Jump to content

.50 cal damage, or lack there of


71st_AH_Hooves
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Are those diagrams for FMJ rounds?  Entry hole and exit hole is going to be massively dependent on the bullet type.

Not sure. They're not hollow point though. FMJ rounds still expand significantly on impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Talon_ said:

If 50s performed this way IRL then the USAAF would have switched to cannons. They perform like 303s.

 

Interesting - I would then counter that statement with "If 50s were so good, why do modern aircraft have a single 20mm today?" ;)

To be honest we need to get into the economics of the US war effort and the money and time invested in the .50 cal to really understand the logic

 

However, for this conversion, these pictures will do:

 

Untitled-3.jpg

 

Spitfire LF MK IX : Warthunder

 

I fly most against most you guys online - your biggest problem is that most of you start firing inter too close or to far away.

 

I can count on both hands the number of times I am checking my gauges when I see tracers flying above my head (...i.e. too close) and all I do is nose down into a dive.

 

The second issue is fire dispersement -  most of you guys are maneuvering and firing at the same time and expect a hit (this is why the gyroscope gunsights were invented and still used today).

 

So yes, you guys are getting hits, but most of those hits are not lethal enough given your maneuvering, convergence set and time on target. This is why I like the British way of thought,  I see an issue - let's analyze and adjust. Thus, 4 cannon idea (...but still on the wing though). The USAAF was very American in how we do things some times, just add more guns LOL!

 

Kinda like traffic issue we have in the US, the issue isn't the # of lanes, it's the number of exits!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Interesting - I would then counter that statement with "If 50s were so good, why do modern aircraft have a single 20mm today?" ;)

 

 

You are absolutely right of course to make this point.

 

But the USN at least had the chance to make the comparison. The F4U-1c was fitted with 4x 20mm cannons instead of the machine guns. In general this was seen as a ground attack armament and pilots stated a preference for the 6x .50 cal layout for air combat. Whether there were real reasons, e.g. muzzle velocity making aiming easier or genuine lethality, or if this was simply a psychological effect of feeling that shooting more guns was better against a small agile target, we will never know.

 

In any case the USAF persisted with 6x .50 cal armament well into the Jet age, see F-86 for example vs MiG-15 armaments. And yes today they have 20mm, but they have rapid fire 20mm as preference over e.g. 30mm that some air forces prefer (Russian notably). Most European designs also have larger auto-cannon type armements. So relatively speaking still USAF is still leaning towards "more dakka" instead of "bigger boom".

Edited by =X51=VC_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Spitfire LF MK IX : Warthunder

 

I fly most against most you guys online - your biggest problem is that most of you start firing inter too close or to far away.

 

I can count on both hands the number of times I am checking my gauges when I see tracers flying above my head (...i.e. too close) and all I do is nose down into a dive.

 

The second issue is fire dispersement -  most of you guys are maneuvering and firing at the same time and expect a hit (this is why the gyroscope gunsights were invented and still used today).

 

So yes, you guys are getting hits, but most of those hits are not lethal enough given your maneuvering, convergence set and time on target. This is why I like the British way of thought,  I see an issue - let's analyze and adjust. Thus, 4 cannon idea (...but still on the wing though). The USAAF was very American in how we do things some times, just add more guns LOL!

 

This picture really doesn't do justice to the thought behind convergence when used with bad scaling.

 

Let's use a real example, scaled to the 10m long Mustang:

 

mustangrange.jpg

 

The guns are hitting aircraft fuselage between 200m-400m. At a closing speed of 100mph, that's 4 seconds of important plane bits being broken.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Are those diagrams for FMJ rounds?  Entry hole and exit hole is going to be massively dependent on the bullet type.

 

I very much doubt it - for the larger ones especially look more like the hollow point ammunition used by the police.   Here is 40 cal S&W.

 

40SW.thumb.jpg.286bec1ccfe48e67cce49cb143c9db95.jpg

2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Not sure. They're not hollow point though. FMJ rounds still expand significantly on impact.

 

Unless you can find the original source for that picture, I am going with hollow point handgun rounds.  FMJ rounds do not necessarily expand on impact - they may get bent a bit out of shape, but not much. If they tumble they will also create a larger exit, but nowhere near enough to match that picture.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

This picture really doesn't do justice to the thought behind convergence when used with bad scaling.

