.50 cal damage, or lack there of

[Barnacles]

My main gathering from the actual quantitative findings, are as follows.

It seems that the game's representation of 20mm HE damage, and 50  cal AP damage is actually credible, in so far as you can kind of justify on a case by case basis, most of the hits in game and reconcile it with IRL accounts.

IE

There ARE accounts of planes being hit my one mineshell and losing control.
There ARE accounts of planes being reported as kills by multiple 50 cal hits yet making it home

To from a simplistic point of view, the game is spot on.

However, looking over a large sample of in game kills, the game almost simulates even a single 20mm HE hit as causing massive aero damage. (I did some testing and a single HE was generally at least 65kmh speed loss *almost all* of the time)

The game almost always simulates 50 cals as causing next to nothing (when testing 20-60 50 cal hits *almost always* caused no more than 15kmh speed loss)

*when I say almost all, I mean "in my sample of 10 tests, never.

Now, there are plenty of pictures of HE cannon damage where the size of the holes are nowhere near big enough to cause 65kmh of speed loss
There are plenty of pictures of MG damage which are equal in area to that of an equivalent burst of HE cannon. 

Now ok, it may well be survivor bias. But I'm not trying to demonstrate that small 20mm holes were NORMAL, just POSSIBLE
Or massive ripping from 50 cal was NORMAL, merely POSSIBLE .

So survivor bias is not a factor here.

Currently in game, the way the RNG or whatever works, it is IMPOSSIBLE as far as I can tell, for the game to represent a 20mm HE (hispanos or 151) as doing something like this 

IE a nasty hole yes, but not 65kmh + with full stick deflection to counter.

Equally it is IMPOSSIBLE as far as I can tell, for the game to represent a cluster of 50cal as doing something like this, equally the dozen or so hits circled are not going to cause a massive speed loss but yet you can see it's possible that 6-12 MG hits could, on some days, be equal to 1-2 20mm hits.

(and yes these are actually .303 hits, rather than 50 cals, well spotted)

So TLDR my point is 

the game is EXCELLENT at simulating the best of 20mm HE hits but poor at simulating the worst case scenario 20mm HE hits
Likewise, the game is EXCELLENT at simulating the 50 cal hits that are worst case, but poor at simulating the best case scenario.

so they should tweak the RNG.

Because at the moment one 20mm will win a fight.
100 50 cal hits won't even guarantee a victory.
 

PS. before anyone points out YES these pictures are cherry picked to show the extreme cases of the respective damage, but that is exactly my point. The game does one extreme very well, but does not do the extreme represented by these pictures AT ALL.

Unfortunately the've erred to the HE=nukes end of the sample set and AP=pinpricks of the other. So no wonder the effect in game is a bit skewed.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[HR_Zunzun]

35 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

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

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. 

 

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

How said it will show catastrophic airframe damage.?

Pieces flying off are just that. A 10cm2* pieces flying off won´t be visible in those poor resolution videos. What your video showed is 20mm damage results that is obviously bigger and thus visible.

When you hit a plane with AP all those small pieces flying off are going to cause an aerodynamical penalty unless in the game (where it may cause something that is measurable but that in real terms caused negligible impedement to maneouver such an airplane).

 

* (not saying that this is the acutal size is jut an example of visibility).

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

API caused pieces flying off too.

Not according to the report. 

Or our friend Mike. 

19 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

The pilot writing the combat report clearly says that he "did not notice pieces coming off

This thread has been rambling on now for 16 pages and I think the only way we're going to get a clear resolution to this problem is if and when API is actually introduced. We all know that the correct ammunition type of US aircraft in game is not modeling . This should be a game  changer because  I would expect to see lots more aircraft fires. It is possible that the developers will also take a look at the DM for AP and HE ammunition ( here's hoping). 

 

Edit: it's got to the point in this thread where it is becoming mostly counterproductive and maybe even a little bit toxic. 

