.50 cal damage, or lack there of

[SAS_Storebror]

2 minutes ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

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

I'm quite sure many of us could agree on many more things if discussions like this would take place in real life, face to face.

Written statements tend to sound aggressive, if not toxic, on the receiving end if different thoughts are being exchanged.

Having a cup of tea, coffee or a can of beer abreast with you while talking to each other eye to eye usually makes things much smoother.

 

Mike

[FTC_Zero]

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I'm quite sure many of us could agree on many more things if discussions like this would take place in real life, face to face.

Written statements tend to sound aggressive, if not toxic, on the receiving end if different thoughts are being exchanged.

Having a cup of tea, coffee or a can of beer abreast with you while talking to each other eye to eye usually makes things much smoother.

 

Mike

Yeah true story and often having the same discussion several evenings because you can't remember the last one ? cheers

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

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.

Thanks that's useful. 

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

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.

Does anyone know if each damage log indicates an individual round, or if it represents discrete damage events?

For example, if a 20mm cannon shell explodes, does the log count that as one hit or several (from the explosion and fragmentation damage).

And if a round penetrates several components, does it do several bits of damage or does it get conglomerated in value? It's something I've always wondered about when reading those logs.

[messsucher]

In that quarryhs.co.uk site the gun effectiveness comparison is a good mathematical analysis about theoretical effectiveness of various weapons. What it is lacking is what the guns could do in practice. Information about that can be gained of various guncams and combat reports. Basicly they tell that stuff could be shot down, burnt, exploded, etc. In conclusion bigger guns are better in destroying stuff, which is inline with realities.

[Stig]

2 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

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

 

 

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.

 

What the pilot reports is what he saw as he experienced it, he doesn't have to be lying, but he can have been mistaken. I don't mean the specific report you posted, I have no way of knowing if what he reported is what actually happened. Generally, with the number of claims in the air war exceeding the actual losses, at times by a wide margin, and presuming that reports had to be submitted for each claim(s)  it stands to reason that there are going to be many combat reports that describe something that didn't actually happen, or didn't happen the way it was described. That makes such reports anecdotal, as Custard points out.  

[[DBS]Browning]

7 minutes ago, messsucher said:

In that quarryhs.co.uk site the gun effectiveness comparison is a good mathematical analysis about theoretical effectiveness of various weapons. What it is lacking is what the guns could do in practice. Information about that can be gained of various guncams and combat reports. Basicly they tell that stuff could be shot down, burnt, exploded, etc. In conclusion bigger guns are better in destroying stuff, which is inline with realities.

 

AARs are highly subjective and subject to many biases and incentives.

Guncam footage (especially German, but also from other nations) is highly cherry-picked at the time.

quarryhs.co.uk and similar analysis are entirely theoretical.

Simulations are highly dependent on their starting parameters.

Practical tests are rare and far from comprehensive.

 

There is no single thing we can point at as the truth, but all are useful in some way.

[messsucher]

6 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

AARs are highly subjective and subject to many biases and incentives.

Guncam footage (especially German, but also from other nations) is highly cherry-picked at the time.

quarryhs.co.uk and similar analysis are entirely theoretical.

Simulations are highly dependent on their starting parameters.

Practical tests are rare and far from comprehensive.

 

There is no single thing we can point at as the truth, but all are useful in some way.

 

Yeah, but we don't have to speculate what the guns can do. We have some information about it. How common something was to happen is another story and much harder to say, and selected gun cams of course do not tell that.

[sniperton]

This discussion went south, but as I see the problem is rather simple:

- no need to be proven here that cannons are superior to machine guns - they are;

- no need to be proven here that MGs with HE ammo are superior to other machine guns without HE charge - they are;

- no need to be proven here that MGs with API ammo are superior to machine guns with AP ammo only - they are;

- no need to be proven here that some aircraft DMs are questionable (to say the least) - they are;

- no need to be proven here that netcode is far from perfect - it is not perfect;

- no need to be proven here that some aircraft are using AP ammo in-game despite the fact that they used API ammo historically - they use;

- no need to be proven here that a great many people flying aircraft using API ammo, represented as using AP ammo in-game, have the feeling that those aircraft underperform - they do feel.