 

Let's use a real example, scaled to the 10m long Mustang:

 

mustangrange.jpg

 

The guns are hitting aircraft fuselage between 200m-400m. At a closing speed of 100mph, that's 4 seconds of important plane bits being broken.

 

This also shows that you don't actually need different pairs of guns converging at different distances to produce a suitably long "kill box".

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@AbortedMan

 

I agree, in an ideal world (which we don't have) we would start with all shell types and we would have a perfect damage model.

 

Back in the real world, it makes no sense spending time to creating API rounds in game if the damage model wasn't (originally) detailed enough to differentiate properly the effects of an incendiary round from a normal AP or a HE round. That's the problem, and its why only after the fuel system and its DM update that will begin to make sense practically - incendiary rounds have to actually light something incendiary to work... i.e. you need a fairly complex fuel systems damage model to make that happen without affecting all the other ammunition types.

 

And unfortunately it does take time to develop this, especially with a relatively small team that is trying to work on so many different areas and manage them. 

 

I'm sure the team and most of the community are already very well aware the API is missing by the existing threads, but what difference will that make if you can't hit the target effectively in the first place? you're merging different issues (convergence, aerodynamic drag from hits, API etc) into each other and expecting a big result.

 

Having API won't vastly change your results, but learning to adjust your technique would.. which means getting in close and being precise before firing. But as we know that's inconvenient and frustrating when chasing evasive pilots. Those are just the disadvantages of a wing mounted, machine gun armament.

 

It's like you're all looking in the kitchen cabinet for the holy grail and getting angry each time you only find a tin of baked beans - what are you expecting to find? most other nations switched to cannon armament because of these perceived weaknesses.

 

The team has already been working on the fuel systems and its damage model for some time. The issues with the Bf 109 and its rear fuselage are documented already in several threads, but - by the way - that issue also affects other airframes but you didn't mention that did you.. it would be a major task to overhaul all that after the work already done... so just crying wolf until everyone else goes deaf isn't going to work either.

 

If you're conceding to not let people provide data to request a fix for a clear issue with the DM simply because we don't live in a perfect world, then...just...wow.

 

I'm sure this same sentiment would not be coming out of you if Minengeschoß 20mm were modeled as ball ammo. Resolving this does not require a new fuel system since igniting fuel tanks and starting fires elsewere is already modeled in the game. The issue seems to be certain calibers not doing any aerodynamic damage to aircraft upon being hit multiple times. Multiple tests have confirmed this.

 

You've found a very long winded and creative way to say "git gud". I didn't mention anything specific about 109s, or my own personal performance, so I'm not sure what you're on about. This isn't an issue or a post about blue/red bias or wanting to buff an aspect of the aircraft I fly. I fly everything in the game regularly.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
14 minutes ago, AbortedMan said:

 

The issue seems to be certain calibers not doing any aerodynamic damage to aircraft upon being hit multiple times. Multiple tests have confirmed this.

 

 

Except this is not true.  If you damage a wing hit box enough to get at least the second level of damage graphic, you get aerodynamic effects. These are worse with the third level.  Confirmed for both 7.92 and 50 cal in offline tests. Damage sufficient to cause only the first level of graphic appears to have no effect that I could detect. 

 

The problem with the tests claiming that the ball rounds cause no aerodynamic effects,  is that they were getting insufficient hits, or hits spread over too many wing hit boxes, or many hits to ailerons and flaps.  Having a hit box design for the DM means that 10 hits in one box might reach a cumulative damage level sufficient to trigger an effect, spread over four boxes they would not.  The DM rewards concentration of fire.

 

It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether the number of hits for each ammo type required to get each damage graphic level is about right, but IMHO there is nothing much wrong with what we have now.  Scattering a few 50 cal hits over a target's wings should not magically cripple the plane unless you hit a vital component.  If you want to see effects on speed from ball rounds you have to shred the wing with a concentrated burst.   

 

  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They shouldn't be 100% ball rounds in the first place.