More or less every single one of these aerial kills is due to fire. I would assume that once the aircraft is on fire it doesn't matter one iota about aerodynamic  penalties you just want to get the hell out. 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[HR_Zunzun]

 

2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Not according to the report. 

Or our friend Mike. 

This thread has been rambling on now for 16 pages and I think the only way we're going to get a clear resolution to this problem is if and when API is actually introduced. We all know that the correct ammunition type of US aircraft in game is not modeling . This should be a game  changer because  I would expect to see lots more aircraft fires. It is possible that the developers will also take a look at the DM for AP and HE ammunition ( here's hoping). 

 

Edit: it's got to the point in this thread where it is becoming mostly counterproductive and maybe even a little bit toxic. 

Listen, if you want to discuss this in any productive way please read what is being written; I have told you that I have over 200 reports in wich the majority API is the round being fired that stated that they saw pieces flying off.

In the report I mentioned (Walter Beckham 1dec 43 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/353-beckham-1dec43.jpg)  he didn´t see the pieces flying off because he was firing only I (incendiary) rounds. It striked him the difference with the AP rounds he had been firing before in which he noticed the pieces flying off. The way he expressed it (customary) indicates that this is the usual effect expected for the AP rounds..

SAS_Storebror explained it very well. Incendiary doesn´t cause pieces flying off, AP did cause it while, in the reports I mentioned, the API at least 25% of the time caused the pieces to fly off.

[[DBS]Browning]

I imagine .50cal API is significantly less effective at starting fires than 20/30 HEI or even HE. It might not be the magic bullet some hope it will be.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, HR_Zunzun said:

he didn´t see the pieces flying off because he was firing only I (incendiary) rounds.

To be as productive as possible my point is the ammunition type for late US aircraft in game is wrong. After 1943 virtually all US fighters were loaded with API because they were deemed to be much more effective.

As I said above, having an aircraft on fire  kind of makes aerodynamic penalties irrelevant 

Until we get a resolution to the damage modelling  or the correct ammunition type for late war us aircraft we can argue this all day and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. 

[ACG_Cass]

@[DBS]Browning No one is expecting it to be as effective as those. We don't want it to be a magic bullet. If they do change the .50s and they are way too effective, I'd complain exactly the same amount. 

 

We want an accurate representation of what the evidence from the past shows us. At the moment we certainly don't have that, hence the complaints. 

[[DBS]Browning]

12 minutes ago, Cass said:

@[DBS]Browning No one is expecting it to be as effective as those. We don't want it to be a magic bullet. If they do change the .50s and they are way too effective, I'd complain exactly the same amount. 

 

We want an accurate representation of what the evidence from the past shows us. At the moment we certainly don't have that, hence the complaints. 

 

I meant more that once API, fuel and fire systems are implemented on 50.cal and cannon rounds, people may find that because the cannon HEI and HE rounds are more effective at starting fires, the .50 cals, although improved, will be at a greater disadvantage compared to other weapons than they where before the API, fuel and fire systems where updated.

[Barnacles]

35 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

This thread has been rambling on now for 16 pages and I think the only way we're going to get a clear resolution to this problem is if and when API is actually introduced. We all know that the correct ammunition type of US aircraft in game is not modelling . This should be a game  changer because  I would expect to see lots more aircraft fires. It is possible that the developers will also take a look at the DM for AP and HE ammunition ( here's hoping). 

 

Edit: it's got to the point in this thread where it is becoming mostly counterproductive and maybe even a little bit toxic. 

More or less every single one of these aerial kills is due to fire. I would assume that once the aircraft is on fire it doesn't matter one iota about aerodynamic  penalties you just want to get the hell out. 

 

 

I respectfully disagree that it's not important to consider AP aerodynamic damage, because 1 (on topic) the p40 uses 50 cal guns before a time when API was available.
2 (slightly off topic) tweaking the DM globally (if necessary) to enable early war guns like the Mg17, shkas and .303 actually cause some consequences other than A. PK or B. crash 40 mins later when the radiator finally drains of fluid,

[HR_Zunzun]

28 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I imagine .50cal API is significantly less effective at starting fires than 20/30 HEI or even HE. It might not be the magic bullet some hope it will be.

