Jump to content

.50 cal damage, or lack there of


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

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. 

 

I do not know where you want to get whith this because it being showed many times that problem is not getting hits.

It is being showed many times that 60+ hits on target had been needed many times to down a plane after he put up so many "thrilling maneuvers!".

Aiming is not the problem. It is being proved beyond any doubt. Net code could be a problem but when you hit a plane over 60 times the only problem with netcode is that it could have been hit many more. But 60+ should be sufficient to obliterate it without the need to put a show of "thrilling maneouvers!" before.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Man just play single player, you can use aim assists, slow the time, skip boring parts, if you dont get good outcome just replay mission, no risks no failure posible, AI that is easy to kill so you can feal ace in every flight no mather what airplane you fly or how you fly... no need to have realistic FM, DM balistics... why you even play MP , just aim harrder man, problems sloved 😄

Ok Cartman. I will! 

No aim assist here! 

Oh by the way. Your Mommy just made PBJ sandwiches. Better go up stairs and get one!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

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. 

And this is exactly what they can easy do, just add APHEAP in belt of M2 guns when game is so poor that it sim only AP and HE ammo insted wast types we have in reality. That would be more correct represantation of historical posibilitys of american guns then what we have now because of their limitations in modeling internal parts and correct ammo. Other airplanes have HE in belts even if they didnt so its correct and simple solution, they can do poll same way they did for quick fix for 109 tail. But it seams this problem is not so important and only impacts few MP players, it looks like most players still playing this flying game are SP crowd that is easy to please when you just ned to give them poor AI they can shoot at and feal great about.

8 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Ok Cartman. I will! 

No aim assist here! 

Oh by the way. Your Mommy just made PBJ sandwiches. Better go up stairs and get one!

WoW no aim assist your the man, can i get your autogram :P

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

 

 

That is quite impressive targeting machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

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. 

 

If it was at any time your point you'd choosen a wrong way to express it, trying to show us the right way of aiming. That is not the point and it even won't be. Sure no WW2 Ace had 1000 hours, but even you have afirmed you've been simming for 20 years. I'm still lost which are your points, where are your points and most important what are you trying to explain with them in game. I don't need to have achieved 20 years in sims also IRL experience to afirm ingame 50's have same punch as peanuts due a bunch of issues listed in 15 pages before. Anybody who has watched any footage how 50's work or how they manufacture any A/C , also the materials involded in the process, can take the happy conclusion that last war A/C weapons mounted in, whatever side fighters, can put enough fire power in opponents' A/C to hardly dissable them as an air combat threat with a reduced amount of bullet impacts. Because them all 20's, 30's 13's also 50's were/are considered as heavy calibers and a heavy caliber impacting weak flying things made from (most parts) aluminium and (few parts) steel is going to be a nice flying firework dissaster. I'm not american but.... when B-17 crews (using 50's in their large bombers) were been decimated why the hell their best solution was adding as escort a bunch of useless P-47's, P-51's & P-38's full of useless 50's ? Ingame 50's needs to be modeled as heavies, and if the equivalence (correctly considered or meme considered) 3 50's = 1 20's or if dev's use another magic number formula as 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 then go ahead, but as a heavy caliber the users of it need to observe in opponents any lack of performance or any lack of sensiveness in any control surfaces once opponents has been impacted by any heavy caliber, as simple as that. The inning holes effects are weaker than the sortie holes effects in ANY A/C, but the sum of inning & sortie generates severe drag (induced & parasite drag) and it hasn't been correctly modeled ingame. Use the single player: shoot any 109 with 50's, pause the game, press CTRL+F2 and use the free camera to check out the damages shown by the visual damage layer, then come here and explain your impressions after impacting more than 120 times a 109 and see it flying fresh performing a sustained turn for infinite time while leaking fuel, from a non existent tail fuel tank , leaking coolant (the engine blood as oil) and no aerodynamic penalty due inning and sortie holes (yes I said NO=ZERO) even scepticals don't want to admit it, because the level of "arodynamic penalty ingame" and ZERO is the same in 109 FM terms. 