 

14 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether the number of hits for each ammo type required to get each damage graphic level is about right, but IMHO there is nothing much wrong with what we have now.  Scattering a few 50 cal hits over a target's wings should not magically cripple the plane unless you hit a vital component.  If you want to see effects on speed from ball rounds you have to shred the wing with a concentrated burst.   

 

 

I believe this is the question everyone is trying to present. The damage coefficient for .50 cals seems to be extremely low which, in turn, is showing an unrealistic representation of their damage output according to all the IRL documentation that is floating around here on the forum.

Edited by AbortedMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

True, but APT-T will not have much effect on wings either. It should start fires more easily once a fuel tank or line is leaking, that is all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
49 minutes ago, AbortedMan said:

They shouldn't be 100% ball rounds in the first place.

 

 

I believe this is the question everyone is trying to present. The damage coefficient for .50 cals seems to be extremely low which, in turn, is showing an unrealistic representation of their damage output according to all the IRL documentation that is floating around here on the forum.

 

That is the question, but I disagree with your answer.  The main IRL documentation we have is the US Ballistics Lab test report a800394.   That included testing 50 cal API-T M20 against P-47s.  It estimated the probability of a single shot causing a kill due to structure damage (B - ie fail  to RTB) of 0.011  ie a little over 1%. So if you got 60 hits missing pilot, fuel and engines, you would shoot down about half the targets. For the quick kill we all expect in the game, the p was 0.005  

 

Clearly there is a lot of assessment that had to be made and this is just one plane, one angle etc, but the overall message is clear:  according to our best US Government report, the 50 cal is just not very good at causing structural damage unless you can get a lot of hits.  The game reflects that, realistically.  The report assumed independence of hits - the game does not, since it allows hit boxes to accumulate damage. 

 

I had no problem at all making an He111 slow right down after a couple of concentrated bursts in a wing from a P-51's six guns.  Plenty of people are also saying that, offline and online, they have no difficulty making kills with 50 cals.  If there is a problem, it is not obvious that it is in the DM. 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

True, but APT-T will not have much effect on wings either. It should start fires more easily once a fuel tank or line is leaking, that is all.


That would be a pretty massive improvement over what we have now.  In testing I was finding that it’s taking around 30-40 rounds directly into the fuel tank of a P-38 or B-25 to start a fire using the .50 AP.  Dial that down into the 3-5 rounds or less that various US testing from the period suggests for API and the effectiveness of the .50 is going to increase significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mattebubben said:

And do you have any evience that they are not?

 

Also remember that the damage shown in this game is generic damage decals and dose not correspond with how many actuall hits you made.

(So just because you see 10 holes that does not mean you hit with 10 rounds etc).

 

In my experience the 50 cal rounds work as expected (If you hit they punch holes and start fires if you hit fuel tanks)

and an avg of 50-100 hits per kill feels like a very resonable amount considering 4-8 50.cal guns firing at between 750-850RPM will reach that number of rounds with even very short bursts.

 

No I don't have any evidence. And if you'll re-read what I've written, you'll see I'm not making accusations either. I'm wondering if and what may have changed. As far as your lecturing, you can keep it. Everything you've said is already well known by the vast majority of those who post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

This picture really doesn't do justice to the thought behind convergence when used with bad scaling.

 

Let's use a real example, scaled to the 10m long Mustang:

 

mustangrange.jpg

 

The guns are hitting aircraft fuselage between 200m-400m. At a closing speed of 100mph, that's 4 seconds of important plane bits being broken.

 

Your picture doesn't account for gravity. That's why I included both of them. Please try again! :negative:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

It's disheartening to see after my post and KW's video people still arguing about convergence and "learn how to aim"

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

This also shows that you don't actually need different pairs of guns converging at different distances to produce a suitably long "kill box".

 

Cough! Only if bullets flew in a straight line. The .50 cal is a good round for somethings but when it comes to bring bringing down aircraft, it is not. The WoF of 4-8 .50 cals are maybe on par with 1x20 and 2x13mm but remember, you only need to land 2 - 3 20mm rounds to destroy a fighter. Guess how many .50 cals round it will take? Read the post above please.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
6 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Addidtion: What I did find was a lot of the kills off line were PKs, I saw no engine failures, other than engine fires.
When I had a good spray at long range, hitting the wings, generally that did nothing.
(I personally think they've under estimated the size of exit holes, and their associated increase in drag and aerodynamics for multiple 50 hits, but that's another story (IE assumed neat .50 inch holes rather than larger exit holes in accordance with this diagram).)
See the source image

I definitely think in single player they seem fine, in terms of system damage and PKs

 

 

Just want to put it out there that this diagram is most certainly NOT representative of real life. Just a quick glance at the 10mm one will tell you this with ease. Additionally, bullet design has much more to do with terminal ballistics than diameter of the projectile.