 This is the other type of post that derail the thread. Now based in imagination....

[ACG_Cass]

@[DBS]Browning Ah I see, apologies. 

 

I'd happily take a reduced area of affect and see more fires though with HEI. Even a 20mm is currently a fight ender of allied planes as it affects the whole aircraft a lot of the time. Doesn't matter a whole lot if you're plane is on fire as well. 

[Barnacles]

27 minutes ago, Cass said:

.50s and they are way too effective, I'd complain exactly the same amount. 

 

 

Me too, one thing I dread about these threads are that they instigate a swing too far the other way. 

Let me be clear. There are some aspects about the current DM which are fantastic:

Most of the time, you should get 6 or so 50 Cal hits do nothing consequential to the fighting ability of the plane. so the current DM is correct insofar in that most of the time, it's does just that. Unfortunately, it's so consistent that you can continue pump dozens of 50s into a wing and nothing will happen in terms of how that plane is flying.

Edited October 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[HR_Zunzun]

25 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

To be as productive as possible my point is the ammunition type for late US aircraft in game is wrong. After 1943 virtually all US fighters were loaded with API because they were deemed to be much more effective.

As I said above, having an aircraft on fire  kind of makes aerodynamic penalties irrelevant

I think that we can all agree on this.

My point is that even the AP round that it is currently implemented in the game (as the only round in the .5 cal belt) caused more effects than just round holes. Evidence is being presented to support it.

28 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Until we get a resolution to the damage modelling  or the correct ammunition type for late war us aircraft we can argue this all day and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. 

As I said before. The points has been already made. We are presenting more evidence. Some of it I considered it relevant or at least interesting. Most of the discussion is now with the people that says that .5cal was basically crap in real life and that the only thing you have to do is aim harder.

[ACG_Cass]

Current implementation is pretty much exactly where I would expect .303 ball to be. It fits perfectly with the RAF reports from the Battle of France and the early Battle of Britain before De Wilde ammunition was widely available. Basically: can bring down a plane, but it either needs a lot or you have to be very accurate. 

 

I'd be happy for them to keep the current modelling and slap it on the 12 gun Hurricane, with a bit more likelihood of it causing fires. 

 

Issue is there is a pretty hefty difference between a .50 cal round and a .303 and that's not what we're seeing in game. 

 

 

[FTC_Zero]

On 10/9/2020 at 5:15 PM, HR_Zunzun said:

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

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

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

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

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

 

And still most modern jets use 20mm to 30mm as standard projectile fire ordinance. High rate of fire with minimum amount of projectiles needed to shot down a jet. Sounds reasonable to me the faster your target would be and the less chances for possible hits in deflection shooting. It is not exact at all but a parameter to know how much 'mass' a gun can deliver per second. In many impressions or memoirs I read pilots shot down unaware opponents from favourable positions or getting shot down by seeing him too late. In that matter I do not think it matters much if you use multiple 50 Cal's or a single 20mm. Not saying that you can't do in other situations, but if I am correctly aware most shot down fighters just weren't. 

 

An evading enemy might be a totally different story and I personally would favour the canon overall. Fire rate of a mg151 /20  might be lower and he might pass through gap in the bullet stream or you have a lot of 50 cal fire with different damage potential. I just want to say, I the same scenario of a slit second deflection shot I would prefer to gun with more boom in a possible time window, because this time window is damn short and same for everybody. I have the impression not hitting the enemy due to lower fire rate is less of a problem than less damage in that time. But does this mean the 50 cal is weak or not? I don't think so, but it showes how complex that topic gets and someone can't just make easy assumptions, not that mine are totally correct.