 

No question, an aircraft represented with historically inadequate and inferior guns is likely to raise sentiments, particularly if it comes to nimble US crates. I would call it an 'issue', rather than a 'complaint', but never mind.

So the question for me is not what damage N number of HMGs with AP rounds would do historically, but why the aircraft in question don't perform as they should if they had the correct ammo.

Think it over. If the introduction of API brought change to the game, it would mean the game was wrong before the change.

Edited October 16, 2020 by sniperton

[messsucher]

8 minutes ago, sniperton said:

- it's not to be proven here that cannons are superior to machine guns;

 

Man, if cannons were not superior, then Russians and Germans would had field mod replaced cannons with machine guns. He who think machine guns are superior must bring the proof of his claim to the table.

[BCI-Nazgul]

3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Thanks that's useful. 

Those stats from Combat Box aren't too useful.  What they don't tell you is who won the fight.  A kill credit after you're dead is a common thing in Combat Box IIRC.  I'm not sure how IL2 or Combat Box determines a kill exactly, but I do know that a crash landing way after the fact is credited as a kill often even if your opponent also died.  And another pilot may well have finished the person that you damaged but didn't immediately kill.  They could get an assist and it's possible that you would not have gotten a kill without their help after the initial fighting.   The reason I'm pointing this out is that the main complaint about the .50s is that they allow your opponent to continue fighting even after you light them up really well.  You might get a credit, but its not too satisfying if you're already dead or crashed.

Edited October 15, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[Barnacles]

11 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Those stats from Combat Box aren't too useful.  What they don't tell you is who won the fight.  A kill credit after you're dead is a common thing in Combat Box IIRC.  I'm not sure how IL2 or Combat Box determines a kill exactly, but I do know that a crash landing way after the fact is credited as a kill often even if your opponent also died.  And another pilot may well have finished the person that you damaged but didn't immediately kill.  They could get an assist and it's possible that you would not have gotten a kill without their help after the initial fighting.   The reason I'm pointing this out is that the main complaint about the .50s is that they allow your opponent to continue fighting even after you light them up really well.  You might get a credit, but its not too satisfying if you're already dead or crashed.

Fair point

 

[[DBS]Browning]

58 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Those stats from Combat Box aren't too useful.  What they don't tell you is who won the fight.  A kill credit after you're dead is a common thing in Combat Box IIRC.  I'm not sure how IL2 or Combat Box determines a kill exactly, but I do know that a crash landing way after the fact is credited as a kill often even if your opponent also died.  And another pilot may well have finished the person that you damaged but didn't immediately kill.  They could get an assist and it's possible that you would not have gotten a kill without their help after the initial fighting.   The reason I'm pointing this out is that the main complaint about the .50s is that they allow your opponent to continue fighting even after you light them up really well.  You might get a credit, but its not too satisfying if you're already dead or crashed.

 

That's all true, but it can be accounted for as the time of the first hit and the eventual kill are recorded. 

I'll rule out late kills next time I go over the stats. 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[BCI-Nazgul]

5 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

AARs are highly subjective and subject to many biases and incentives.

Guncam footage (especially German, but also from other nations) is highly cherry-picked at the time.

quarryhs.co.uk and similar analysis are entirely theoretical.

Simulations are highly dependent on their starting parameters.

Practical tests are rare and far from comprehensive.

 

There is no single thing we can point at as the truth, but all are useful in some way.

All of these are excellent points.   IMO the only way to really do a good job of analyzing the DM and guns would be to do some kind of detailed super computer simulation that tracked aircraft design, material strengths, structures, chemical effects (explosions, fires, etc...), fragment trajectories and projectile trajectories.   You could run that with all the planes and weapons in the game at a bunch of ranges and angles.   With that info it would be possible to come up with some probability tables for damage effects in the game.   While I'm sure that 1C has excellent programmers and people that know all about aeronautics I'm pretty sure the best they can do with DM and guns is a "best guess" with knowledge they have and that has been published.   You'll certainly never find any comprehensive terminal ballistics info in WW II documents because the means simply didn't exist to fire every possible weapon at every angle, speed, range, etc... at every possible target to see what exactly could happen.  Even the study that UnReasonable has quoted is very limited in both targets and weapons.