Edited by II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It's disheartening to see after my post and KW's video people still arguing about convergence and "learn how to aim"

 It's just easier to blame the game!

 

I am not saying there are not issues and this game is perfect by a long shot! However, what I am saying the # of .50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a German fighter is not one of them!

One of these things are not like the other!

Is a 20mm rifle more powerful than a 50 BMG? - Quora

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
13 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 It's just easier to blame the game!

 

I am not saying there are not issues and this game is perfect by a long shot! However, what I am saying the # of .50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a German fighter is not one of them!

 

So you think it is ok that having 20-30 impacts of 12.7mm AP/Ball in a concentrated area wouldn't affect the handling of the plane in any meaningful way, meanwhile a single 13mm that has a tiny explosive filler would do it much more significantly?

That having 120 impacts on average to set on fire  a 109 rear fuselage fuel tank after it has been perforated in the first couple impacts is ok, while other planes for comparison need 2 or 3 times less than that?

I'm not asking for fusealges to be ripped in half or wings torn off from the root, it should be pretty clear to anyone

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how people all of sudden forghot how to aim when 4.005 come out, so they now need to learn it again, mass amnesia, and no problems with american .50s.

Funy how for years when ppl complained about week axis 20mm no one say to them guns arnt week you just go learn aim 😄

Edited by CountZero
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard Dude we have been around the block and I know you are "super bright" on these matters. The augment here is 100% subjective - One guys is saying it takes x rounds to bring down a 109 with no empirical evidence and thus the game must be flawed.

 

Yes, I 100% agree that 30 concentrated rounds from any caliber bullet affect the handling of fighter aircraft in any meaningful way. I disagree with the notion of the thread's starter that there is an issue with weight of fire of the .50 cal. I contend the issue lies with his aiming and not the weapon's lethality!

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirtbag_Jim
14 hours ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

 there is also something wrong with the 109F/G/K in the rear fuselage, to be specific, low 6, the dead zone

 

This.

 

I don't even really find much issue with 50 cals, nor any of the other guns/cannons: a P-47's ammo load is more than enough to take down 6 planes+ in a single sortie. I never have any issues taking down most planes with any of the guns in the game, except for 109's and specifically in the tail section. It's relatively easy to bring it down on almost any other part of the plane (one burst on the engine or pilot is almost always a kill, but that's the same for all other fighters too), but if you're directly on a 109's six you can often unload an entire ammo load with little to no effect and just watch it fly away. And it's such a big problem considering the most common place you're gonna be shooting at someone is from direct six. And yea sure, you can always do deflection shots (it's what I currently do to bring down 109's), but that's an inconvenience that exists only for attacking 109's, which gives it a massive advantage over all other planes: you have to just hope that the 109 fucks up and does a hard turn allowing you a good deflection shot. It felt most obvious when the Yak 9T was released, and I saw 109 tails just absorbing 37mm HE rounds like a sponge (while other planes, like 190's were easily put out of action). You can bring down almost any other plane with a good burst to the tail. Meanwhile attacking a 109's tail is like attacking an IL-2. There was a user before (I forget who) that posted test vids comparing the amount of 50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a plane when shooting its tail, and the 109's needed often more than 4 times the amount of all other planes (needing direct hits in literally the hundreds, which is often a quarter+ of the entire ammo load on American planes). Which is funny considering all the historical pilot reports of how weak the 109's tail was, and how many pilots died from the tail unit simply detaching from the plane during hard maneuvers.