Edited October 15, 2020 by ZeroCrack01

[6./ZG26_Custard]

18 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I respectfully disagree that it's not important to consider

I didn't really word it correctly. With API, if the aircraft is on fire then aerodynamic penalties would be of a secondary concern to the pilot. I agree that aerodynamic penalties overall should be considered. 

 

15 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Most of the discussion is now with the people that says that .5cal was basically crap in real life and that the only thing you have to do is aim harder.

I have only seen that from one or two colourful individuals, most if not all of us want the most realistic simulation for aircraft damage that we can get. 

As I said earlier though, the thread now seems to be going around in circles. 

[Hawk-2a]

It‘s been going in circles for about 15 pages now...?

[FTC_Zero]

Just now, H_Stiglitz said:

It‘s been going in circles for about 15 pages now...?

I am running out of popcorn?

[HR_Zunzun]

4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I didn't really word it correctly. With API, if the aircraft is on fire then aerodynamic penalties would be of a secondary concern to the pilot. I agree that aerodynamic penalties overall should be considered. 

 

I have only seen that from one or two colourful individuals, most if not all of us want the most realistic simulation for aircraft damage that we can get. 

As I said earlier though, the thread now seems to be going around in circles. 

I presented something new. Effect of the AP round with some, I dare to consider, very interesting information relevant to the matter. Information that, AFAIK, hasn´t been presented before in this or other thread. Then you answer straight away with a couple of anecdotical poor quality, poor resolutions videos (to let you prove the point) in one of which they were using a completely diffent ammo.  It took both SAS_Storebror and me 4 freaking post to explain it all over again when in the first post it was clear. Only then, you said that your point was that was it needed is the incendiary effect of the API. It let me ?. Do not get offended, but you have done exactly what you are complaining off. And be sure, I consider you a very productive and helpful member.

Obviously, there have been many other posting very useful information and discussing it in a good and improving way (Unreasonable among them). But most of the other posts arguing against it have been in the ranges of asking for aiming better, saying that the 0.5cal was useless because it was phased out after the war or saying that we only want an OP gun. Also other arguing in favour in the same unproductive way. Half of the now 17 pages have been filled with all this derailing material.

[messsucher]

33 minutes ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

And still most modern jets use 20mm to 30mm as standard projectile fire ordinance. High rate of fire with minimum amount of projectiles needed to shot down a jet. Sounds reasonable to me the faster your target would be and the less chances for possible hits in deflection shooting. It is not exact at all but a parameter to know how much 'mass' a gun can deliver per second. In many impressions or memoirs I read pilots shot down unaware opponents from favourable positions or getting shot down by seeing him too late. In that matter I do not think it matters much if you use multiple 50 Cal's or a single 20mm. Not saying that you can't do in other situations, but if I am correctly aware most shot down fighters just weren't. 

 

An evading enemy might be a totally different story and I personally would favour the canon overall. Fire rate of a mg151 /20  might be lower and he might pass through gap in the bullet stream or you have a lot of 50 cal fire with different damage potential. I just want to say, I the same scenario of a slit second deflection shot I would prefer to gun with more boom in a possible time window, because this time window is damn short and same for everybody. I have the impression not hitting the enemy due to lower fire rate is less of a problem than less damage in that time. But does this mean the 50 cal is weak or not? I don't think so, but it showes how complex that topic gets and someone can't just make easy assumptions, not that mine are totally correct.

 

I would think that when you hit the plane, then you want to hit it good is the way to go. This is probs what Germans and Soviets thought and favored cannons. If you hit with machine guns good, then no need for cannons, just get bigger rate of fire of machine guns and more ammo.

 

I mean if machine guns were really good and enough why Soviets and Germans went for cannons with the experience they had in Spanish Civil War and early WW2? They could had just stuffed the planes with machine guns, and save a ton. Hence machine guns are really a WW1 thing.

Edited October 15, 2020 by messsucher

[6./ZG26_Custard]

4 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Then you answer straight away with a couple of anecdotical poor quality, poor resolutions videos (to let you prove the point) in one of which they were using a completely diffent ammo.  It took both SAS_Storebror and me 4 freaking post to explain it all over again when in the first post it was clear.