 

These amount of those issues are clearly killing the ingame experience.

Edited by Tatata_Time
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Can anyone read?

Read the title of this topic.

I agree with it.

People's butthurt over multiplayer has nothing to do with the point of the topic.

I will say this one final time. 

1943 and beyond. Western Allied aircraft should have the appropriate ammunition type for M2 machine guns. 

It has nothing to do with Depleted Uranium Armor plated 109's. 

You can easily shoot down a 109 with a Yak-7 from the six. Using just the two cowl mounted UB's. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easily is not the word but I agree that can be shot down with only the ubs. But it is because the ubs has some HE on it and that is the way it work in the current DM iteration.

Has been explained many times in the last 15 pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

 1943 and beyond. Western Allied aircraft should have the appropriate ammunition type for M2 machine guns. 

Why only western. Germans shouldnt be able to use 13mm HE in everything exept g6 as all other planes are 44 and germans werent using HE belts in 44 anymore. Why? Because they were inferior to AP/API belts. That says everything we need. But currently. 13mm HE acts like 20mm HE should. And whole aerodynamics penalty is overdone as hell. There is massive evidence all over internet, that HE made only outside damage but often kept internals almost intact. Huge ammount of allied planes came back after multiple 20mm and even 30mm hits. Cant be done in IL2 currently. As youll simply fall out of the sky because of how uncontrollable the plane becomes after few HE hits. And about armor palting in 109. You mean that thin aluminium layer behind fuel tank? That cant stop anything exept shrapnels. Certainly not. 50 ap or api. 109s pilot is exposed with approx half of his body, half of chest and above is only behind armor plate, that can be penned above 500 meters and fuel tank covers only lower part. But inside of k4 model, there is massive plate from down to top, even tho it should be only behind fuel tank, like in any other bf109 and from aluminium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people continue to post things that have already been disproved?  The rear armour plate in 109s does not stop .50 cals. It only takes on average 3-4 hits from the rear to get a fuel leak firing through the plate, as anyone can test for themselves.  

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

Here, we can see damage from german tests against hs124 wing with 30mm and 20mm hits, cant speak germ but there is word basically same as minenge... So i assume, they are HE shells. In IL2, you would have 10 massive holes across both wings in case of 30mm hit and few holes in one wing after being hit by 20mm and still greater damage by 13mm he. Below is spit hitted by 20mm rounds, exit side first and impact one on second. 13mm in IL2 still does much larger damage. Than these 20mm hits FROM REAL WAR.

0A6e0J2l.png

BzJxvZd.jpg

twjSRG6.jpg

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

The experience of Col. Kearby, Ace Thunderbolt pilot, against one Japanese Hayabusa as told in John R Buning's "Race of Aces."

 

 "He made a tight 360 and went after the Hayabusa. The pilot was either wounded or so green he froze at the controls. Either way, he took no evasive action as the P47 climbed up his tail and Kearby laid on the trigger. Six seconds and 450 bullets later, the Hayabusa staggered and caught fire a second time."

 

A damaged Japanese A/C, known for it's lack of armor, shot at by an ace, took more than a few .50 cal. rounds. Outside the charts, ballistics can be a funny thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

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



I hope this is ment as sarcasm....:nea:

Otherwise, if it's not sarcasm,  i have a perfect slogan for the 0.50 whinnies/Manufacturers
"The .50, the only bullet going deeper than any 75mm ever will"

Otherwise, i heard an AH-64 was downed by a Sandman on his camel with a Hunting rifle, what makes the rule (not the exception) a Hunting Rifle is able to penetrate several cm's of titanium :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TWC_Target said:

The experience of Col. Kearby, Ace Thunderbolt pilot, against one Japanese Hayabusa as told in John R Buning's "Race of Aces."