 

Hope this doesn't come across as me screaming "GERMAN BIAS", coz I love Luftwaffe planes and fly them regularly, but it just isn't as fun flying 109's knowing its that much harder to bring down than other planes, and not even for a historical reason. The last two updates have helped quite a bit, but 109 tails are still simply that much more durable than all other planes'stails, and for no discernibly good reason that I could find from reading historical and pilot reports.; none of them ever stated some magical ability for a 109's tail to magically absorb incredible amounts of damage with zero effect, rather stating the contrary and how weak the 109's tail was, even without battle damage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
57 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard Dude we have been around the block and I know you are "super bright" on these matters. The augment here is 100% subjective - One guys is saying it takes x rounds to bring down a 109 with no empirical evidence and thus the game must be flawed.

 

Yes, I 100% agree that 30 concentrated rounds from any caliber bullet affect the handling of fighter aircraft in any meaningful way. I disagree with the notion of the thread's starter that there is an issue with weight of fire of the .50 cal. I contend the issue with his aiming and not the weapon's lethality!


I am talking about my post and specially @KW_1979 video, which do show how there is some inconsistency going on, and at least on my part I try to see this from a constructive and objective point of view. But it seems that forum fightning against users on the "opposite camp" overweights trying to analyze and come up with how stuff can be improved other than "lol allied noob get gud and fire at convergence" 😞

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dirtbag_Jim said:

 

This.

 

I don't even really find much issue with 50 cals, nor any of the other guns/cannons: a P-47's ammo load is more than enough to take down 6 planes+ in a single sortie. I never have any issues taking down most planes with any of the guns in the game, except for 109's and specifically in the tail section. It's relatively easy to bring it down on almost any other part of the plane (one burst on the engine or pilot is almost always a kill, but that's the same for all other fighters too), but if you're directly on a 109's six you can often unload an entire ammo load with little to no effect and just watch it fly away. And it's such a big problem considering the most common place you're gonna be shooting at someone is from direct six. And yea sure, you can always do deflection shots (it's what I currently do to bring down 109's), but that's an inconvenience that exists only for attacking 109's, which gives it a massive advantage over all other planes: you have to just hope that the 109 fucks up and does a hard turn allowing you a good deflection shot. It felt most obvious when the Yak 9T was released, and I saw 109 tails just absorbing 37mm HE rounds like a sponge (while other planes, like 190's were easily put out of action). You can bring down almost any other plane with a good burst to the tail. Meanwhile attacking a 109's tail is like attacking an IL-2. There was a user before (I forget who) that posted test vids comparing the amount of 50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a plane when shooting its tail, and the 109's needed often more than 4 times the amount of all other planes (needing direct hits in literally the hundreds, which is often a quarter+ of the entire ammo load on American planes). Which is funny considering all the historical pilot reports of how weak the 109's tail was, and how many pilots died from the tail unit simply detaching from the plane during hard maneuvers.

 

Hope this doesn't come across as me screaming "GERMAN BIAS", coz I love Luftwaffe planes and fly them regularly, but it just isn't as fun flying 109's knowing its that much harder to bring down than other planes, and not even for a historical reason. The last two updates have helped quite a bit, but 109 tails are still simply that much more durable than all other planes'stails, and for no discernibly good reason that I could find from reading historical and pilot reports.; none of them ever stated some magical ability for a 109's tail to magically absorb incredible amounts of damage with zero effect, rather stating the contrary and how weak the 109's tail was, even without battle damage.

 

 

What a coincadance that also started since 4.005... but its 109 just most popular airplane in game being undestructable from most popular type of attack, no need to check what got wrong there 😄

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-Ursus_
2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Interesting how people all of sudden forghot how to aim when 4.005 come out, so they now need to learn it again, mass amnesia, and no problems with american .50s.

Funy how for years when ppl complained about week axis 20mm no one say to them guns arnt week you just go learn aim 😄

Its funny because now  its like this "but .50 doing little damages its ok, you must be on convergence" 

Before 4.005 you were able to rip off critical sections of the plane in convergence, not only trying to aim to the pilot and pray for kill him, if the 109 doesn't stop all the bullets like is doing now, and the complain was "How its insta killing my pilot" regarding the stupid idea of survive a .50 hit in a vital area or the arms and legs, wich can cause a nice shock the fact of lose an arm or a leg by a .50 hit

 

Edited by -332FG-Ursus_
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 

Just want to put it out there that this diagram is most certainly NOT representative of real life. Just a quick glance at the 10mm one will tell you this with ease. Additionally, bullet design has much more to do with terminal ballistics than diameter of the projectile.

