on the target. 

Your gun convergence don't change. Even with a Gryo Gunsight. 

Your guns are going to hit maximum. At their convergence range. 

So. Set your gunsight. To range of maximum effect of the fall off shot. 

I.E. your convergence range.

 

 

 

 

After more than 1000 hours spent in this game, and most of them in P-51 with 6x0.50 cal. I'm fed up people who still talking about lack of aim.Really lack of aim? Really? After 15 pages with several mates demonstrating which are the issues involved in? and you insist in lack of aim? Are you trying to kid us at this, large, point in this post? To talk in these terms you better stay in your single player wonderland where AI's always keep an infinite sustained turn to the right, by the way the most thrilling maneuver anybody have tried in any close air combat. You also can watch last P-47 D-22 vid from Scharfi and read the comments in it and observe people complaining about her lack of aiming, also the lack of aiming of her wingmang too. ?

[CrazyhorseB34]

WW2 was not filled with " thrilling maneuvers!" 

 

Cartman.

No.

 

My point is M2 is not represented correctly post 1943. Allied aircraft. 

Not any Ace had 1000 hours of combat flight time. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

23 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

Killing the AI is joke compared to facing real people.

The engine is the same in SP and MP the DM is the same in SP and MP the FM is the same in SP and MP.

 

The difference that stands between them is netcode, lag, overloaded servers, overloaded mission design and much more aggressive and defensive human players who in some cases have probably flown more virtual hours in a game than Bong, Kozhedub, Johnson, and Hartmann did in WWII combined.

 

I have seen in many servers online that message popping up telling us about server overload and "unexpected behaviour". I think that sometimes this will certainty have an effect on what players perceive as a solid grouping of hits on an aircraft when maybe that is not the case at all? 

 

28 minutes ago, Cass said:

I'm hoping for some changes

 

Me also

API

Gun harmonisation

A look at the DM

 

The 109 "tail" issue is  as @unreasonable has pointed out is probably linked to penetration values when AP passes though several "systems" or armour layers.

 

 

 

[CrazyhorseB34]

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Indeed!
to compare a 0.50 with a 30mm canon shell...
Just the frontal surface of the bullet is like 4times  bigger (706mm² vs 147 mm² for the 0.50). LEt's not talk about the flat cone on all the 108 ammo making a bigger shock on the contact with the surface and the splinter effet due to it.
It's like throwing a needle (0.50) on  a sheet of paper and then  a small flat rock (30mm). What will make a bigger hole in the paper sheet?

And for the source of the spitty image with a lot of more of them, that conclude (By the RAF) the mk108 was a 1shot 1 kill , not like in the game (None of the spits survived in the test)  :
https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW
(read the comments)

I'm still disappointed, until now didn't read the 0.50 could kill a Tiger or sink a Destroyer...sad times
 

Actually .50 APIT did kill Tigers and sank Japanese destroyers...

[unreasonable]

For Tigers, even smaller calibres would do it...

 

Spoiler

 

[SAS_Storebror]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

this is NOT "an AP" round

And NOT an HE round either.

The dead simple message is: With or without HE filling, the exit wound of such rounds in real life are NOT just tiny holes of the bullet's diameter, they're much more severe.

And as such, the .50 ammo is supposed to give a 109's wing (or any other for that effect) a really bad time even if "just sprayed by a handful of bullets".

Not trying to say it would cause the same damage like a 20mm mineshell (just to cover the usual replies trying to imply this would have been suggested), but it's simply untrue to claim that a handful cal .50 hits on the wing would just be a scratch on the paint.

 

Mike