 

 "He made a tight 360 and went after the Hayabusa. The pilot was either wounded or so green he froze at the controls. Either way, he took no evasive action as the P47 climbed up his tail and Kearby laid on the trigger. Six seconds and 450 bullets later, the Hayabusa staggered and caught fire a second time."

 

A damaged Japanese A/C, known for it's lack of armor, shot at by an ace, took more than a few .50 cal. rounds. Outside the charts, ballistics can be a funny thing.

 

 

Overkill is another word that come to my mind....

But let´s play the anecdotes game...in earnest.

 

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-14 17.38.34.png

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-14 17.42.52.png

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-14 17.44.45.png

Captura de pantalla 2020-10-14 17.47.18.png

reports mention to exploding.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Considering that I can shred to bits 3 or 4 P-47s with only 250/300 rounds of german 13mm....I dont think that replacing AP .50 by HE .50 as a temporary quick fix would be a solution. We would go from underpowered to overpowered. 

Very much agreed, which is why my hope is for a dev to respond

Edited by -332FG-Buddy
Spell
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do agree about '50 cals being surprisingly ineffective (currently), but as there was some talk about parity... Back in the days I've learned just to be quiet even in these cases when I tried to engage IL-2's with Pe-2 in the previous version of the game. (because of potential luftwhining you still have to be veeeery careful). Dunno if the result in the video was because of SHKAS or UB but that is quite irrelevant. The server was in same LAN where I was so I find the normal reason "network lag" to be quite absurd.

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai1G8Nbf5lNHgptOc9wzX8J0vXEFVQ?e=kkgwki

 

But nevertheless as a veteran from original IL-2 I wholeheartedly regard IL-2 BoX to be best the there is regarding damage modeling and especially flight modeling. $hit happens (above). Adjusting does not always succeed (like this 16-page '50 cals topic here suggests). I do believe that this team, if any, do make this work because they do care. But they are overly occupied and so many points to consider. Patience is a virtue. Reporting is essential. Things are so much better than they used to be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 5:23 PM, -SF-Disarray said:

 

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?

 

Dunno, but respond to one thing and there will be a call to respond to everything.

 

Proper bug reports with evidence-based assertions do much more than ranting ever did.  The rant may be completely accurate etc but for a bug to be dealt with it has to be reported properly.

 

This thread is more like the way kids go on about something ad infinitum, and in that way any cogent argument just washes away in the bile.

 

The assumption that they ignore this complaint is beyond me.

 

von Tom

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

Dunno, but respond to one thing and there will be a call to respond to everything.

 

Proper bug reports with evidence-based assertions do much more than ranting ever did.  The rant may be completely accurate etc but for a bug to be dealt with it has to be reported properly.

 

This thread is more like the way kids go on about something ad infinitum, and in that way any cogent argument just washes away in the bile.

 

The assumption that they ignore this complaint is beyond me.

 

von Tom

I actually agreed with u, but I feel that we have reported numerous examples of video evidence and for the most part we have tried to voice our complaint maturly and directly.  What we are running Into is people joining this thread that seem to want to argue our complaint with no evidence and make comments with nothing to support it, as if they are instigating.  

 

As for the bug report.  From my experience u sbmit a complaint have others verify it or not, the devs see it and add it to the bug report.  That is exactly what happened with the damage model of the p-51.  Which would make sense cause last time I checked 99.9 percent of the people commenting in this thread are not developers or creators of this game so we would not know how to verify if something was a bug or not.  The developers would see our complaint and they would either say no it's part of the game or they would verify it's a bug and add itas a report.  That's just my opinion because that's what happened with the threat I created off the damage model the 51 again.