Why? What's wrong with the 10mm one in particular. 

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I very much doubt it - for the larger ones especially look more like the hollow point ammunition used by the police.   Here is 40 cal S&W.

 

40SW.thumb.jpg.286bec1ccfe48e67cce49cb143c9db95.jpg

 

Unless you can find the original source for that picture, I am going with hollow point handgun rounds.  FMJ rounds do not necessarily expand on impact - they may get bent a bit out of shape, but not much. If they tumble they will also create a larger exit, but nowhere near enough to match that picture.

Actually yes, I'll suck back on that assessment. The small arms bullets had no expansion though so I assumed that it couldn't be hollow point. The higher calibre ones are quite big though so could be an ultra splatty round. 

 

However, fmj rounds, which we called ball rounds for our gpmg 7.62mm weapons, I always got told are designed to expand on impact. And the fmj is more for barrel wear and ballistic qualities. But I stand to be corrected by an army type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
5 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 It's just easier to blame the game!

 

I am not saying there are not issues and this game is perfect by a long shot! However, what I am saying the # of .50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a German fighter is not one of them!

One of these things are not like the other!

Is a 20mm rifle more powerful than a 50 BMG? - Quora

 

 

This is also not an accurate depiction of the comparison between MG151/20 and .50BMG. The case length for .50BMG is 99mm while the case length for the MG151/20 is almost 20mm less. All this translates into though is a lower velocity. It doesn't necessarily lower the damage capability of the 20mm because the cannon shell relies on an HE filler which is detonated by a fuse while the damage mechanism for .50BMG in game is purely mechanical in nature and not chemical.

2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Why? What's wrong with the 10mm one in particular. 

Actually yes, I'll suck back on that assessment. The small arms bullets had no expansion though so I assumed that it couldn't be hollow point. The higher calibre ones are quite big though so could be an ultra splatty round. 

 

However, fmj rounds, which we called ball rounds for our gpmg 7.62mm weapons, I always got told are designed to expand on impact. And the fmj is more for barrel wear and ballistic qualities. But I stand to be corrected by an army type.

 

FMJ ball projectiles do NOT expand on impact, especially when hitting a soft target such as a body. If they hit a hard target such as concrete or a hardened metal substrate they can fragment. Projectile diameter has almost nothing to do with the wounding mechanism of a projectile. A few of the reasons why the example you gave is absurd is because 1.) when it comes to FMJ ball projectiles, the difference in energy carried by typical military loads of 9mm and .45ACP is negligible. 2.) 10mm shows a relatively small wound depiction compared to how much energy a 10mm cartridge typically carries. 10mm in full power loading offerings produces the equivalent energy of a .357 Magnum.

 

As far as FMJ having an impact on barrel wear, what impacts barrel wear the most is heat, not projectile design.

 

Additionally, when it comes to ballistic qualities, FMJ is lower on the list with respect to external ballistic capabilities. The types of projectiles which offer the best accuracy and precision are monolithic projectiles turned on a lathe, but typically Open Tipped designs and other expanding ammunition with an open jacket at the front but with perhaps a polymer tip to fill the open cavity are much more accurate and offer much better ballistic coefficients than generic FMJ ball. If you buy a box of "Match Grade" ammunition, it will most likely be some manner of JHP design. The reason for this is because if a jacket is filled with lead or some bi-metal alloy from the rear, there is typically air pockets that accumulate near the nose which upsets the balance of the projectile. Since these are spin stabilized, this negatively impacts accuracy. Jackets that are filled from the front through an open tip have much less of this issue because it is far less likely that air pockets will accumulate at the fatter base of the jacketing than in the tapered tip.

Edited by II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

So you think it is ok that having 20-30 impacts of 12.7mm AP/Ball in a concentrated area wouldn't affect the handling of the plane in any meaningful way, meanwhile a single 13mm that has a tiny explosive filler would do it much more significantly?

That having 120 impacts on average to set on fire  a 109 rear fuselage fuel tank after it has been perforated in the first couple impacts is ok, while other planes for comparison need 2 or 3 times less than that?