I was not trying to prove any point, I said "should it"?  If me challenging a particular narrative  is derailing a thread then all counter arguments are effectively null and void using that logic. I think emotions have been far too running high in the thread for weeks now. We can all agree to disagree as much as we want but until we have correctly modelled API, or the developers do a revisit of ammunition type of DM we will continue to go around in circles. 

[[DBS]Browning]

11 minutes ago, messsucher said:

I mean if machine guns were really good and enough why Soviets and Germans went for cannons with the experience they had in Spanish Civil War and early WW2? They could had just stuffed the planes with machine guns, and save a ton. Hence machine guns are really a WW1 thing.

 

Every major nation favored cannons.

The British, Italians, Soviets, Japanese, Germans, Italians, and even the USA, which fully intended to replace the .50 with 20mm cannons.

Edited October 15, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[Barnacles]

4 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Every major nation favored cannons.

The British, Italians, Soviets, Japanese, Germans, Italians, and even the USA, which fully intended to replace the .50 with 20mm cannons.

I don't think anyone disputes that IRL cannons > HMG.

The question is how much.

 

[HR_Zunzun]

15 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I was not trying to prove any point, I said "should it"?  If me challenging a particular narrative  is derailing a thread then all counter arguments are effectively null and void using that logic. I think emotions have been far too running high in the thread for weeks now. We can all agree to disagree as much as we want but until we have correctly modelled API, or the developers do a revisit of ammunition type of DM we will continue to go around in circles. 

 

Narrative? Seriously? I presented you with primary sources and you call it "narrative"? Yes, some emotions are running high then.

When you said "should it?" it was uninnocently followed by a single poor quality guncam video. I understood that you doubt what I presented and that the video was some kind of proof. If not this, what was your intention? Please explain.

An regarding whether to continue or not if I have new data (real life AP effect) I think is worth sharing it. What is worthless is coming back in circles with "all the nations used cannon" type of mantra (like the couple of post above) when is being argumented "ad naeseum" that this proved nothing regarding the efficacy of a battery of 0.5cal against 109/190/110.

 

[[DBS]Browning]

Just now, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I don't think anyone disputes that IRL cannons > HMG.

The question is how much.

 

I don't know about that. There has been more than one post comparing the energy per second of various aircraft's armament and implying that .50cals should be on par based on that.

Regardless, "how much worse" is an interesting and relevant question, but it is also an unanswerable question. There isn't anywhere near enough data to look at to come to any solid conclusions about how effective any gun or combination of guns from the time is at destroying aircraft. That doesn't mean there isn't enough data to make attempts at accuracy; hence the length of this topic.

 

 Ultimately, the best way to try and find out how effective a weapon is against period aircraft is by simulating the weapons and the planes in as accurate a way as possible (or at least this is the best way without practical tests!). Fortunately for this topic, that is exactly what IL2 aims to do.

 

I think everyone would like to see the simulation be made as accurate as possible, whatever the actual result of such simulation turns out to be.

[Barnacles]

25 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Yeah, better that way. Since if you want to know what 30mm cannon is I can tell you. It is the beast below.

 

 

I've actually used a 30mm cannon in real life, so thanks for your insight but I don't think a video of a boxer will help my understanding.

[messsucher]

3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I've actually used a 30mm cannon in real life, so thanks for your insight but I don't think a video of a boxer will help my understanding.

 

Ah, so I thought. I myself have done boxing and some other martial arts, and a good analogy is that 30mm is heavy weight. Machine gun is feather weight. You can take feather weight hits if you are conditioned to take them and no good hit come through, but they will wear you down. Heavy weight hits you don't want to get. They are just too heavy. It is a matter of physics, just like ballistics are.

 

But tell me how 30mm compares to machine gun?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Narrative? Seriously? I presented you with primary sources and you call it "narrative"?