 

I've commented a lot in this form and when I initially started I had one viewpoint on what I thought the issue was.  Since then I've heard points come from both sides and my views have changed partly because I realize I'm not the smartest person and I don't know everything.  From what people said, from what my experience is with the game, and what IRL experience I have, I come to realize that it could possibly be more than one thing and not just the underwhelming fifties.  There's been good points brought up about multiplayer servers, there's obviously something not right with the 109 damage model the developers have already verified that by saying they turn the ability to actually remove the tail, and even buy some German players accounts.... The 13mm seem to be overpowered.  I feel like it's a combination of a lot of these issues, when you have a glass-made P-51 with overpowered German 13 mm... And that all happens after an update that happened a couple months ago, That's what got most of us very upset because it's hard for allied players to be any type of competitive.  The last thing I want is something balanced I don't want balanced I want historical.... And historically the allied air units had weapons and aircraft that were competent enough to attack and destroy German aircraft at a much better clip than what it appears in this game at this point.  That's not me badmouthing the game or the developers, but that's saying it's hard for me and others to continue playing this from either the allied or active side knowing that there's this big of issue going on.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Since then I've heard points come from both sides and my views have changed partly because I realize .. I don't know everything. 

 

You gain massive credit from me for being open-minded enough to appreciate different viewpoints and for acknowledging it.  S!

 

I have no idea what the problem is or what the answer may be but it seems to boil down to a 109 DM issue compounded by (or perhaps giving a false impression of) a .50cal problem.

 

The devs cannot fail to be aware of this so it seems time to let this thread die until the next game version is released, then test and report again if needs be.

 

von Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

So video from taw topic, i post here to not dirt that forum with our civil discort we have here:

 

Posters there think its some hard stuff on emil, other say i-16 has same proporties and so on, but problem is in AP ammo, thouse 7.7mm on both sides have only AP and if you read DDs before and update of 4.005 aim was to reduce damage done by AP, so again no suprise mc202 12.7mm sudenly feal inefective and complains started about it after dreded 4.005 update, like same complains started about 0.50 guns, and comon thing is they all use AP ammo, and comon thing is complains started after 4.005, no body complained about week guns that use AP only before, so its not big mistery where things got funky. E7 didnt get tail fix like other 109s... HE got to OP and AP to week, thats what messed up balance that existed before 4.005, i dont remenber single complains about how AP ammo was strong before that update or HE is to week, since i play game HE was always best ammo but atleast AP did some damage, after 4.005 AP is pointless to have if its not 20 or higher that can atleast with some confidance cut armor plates.

 

just imagine how useless in this 4.005 DM hurricane will be with its .303 that will also have only AP ammo... 4x20 hispanos will be go to mod on it

Edited by CountZero
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Why do people continue to post things that have already been disproved?  The rear armour plate in 109s does not stop .50 cals. It only takes on average 3-4 hits from the rear to get a fuel leak firing through the plate, as anyone can test for themselves.  

Because your conclusions are wrong.

You say "you can cause a fuel leak" and conclude that everything's fine.

But, as seen in @CountZero's video above, and as witnessed by many P-40, P-47, P-51 players in countless online engagements against 109F and later, causing a fuel leak on 109s means absolutely nothing to them.

They turn around in no time, hit you with 2 or 3 of their HE bullets, and your supposedly sturdy american steel monster turns into a gibberish, wobbling collection of falling rust.

 

12 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

i have a perfect slogan for the 0.50 whinnies/Manufacturers
"The .50, the only bullet going deeper than any 75mm ever will"

I'm glad someone brought up a helpful "on topic" comment which leads us forward regarding the issue.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Because your conclusions are wrong.

You say "you can cause a fuel leak" and conclude that everything's fine.

But, as seen in @CountZero's video above, and as witnessed by many P-40, P-47, P-51 players in countless online engagements against 109F and later, causing a fuel leak on 109s means absolutely nothing to them.

They turn around in no time, hit you with 2 or 3 of their HE bullets, and your supposedly sturdy american steel monster turns into a gibberish, wobbling collection of falling rust.