I'm not asking for fusealges to be ripped in half or wings torn off from the root, it should be pretty clear to anyone

 

There are three issues mixed up here.

 

1) I think you need to keep the 109 out of this. There seems to be a plane specific issue with tail/fuselage hits from close to six, which I agree does seem suspect.

 

2) Then there is the question of whether the explosive/incendiary MG131 round damage seems excessive given it's very small HE content.  To be persuaded of that we need more information - how many hits needed to trigger a specific damage threshold. 

 

3) Lastly the specific damage of the 50 cal ball round.  So far the only tests that I have seen that actually got 20-30 hits in a concentrated way on a wing hit box are the ones I did myself, in which case there was a most definite effect on performance. 

 

My observation if that if you trigger the second level damage graphic on a wing hit box, using whatever munition,  you start to see a lift/drag penalty.  I think that is just how the DM works - if someone knows for certain that is not the case please tell me! 

 

  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson

Do USA pilot types believe the introduction of incendiary types will only positively impact the .50BMG, but fail to realize that others used this as well?

 

Phosphor mit Stahlkern - 8mm Mauser API

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Why? What's wrong with the 10mm one in particular. 

Actually yes, I'll suck back on that assessment. The small arms bullets had no expansion though so I assumed that it couldn't be hollow point. The higher calibre ones are quite big though so could be an ultra splatty round. 

 

However, fmj rounds, which we called ball rounds for our gpmg 7.62mm weapons, I always got told are designed to expand on impact. And the fmj is more for barrel wear and ballistic qualities. But I stand to be corrected by an army type.

 

I was an army type forty years ago, does that count?  I was always told that FMJ rounds might distort or break up hitting hard objects, but were not designed to do so explicitly. When hitting a human body, for instance, they will often pass clean through undamaged.   Use of expanding rounds against human targets by the military is a war crime, BTW, but - fun fact - if police forces shoot at you then hollow point is what you will get!

 

I do agree that if you fire a FMJ bullet into an aircraft a significant proportion of them will tumble, break or distort on hitting internal components, (though probably not the skin itself), so if they exit they would tend to make messier holes than on entry.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

BTW, but - fun fact - if police forces shoot at you then hollow point is what you will get!

This is not because they want to hurt you more then the "Army Types". it's as you say FMJ will pass through a target and could kill someone behind the target. Seen it happen.  BTW if you use a gun for protection in the house you should use hollow points, more likely to stop in the wall and not kill the wife in the kitchen. Or you may want to use FMJ

 

20 years as a USAF Security Police, combat vet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
2 hours ago, Ghost666 said:

This is not because they want to hurt you more then the "Army Types". it's as you say FMJ will pass through a target and could kill someone behind the target. Seen it happen.  BTW if you use a gun for protection in the house you should use hollow points, more likely to stop in the wall and not kill the wife in the kitchen. Or you may want to use FMJ

 

20 years as a USAF Security Police, combat vet. 

 

Yes I know - or at least that is one good reason. The other is simply because they have better stopping power at and are more likely to make it impossible for an armed - or possibly armed -target to shoot back. 

 

It is just a quirk of history that soldiers can be riddled with shell splinters, blown up, irradiated, burnt to a crisp, asphyxiated, fried by lasers, chopped up by swords, stabbed by bayonets or have their throats cut while they sleep and this is all fine, as long as they are not shot by expanding bullets. 

 

It is not the use of hollow points by police that seems odd - or for that matter the use of tear gas in riot control, which is also outlawed for military use - but the restrictions on  military use that were little more than virtue signaling even at the time when they were introduced in the late nineteenth century.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personaly i think that they are more-less as they should be but simulation might have problems with damage caused by aerodynamic drag (a guy mantioned cases of 109s tails comming off irl after pulling sharp maneouvers /also they could have been damaged by forced labour in factories/ ) because .50cal dmg consists only off kinetic energy transfered to the plane since those rounds are ap they wont deliver their full kick unless fired at something dense like engine but with amount of rounds fired they shred the aircraft sheathing since most of them pass through tumbling around expanding or just hitting nothing depending if they hit a wing spar or sthing else so critical airframe damage (irl) might have been caused not by the damage itself but by stress induced with drag and weakened construction elements with like bullets hitting the wing spars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

This picture really doesn't do justice to the thought behind convergence when used with bad scaling.