Edited October 15, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

Think it over. If the introduction of API brought change to the game, it would mean the game was wrong before the change

I've spent 5 minuts to think in that, because I needn't more to answer: let me ask you one simple question: is it good enough now? Should we leave as it is right now? Should we demonstrate more patient than GODS have demonstrated to us, Oh poor mortals who still waisting your spare time in this game?, and wait patiently for 3 years like others have done with their fandome customers (50 people worldwide)? 

Don't be wrong: if the introduction of API brought change to the game it would demonstrate that DM was right before this threat started (in july if you haven't check it out): This is the main point all non-complainers want it  to come true, also I, as a complainer, want it too, bacause it means this game has improved from the angle of physics recreation also from the historical recreation, but now , What we have?  Please answer to this question, not because your answering my doubts, because somebody in the shadows is reading this and with a lot of luck (crossing fingers) taking some actions to improve their actual BOX also the incoming ones.

 

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

- it's not to be proven here that a great many people flying aircraft using API ammo, represented as using AP ammo in-game, have the feeling that those aircraft underperform - they do feel.

 

Sorry mate, I can say you with 200% of accuracy that, for me, it's not a feeling: IT'S A FACT. If I'd  wanted to fly a mustang like a Cessna I only need to uninstall this game and install FS2020 or X-plane

[BCI-Nazgul]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

That's all true, but it can be accounted for as the time of the first hit and the eventual kill are recorded. 

I'll rule out late kills next time I go over the stats. 

 

 

What would really informative is see what % of targets went down in a very short timeframe (like 10-15 secs and 1 to 2 minutes) and how many rounds it took.  That would tell us very roughly effectiveness of HMG vs. other weapons.  You could compile those stats for the various planes.   Like Mustangs got quick kills with about 30 hits and 109s with 10 or whatever.  I believe you might also be able to get the total rounds fired (hits and misses.)  I don't know if there's a way to do that, but it sure would be useful.

Edited October 15, 2020 by BCI-Nazgul

[357th_KW]

7 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

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.

I like the idea of capturing some data, but I see a couple issues:

#1 We would want a much larger sample size before drawing any conclusions. 

 

#2 By only counting sorties where a kill was scored and ignoring sorties with assists the rounds per kill number will be artificially low. 

 

#3 I believe that certain sortie outcomes (bailouts maybe?  I don’t recall) cause the stats to show every round having been fired when they weren’t, which skews things the other way.

 

#4 The devs have acknowledged there is some sort of 13mm aero damage bug (or an issue with certain allied aircraft?  I don’t think they clarified what the actual problem is) that will be fixed in the future, but for now that’s going to likely push the rounds per kill much lower than it should be on the axis side, which makes any comparison useless.  A Tempest vs P-51/P-47 comparison might be the best one to make since all use an individual gun/ammo type and the target mix should be the same.  

#5 Related to #2 you have the problem that you would have cases where both ammo types got used on a target due to multiple attackers with no easy way to break down exactly who did what.

[CountZero]

I see few post trying to spin it as problem that we complain 0.50 vs 20 or 30mm, what you have now in game is gun of same/similar caliber being so mutch stronger when it has HE ammo (russian german guns) insted AP ammo (italian american guns).

Problem is if you have 12.7mm gun that shoots AP only ammo and 12.7mm that shoots HE only ammo in this flying game  differance of how devastating to airplanes in game is so mutch that you have to ask your self if this is represantation of real ww2 why would anyone use AP only ammo in belts of 12.7mm guns.

 

Simple mod so you can see yourself what M2 can do when loded with 12.7mm russians HE ammo we have in game:

M2 12.7HE insted AP.zip

If its that mutch more devestating, why americans only used AP only and didnt tuch HE that is so mutch powerfull ? things are so off in how mutch more powerfule HE ammo is after 4.005.