 

I'm glad someone brought up a helpful "on topic" comment which leads us forward regarding the issue.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

 

Now you are just lying. At no time have I said that "everything is fine". 

 

If you want to make the case that a leaking fuel tank would usually catch fire after fewer hits than it currently takes, especially with late war ammunition, I would not object - why would I, I made that case myself in this thread.  Similarly I have opined that multiple hits from six should have some chance of reaching the pilot. if you think the 109's engines should fail faster after being hit in the radiators and leaking coolant: go ahead, make that case.  I do not know the answer, but this might also be a relevant factor how the 109's DM works.

 

Just stop the grotesque and deliberate misrepresentation of what I have been saying all along.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get over it.

Your post essentially indicated that there's nothing wrong with the 109s rear armour plate, and now you come around saying that what you meant was the exact opposite?

Don't blame it on others when what you tried to tell is exactly the opposite of what people read from your posts, make your point clearer in such case instead.

 

31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

if you think the 109's engines should fail faster after being hit in the radiators and leaking coolant: go ahead, make that case.  I do not know the answer, but this might also be a relevant factor how the 109's DM works.

Trying to derail the case again?

See: Indeed I do think that inline engines should suffer more from coolant leaks than radials do from random hits, and what we witness in this game often times indicates the opposite.

But I'm here for long enough to know that any attempt to make such case will very soon see the case maker getting nailed to the cross because he couldn't come along with a contemporary WW2 video, showing a direct AP bullet hit to a 109's radiator, together with a stopwatch held in the same camera's view, until the very point where the engine stops running, monitoring all relevant and irrelevant engine parameters at the very same time all along, with picture-in-picture proof that no further bullets have hit the plane anywhere at the same time, and with a weather report stating the exact temperature, pressure and windspeeds at the very location where it happened.

 

Nope, I'm not gonna start that.

 

I'd be glad if after "just" 6 months we'd finally get some kind of indication whether the issue which is supposed to be discussed in this thread, is acknowledged officially as an issue at all.

In a next step, we could then ask for whether it is gonna get fixed at any time.

The next-next step would be to find a schedule.

The next-next-next step would be the fix for the issue.

 

When that's done, feel free to ask me about the coolant leaks again.

 

:drinks:

Mike

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

This is pure projection on your part - my post "essentially indicates" that 50 cal bullets do in fact pass through the plate.  No claim implied or otherwise that "there is nothing wrong with the 109's rear armour plate", since I do not know, and do not claim to know exactly how the rear plate should behave.  For all I know it should stop bullets more easily - or never stop them at all. 

 

And this is the trouble - you - and some others here - seem to be incapable of reading the clear written word addressing specific facts, which we need to establish to determine exactly what the problem is, without trying to impose your whole "with us or against us" world view.  Quite how you see childish exaggerations as advancing your cause is beyond me. 

 

The issue which is supposed to be discussed in this thread - at least according to the OP - is ".50 cal damage, or the lack of it". That includes .50 cal damage - or lack of it - to any plane, or any component. All of my posts are clearly on topic.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the confusing back and forth this topic keeps descending into - this is the type of thing we're complaining about: https://streamable.com/338d7y

 

.50s aren't some wunderwaffe, they needed time on target and they needed accuracy. They are NOT the same as 20/30mm cannons and no-one expects them to be. I don't think anyone here is talking about doing a couple of quick deflection shots on someone, getting a few hits, and then whining about .50s being crappy. It's scenarios where all the boxes are ticked, you've pummelled a 109 and yet they are still able to fight effectively. It's completely detrimental to the experience. You cannot disengage a 109 unless it's been completely destroyed because there's a chance it's just going to be able to hunt you down despite taking an enormous amount of rounds. 