Call it what you will, we are just going round in circles once again.

We have had World War II pilots (a primary source) on video state of they can take out tiger tanks by bouncing 50 cals underneath, do we believe that this is possible ? 

To clarify my position "once again" , unless API is modelled correctly or the developers revisit the DM we have nothing but 16 pages of back and forth. 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Stig]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Narrative? Seriously? I presented you with primary sources and you call it "narrative"?

 

Are you calling combat reports primary sources?

 

I myself would be really interested reading the reports from both sides of those encounters where both sides returned, reporting victories and sustaining no losses. 

[FTC_Zero]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't know about that. There has been more than one post comparing the energy per second of various aircraft's armament and implying that .50cals should be on par based on that.

Regardless, "how much worse" is an interesting and relevant question, but it is also an unanswerable question. There isn't anywhere near enough data to look at to come to any solid conclusions about how effective any gun or combination of guns from the time is at destroying aircraft. That doesn't mean there isn't enough data to make attempts at accuracy; hence the length of this topic.

 

 Ultimately, the best way to try and find out how effective a weapon is against period aircraft is by simulating the weapons and the planes in as accurate a way as possible (or at least this is the best way without practical tests!). Fortunately for this topic, that is exactly what IL2 aims to do.

 

I think everyone would like to see the simulation be made as accurate as possible, whatever the actual result of such simulation turns out to be.

I think this study summary explains that quite well. (Really interesting to read but even they say to take it with a grain of salt, so read everything ) http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

Accurate is good, but the simulation modell should be effective or simple enough for our potatoes to calculate. ? 

[HR_Zunzun]

23 minutes ago, Stig said:

 

Are you calling combat reports primary sources?

What do you call then of the thecnical after actions report that the same person that experienced it had to write?

 

24 minutes ago, Stig said:

I myself would be really interested reading the reports from both sides of those encounters where both sides returned, reporting victories and sustaining no losses. 

 

Overclaiming is one thing (all sides). Reporting that a plane was destroyed when it was only damaged and made it back to base is in the same page. Lying purposely on the effect you have seen your guns caused is a completely different one. If you imply this last one I hope you have good source proof of it.

[[DBS]Browning]

4 minutes ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

I think this study summary explains that quite well. (Really interesting to read but even they say to take it with a grain of salt, so read everything ) http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

Accurate is good, but the simulation modell should be effective or simple enough for our potatoes to calculate. ? 

 

I like this. I think it's about as close as you can get without either real world data from the air frames and guns in question or computer simulation.

[HR_Zunzun]

 

So you like http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm?

Then you wouldn´t mind then a P-47 burst being 75% as effective as a FW190A4 one, or 58% of a fw190A8 o more than two times as effective as a me109f4 one.

That is just using the tables values that the page provide.

The current DM is miles and miles away from those.

[[DBS]Browning]

4 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

P-47 burst being 75% as effective as a FW190A4 one, or 58% of a fw190A8 o more than two times as effective as a me109f4 one.

That is just using the tables values that the page provide.

The current DM is miles and miles away from those.

 

That certainly sounds credible to me.

We would need tests to see how far that is from the current DM experience, but I'd be surprised if it's "miles and miles" away.

 

I think on average a two second burst from a F4 in-game is roughly (lets say, within +/-30%) as destructive as a one second burst from a 47 (assuming all shots hit, which is somewhat harder to achieve with outer wing mounted guns).

 

I wonder if data can be taken from multiplayer stats about the average number of hits per kill to confirm or dispute this. I'll look into it....

[SAS_Storebror]

2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I don't think anyone disputes that IRL cannons > HMG.
The question is how much.

That's probably impossible to answer, be it for the lack of data, or simply for the various situations with a great variety of outcomes.

Let's simply agree for the two to be different.

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

simulating the weapons and the planes in as accurate a way as possible (or at least this is the best way without practical tests!). Fortunately for this topic, that is exactly what IL2 aims to do.