[Honza]

23 minutes ago, CountZero said:

If its that mutch more devestating, why americans only used AP only and didnt tuch HE that is so mutch powerfull ? things are so off in how mutch more powerfule HE ammo is after 4.005.

Now i wonder why germans switched to AP-API ammo only, in 44 for 13mms instead of HE ? 

[CrazyhorseB34]

42 minutes ago, CountZero said:

I see few post trying to spin it as problem that we complain 0.50 vs 20 or 30mm, what you have now in game is gun of same/similar caliber being so mutch stronger when it has HE ammo (russian german guns) insted AP ammo (italian american guns).

Problem is if you have 12.7mm gun that shoots AP only ammo and 12.7mm that shoots HE only ammo in this flying game  differance of how devastating to airplanes in game is so mutch that you have to ask your self if this is represantation of real ww2 why would anyone use AP only ammo in belts of 12.7mm guns.

 

Simple mod so you can see yourself what M2 can do when loded with 12.7mm russians HE ammo we have in game:

M2 12.7HE insted AP.zip 14.68 kB · 1 download

If its that mutch more devestating, why americans only used AP only and didnt tuch HE that is so mutch powerfull ? things are so off in how mutch more powerfule HE ammo is after 4.005.

Thank you I was thinking same thing as an experiment! 

[BCI-Nazgul]

1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

 

 

#4 The devs have acknowledged there is some sort of 13mm aero damage bug (or an issue with certain allied aircraft?  I don’t think they clarified what the actual problem is) that will be fixed in the future, but for now that’s going to likely push the rounds per kill much lower than it should be on the axis side, which makes any comparison useless.

I have to give that one a big DUH!  LOL

 

Where did you hear that?

[CrazyhorseB34]

CountZero  that MOD fixed the .50 cal M2's. 

 

I am keeping it that way! 109's from the rear do come apart quite nicely now and catch on fire using a couple of well aimed two second bursts.

 

Problem solved. ?

[357th_KW]

17 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I have to give that one a big DUH!  LOL

 

Where did you hear that?

 

 

All the way at the bottom of that thread.

[CrazyhorseB34]

Check this out... 

I know that M2 did not have HE ammo. But using the posted MOD. You can get historically accurate target effects. 

Keep in mind. M2 never had an HE round... but, as I have been saying. UB firing HE had same damage effect in the "game" as an M2 with API/APIT ammo. 

A reasonable "substitute." Until incendiary ammo and fuel systems are upgraded.

Notice... as you read. Two second bursts...

I literally replicated this same engagement. Using the MOD.

P-40 and P-39 in game. Accurate depiction of " early Lend-Lease," aircraft. Armed with M2 early in the war. 

But The " Bodenplatte," time frame. Not so much.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by CrazyhorseB34
more info

[[DBS]Browning]

If you want the .50 to be as powerful as the current UB, then the UB will have to be made more powerful than it is.

Given that some think the UB is already overpowered, that might be an issue.

[Barnacles]

10 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

If you want the .50 to be as powerful as the current UB, then the UB will have to be made more powerful than it is.

Given that some think the UB is already overpowered, that might be an issue.

How so?

If you mean, it's firing an HE round so therefore must be more powerful than the BMG. I can see your logic, and you may be correct, but I'm not sure it's necessarily true. And example to extremes would be hitting something with a ultra high velocity ..32 H&R Magnum inert round from a high powered sniper rifle v a 9mm (similar calibres)with a small amount of explosive filler from a browning handgun. Yes it's a bit more extreme difference from the UB v BMG, but it shows that there's other things to be taken into account.

Because of the way things scale, it may be true that HE that size is of little value, which may explain the Germans stopping using 13mm HE in 1944.


 

[the_emperor]

32 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Because of the way things scale, it may be true that HE that size is of little value, which may explain the Germans stopping using 13mm HE in 1944.

 

The Germans did stop Use HE and HE-I round because they have only a  small ammount of filler and little effect on heavy four engine bombers. (also one has to keep in mind there is no delay action. the round explodes on impact and there is not much fragment material as in the 20mm round,  hence why I doubt the blast effectivness of both the 12.7mm UB and 13mm German HE round)

The 13mm Incendiary Round is  dedicated Air to Air round ( as the 20/30mm mineshell is) and much more effectiv and devasting vs the unarmoured fuel tanks of any aircraft of that time.