 

In the example above: the pilot wasn't killed, no control surfaces on the tail were lost (look how many hits that right elevator gets - in-fact, nothing was lost, no parts, zero), very limited skin damage happened on the tail section and the wings only went to the first decal of damage (the same you get after 1 round of any AP). The radiators were hit numerous times - this shouldn't be "coolant leak", if a .50 hits a radiator, the radiator is not a radiator anymore. It should be in bits and completely ineffective. Even with all of those hits and the black smoke (heck, even with the fire), a pilot in that 109 wouldn't have too difficult a time going full power and manoeuvring in a dogfight. He'd have limited time, yes, but combined with the Extra 300 stunt moves 109s are able to pull, he doesn't need a lot. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Most of your rounds did not hit the target.

Plus it clearly shows that the rounds you did hit with, shot down a 109.

I don't see a problem.

That is the type of comment that are derailing the thread. Instead of discussing the causes of this DM bug, most of the posts are to respond to trolling attempt as this one.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Agreed though a pause instead of a let die would be more reasonable right?

 

Let it die.  Otherwise it just goes around and around and everyone gets grumpy.

 

I'll give you an example - it'd be so easy to say the I16 video shows them firing from quite a distance with light rounds.  If they were at 100m would the kinetic energy and damage be more?  Folks will just pick away at stuff until there is nothing left, then repeat.

 

Let it die.

 

von Tom

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

824603828_Capturadepantalla2020-10-1510_12_07.png.5e42f8439044ee0fc1cd61ac133605e6.png

This report is very interesting. Apart from stating how effective the incendiary rounds were,  he remarked that he didn´t see pieces flying off as it was customary with the AP rounds. So, according to this remark (notice that he mentioned it as a matter of fact) the DM should cause pieces flying off when hit by AP rounds. Most likely skin pieces flying off that should create a substantial impact in the aerodynamics properties of the plane.

 

(Edited) PD: Also worth noticing that he started shooting closer than convergence (200 to point blank) and that the hits weren´t concentrated in one spot. That is not a anecdote as I have noticed in many of the other reports the same pattern. Message being, that shotting at convergence wasn´t definitory and that although concentration of the hits was neccessary to cause damage it didn´t mean that the 8 guns had to convergenced in one single spot.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

the DM should cause pieces flying off when hit by AP rounds. Most likely skin pieces flying off that should create a substantial impact in the aerodynamics properties of the plane.

Should it?

 

This is a 109 being hit by API rounds.

 

 

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

Should it?......

 

 

That is a single guncam with a terrible definition quality. Many pices could be coming off and not being visible due to lack of resolution.

 

But if you want more raw data, so far, I have counted 200 claims in which they described pieces flying off. Take into account that doesn´t mean in the other reports weren´t pieces flying off, only that is not described. So I would take the 200 (out of 729 so far) as the minimum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Care to read at all?

I read it Mike, I don't see any bits flying off, do you? 

20 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

. API caused pieces flying off too. A single guncam with poor resolution is proof of nothing.

Just go on YouTube and check out the majority of gun camera footage involving late war US aircraft. The vast majority do not show catastrophic airframe damage unless they ignite fuel tanks or ammunition stores. The vast majority show fire as the killing blow. 

29 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Many pices could be coming off and not being visible due to lack of resolution

 

This is terribly low resolution but I can clearly see bits flying off in all directions. 

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

I read it Mike, I don't see any bits flying off, do you?

Then read it again for frick's sake.

The pilot writing the combat report clearly says that he "did not notice pieces coming off as is customary with the AP".

You show us a video where you say that a 109 gets shot with API ammo and you can't see pieces coming off.

Great.

So you just confirmed what the pilot wrote, and what @HR_Zunzun is saying and I would guess is right:

API might cause pieces to come off, AP will.

 

And concerning your B-17 video: There's a distinctive difference between pieces coming off from 30mm HE explosions at point blank distance, and pieces coming off from .50 AP ammo at 300 yards. I'll leave the rest for you to guess what the difference might be. Hint: No, it's not that .50s simply don't cause any damage at all. Not in real life. In GB maybe though.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • LukeFF locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...