I think everyone would like to see the simulation be made as accurate as possible, whatever the actual result of such simulation turns out to be.

Absolutely.

The reason for this thread to exist is that there seems to be ample room for improvements in this regard, even more so since... well you know it.

 

29 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

So you like http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm?

Then you wouldn´t mind then a P-47 burst being 75% as effective as a FW190A4 one, or 58% of a fw190A8 o more than two times as effective as a me109f4 one.

That is just using the tables values that the page provide.

The current DM is miles and miles away from those.

That sounds about right and insofar, the game feels about wrong.

Hence we're complaining.

 

Mike

[FTC_Zero]

17 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

So you like http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm?

Then you wouldn´t mind then a P-47 burst being 75% as effective as a FW190A4 one, or 58% of a fw190A8 o more than two times as effective as a me109f4 one.

That is just using the tables values that the page provide.

The current DM is miles and miles away from those.

You is interesting how you read that website, or better not really much of it. And again, it is interesting but please please read the author's disclaimer for this time I don't think he would be happy how you use this data. It is funny how often they need to particularly write about the us 50 cal. Even the last whole chapter is for that. 

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

That sounds about right and insofar, the game feels about wrong.

Hence we're complaining

Taking a convenient chart number combined with feeling is a guarantee for I don't know...

[[DBS]Browning]

OK, so I just compiled some data from sorties on Combat Box for the P51 and the D9 (I chose the D9 because it has no armament mods).

 

I took the average of 20 sorties with one or more kill for each plane.

I did not use sorties that contained any ground kills, assists or bomber/attacker kills.

 

The average hits per kill for the P51 was 31.5

The average hits per kill for the D9 was 14.7

 

That fits somewhat well with the predictions from http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

If someone wants to go over the stats to get a bigger sample size, that would be helpful, if not, I should have time tomorrow.

The numbers above are from a very small sample size, so take them lightly.

Edited October 15, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[HR_Zunzun]

46 minutes ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

You is interesting how you read that website, or better not really much of it. And again, it is interesting but please please read the author's disclaimer for this time I don't think he would be happy how you use this data. It is funny how often they need to particularly write about the us 50 cal. Even the last whole chapter is for that. 

Taking a convenient chart number combined with feeling is a guarantee for I don't know...

I know the page for many years now. I never took the values for gospel and didnt use it in the current disccusion for the same reason but once you endorsed it i thought we might as well gave it a go. Now that you have seen the results it seems that we have to refrain our horses again. ?

Tables are self explanatory. The author cared to do separated ones for the rounds, the guns and the planes that shoot them.

Which part did I missinterpreted? Please enlighten us.

Edited October 15, 2020 by HR_Zunzun

[SAS_Storebror]

32 minutes ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

Taking a convenient chart number combined with feeling is a guarantee for I don't know...

It's just an honest opinion, sorry for not having routed it through your scientific approval process ake "popcorn" first.

 

The site's data is to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's not just nonsense either.

 

Mike

[FTC_Zero]

17 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I know the page for many years now. I never took the values for gospel and didnt use it in the current disccusion for the dance reason but once you endorsed it i thought we might as well gave it a go. Now that you have seen the results it seems that we have to refrain our horses again. ?

Tables are self explanatory. The author cared to do separated ones for the rounds, the guns and the planes that shoot them.

Which part did I missinterpreted? Please enlighten us.

That site is indeed interesting to read. I consider to share the thoughts of the author for some interested here not to represent the data. I agree about your thought not to include that in the discussion. But I do not recall representing any data. So because I left a kitchen knife on the table and say it is dangerous and somebody take it, stab some others and say it is my responsibility. Yes I know ..parents are responsible for kids. In that case I am responsible. My mistake.

 

30 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

It's just an honest opinion, sorry for not having routed it through your scientific approval process ake "popcorn" first.

 

The site's data is to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's not just nonsense either.

I least we both then agree about honest opinions. Extra popcorn ? for everybody.