As the US did use later in their M23 round, though I dont know whether the US did use the same filler as the Germans, since the Germans used an extra fuze rather than friction as the US to ignite the incendiary component (could also be for safety reasons, as the Germans wer very keen on fuze safety).

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by the_emperor

[CrazyhorseB34]

Comments only prove my point.

 

 

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

If you want the .50 to be as powerful as the current UB, then the UB will have to be made more powerful than it is.

Given that some think the UB is already overpowered, that might be an issue.

They are the same gun. Performance wise...

[HR_Zunzun]

6 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Comments only prove my point.

 

 

They are the same gun. Performance wise...

In pure kinetic energy values, the UB shot a slightly bigger/heavier round at faster ROF and with similar MV than the M2. Not that much different although in favour of the UB. Both being clearly better (in kinetic energy) than the german 13mm. Obviously the differences understood within the HMG category.

[[DBS]Browning]

12 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

They are the same gun. Performance wise...

 

That isn't at all true. The UB has a 30% higher rate of fire, a heavier bullet with greater energy, explosive rounds, API rounds with a much larger incendiary charge and also HE-I rounds.

Edited October 16, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[HR_Zunzun]

It is true that the kinetic energy of the UB is better but not that much. The weight of UB round is 11% bigger but the MV of the M2 is almost 6% bigger instead, so the kinetic energy differences are not so pronounced. ROF doesn´t affect this. There is a bigger difference between the M2 and the german 13mm (16% in MV and 12% in round weight in favour of the M2 even considering the biggest 13mm round).

Amount of explosive/Incendiary content is in favour of the UB vs the M2 (2% vs 4.2%) although not sure how significant it is.

The interesting part would be how those differences compared to the game represenation (even considering that we only have AP rounds in the M2).

[CrazyhorseB34]

If you read my previous posts...

I do break all of that down in detail.

 

Please read previous posts.

Catagorises all 1/2 diameter WW2 aircraft guns.

No one is talking about MG-131. Completely different animal.

 

35 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

That isn't at all true. The UB has a 30% higher rate of fire, a heavier bullet with greater energy, explosive rounds, API rounds with a much larger incendiary charge and also HE-I rounds.

I already mentioned that...

[[DBS]Browning]

I spent this morning trawling through the combat box stats again.

It is very tedious and time consuming and I've completely lost the will to do any more after collecting stats from 100 P-51 sorties. If anyone wants a comparison to other planes, they must do it themselves (or, ideally, write a script to automate the process).

 

I only gathered stats from sorties in which the P51 only hit a single target and in which the target was only hit by the single P51.

 

The average time from first hit to the death or bailout of the enemy was 96.4 seconds. The Longest time was 821 seconds and the shortest time was under one second (pk in 4 hits)

 

Average accuracy was 2.8% with a high of 22.1% and a low of 0.2%

 

Average rounds per kill was 28.8 with a high of 82 and a low of 4.

 

 

Edit:

7 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

How about actually learning about real stuff?

Game stats mean nothing.

 

This thread is about comparing the experiences in game to the historical reality. Understanding what is currently happening in the game is vital to that.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[CrazyhorseB34]

How about actually learning about real stuff?

Game stats mean nothing.

Pretty much defined by purpose of the topic... ?

[CountZero]

10 hours ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

Thank you I was thinking same thing as an experiment! 

I think its to mutch to just use all 12.7 HE i tryed to make it APHEAP mix (2/3 belt bullets american AP and 1/3 russian HE) but game dont alow player in airplane then when file that controls that is edited in mod. So for me this was 2nd easy test with just replacing american AP bullet data with russain 12.7HE data. And to me also what HE shows in game is what you can expect from incindiary ammo or what you see on ww2 videos, so thats why i think they can just use quick fix and make API using HE technics they have working in game and just use that (make 0.50 with HE in amount neccesary to replicate API, and add it in belt with AP mix), as i dont expect they just gona spend time to model missing stuff in airplanes and all mising ammo types in quick time when only complaining guys are MP and on top it effects mostly american airplanes as they dont have HE in mix of belts.

17 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Does anyone know if each damage log indicates an individual round, or if it represents discrete damage events?

For example, if a 20mm cannon shell explodes, does the log count that as one hit or several (from the explosion and fragmentation damage).

And if a round penetrates several components, does it do several bits of damage or does it get conglomerated in value? It's something I've always wondered about when reading those logs.

game log events show all ricoshes and fragments, bullet count counts bullets not aditional stuff as hits, vaal log shows damage of 0.1 and more %, taw will show you all what game log dispalys even less then 0.1% dmg log, so i would not go by what sortie log page shows as damage events to be one line of dmg for one bullet, its more lines for one bullet in most cases. Dont know if it shows for AP that its same bullet penetrating more stuff or fragments of that bullet, but its probably posible to test and see if AP will always generate one dmg event in sortie log and HE is one generating more.

Edited October 16, 2020 by CountZero

[unreasonable]

Unless someone can come up with a fairly convincing explanation of what these stats are actually capturing, or some tests, I would not put too much emphasis on the % damage.

 

When you place a plane in the ME you have boxes to tick for "Damage Threshold + box for "damage Report 1-99", "AI return to base decision" and "Delete after Death". I think the % damage being recorded is for the purposes of this fairly simple AI/engine decision making, so it only has to be an approximate running total. 

 

In contrast, the spar sections in each wing hit box, the wing surfaces themselves, etc, each need to have their own cumulative total to trigger various events, visible damage, breaks etc. It does not look as though the missions stats recorded capture these at all.  

 

If you want to compare damage output for different rounds I think static tests at close range (SP or MP server) are better as you can aim at specific components, count hits and record specific events while counting rounds used. 

 

 

[[DBS]Browning]

The damage percentages are absolutely useless. I only used the number of rounds that hit.

[Barnacles]

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

 

This thread is about comparing the experiences in game to the historical reality. Understanding what is currently happening in the game is vital to that.

 

 

True that!

In fact when the DM came out, the Dev's I believe stated that "it is a big change" and they didn't want to instantly, "chase the bubble" until there'd been a sufficient amount of time to see the effect on the experience.

So I think one of the most constructive things we can do is, as you've done' quantify the effectiveness of the various weapons using data from the game, then the significance and merit of the data can be discussed to draw conclusions.

 

[unreasonable]

54 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

The damage percentages are absolutely useless. I only used the number of rounds that hit.

 

Were those logs of only 109 kills or any Axis aircraft?  Either way, hard to argue that 28.8 hits to kill is a ridiculously high average.

 

Just for a ball park comparison, the US P-47 tests gave an API-T M20 p to A kill of 0.017, ie 0.983 to survive each shot.  0.983^28.8 = 0.61  ie 61% of P47s would survive 28.8 hits (from that range and angle). 

 

It seems reasonable that if most of the planes shot down in your sample were 109s and 190s that they would do somewhat worse than the P-47 per hit: if only because being smaller their pilots are a larger % of the visible aspect. 28.8 hits and 50% survival (approx = your average) is a kill per hit of  0.024 

 

Also from your numbers - average hits/shots were 2.8% and hits/kill of 28.8 means 28.8/0.028 = 1029 shots/kill. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by unreasonable

[[DBS]Browning]

13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Were those logs of only 109 kills or any Axis aircraft?

 

Only single engine axis aircraft. Edit: Also, I remember there is one 262 kill in the stats used.

The previous figure of 31.5 hits per kill from a smaller sample size may have included 110s as I was not aware that they listed as "Fighter" in the stats. They are not included in the new figures.

 

Edit2:

 

It should also be remembered that there will be a certain amount of over-kill for the majority of kills. The stats appear to stop counting hits after a PK or bailout, but for other kill types, we should expect that the attacker often continues to fire and score hits, even after the target is damaged beyond the point it can fly.

Due to reduced maneuvering of damaged planes, it may sometimes be the case that the majority of hits occur after the plane is too damaged to stay airborne.

Edited October 16, 2020 by [DBS]Browning