 

Let's use a real example, scaled to the 10m long Mustang:

 

mustangrange.jpg

 

The guns are hitting aircraft fuselage between 200m-400m. At a closing speed of 100mph, that's 4 seconds of important plane bits being broken.

Absolutely. At 100 meters you couldn't possibly adjust the guns in the wings enough to converge. It would be difficult not to shred a fighter sized A/C at that distance no matter the convergence setting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The .50's in game suffer from a handful of key issues. Now I can't speak to the lack of aero damage since I haven't looked into it much, but I will agree that if I'm on the receiving end of the barrage, I may get all sorts of component damage, but my bird will dance just fine after looking like swiss cheese. 

 

The Key issues are as follow:

 

1. Lack of API

Pretty critical issue as its very challenging/near impossible to detonate enemy aircrafts ammunition stores, and unreasonably challenging to set their fuel tanks alight after very generous amounts of shooting on target. 

Dev Response: Possibly on the way with the upcoming fuel systems update

 

2. Lack of proper harmonization

All guns in IL2 shoot at a pinpoint x amount of meters ahead of your aircraft. Many wing mounted guns on aircraft were harmonized for a rectangular pattern in order to saturate the target with as much fire as possible. As a result, if you shoot right on convergence in IL2, you will simply lace up a very small amount of their craft with a lot of bullets. Since .50's don't do much structural damage, it usually works against you oddly enough. 

Dev Response: On the way eventually, when we have the time for it.

 

3. Wing mounted guns being perfectly synchronized due to having zero variance in rate of fire over the course of an extended burst. This results in  pulses of fire instead of a constant river of bullets, once again resulting in the target not being properly saturated will bullets, and greatly punishing snapshots since its highly likely that an aircraft can simply fly through your pulses. 

Dev Response: On the way eventually, when we have the time for it.

 

Conclusion: Looks like .50's are going to be a bit poo poo for the near future. We can hope that as more BoN aircraft are added, and the issues with American .50's become more prevalent, that the dev team will take the time needed to implement the needed features to improve their performance. (And please fix the mustangs dive good god)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2020 at 10:34 PM, zdog0331 said:

I personally don't have a problem.  I can usually down 109s in 1 or 2 quick bursts.  However i do like to fly in close with convergence at 300 meters.  I aim for the engine and it usually stops it very easily.  Like i said 1 burst...2 if i miss.  .50 cals don't do a ton of damage to the wings They aren't designed to blow holes in the wings.  They are designed to damage parts so you need to be a lot more percise with your shots.  If you aren't aiming for individual parts on the plane, you aren't doing .50 cals right.  If you just try to hit the plane with no particular target in mind you can literally put all of your ammo into a plane.  But if you aim for the cockpit and engine you can down fighters in 1 or 2 hits.  Bombers in 4-8.  You can get a double ace without filling up on ammo if you are good.  

 

Now the 109 with its 20mm he rounds you don't have to do this.  Those are designed to blow the skin right off the wings which decreases lift.  with 1 burst you can get rid of all lift on that side of an aircraft and its down.  If you are used to that where you just try to hit the plane anywhere then you may have trouble with the .50 cals.  They are more challenging to use, but when used properly they are just as deadly.  Think of the p-51 and p-47 as sniper rifles and you need to be super accurate with your shots and the other planes like the fw190 and bf-109 as shotgun which don't require accuracy to use well.

And you actually think pilots have the time or opportunity to pick certain parts of the plane to aim at?   You have to get very close and have extra time to do that.  Most pilots aren't going to sit around cooperatively and let you put a 1 second burst into them with careful aim specially in multiplayer.   Another thing is that the German and Russian .50s (.51 12.7mm) hit about the same as 20mm cannons as far as messing up the ability to continue to dogfight while SIX or EIGHT M2's do nothing to make a plane combat ineffective unless you achieve a critical hit.  You can shred the targets wings with .50 and nothing happens except maybe a leak that does nothing to render the opponent combat ineffective while a couple of hits from a 131 or 12.7 just about anywhere basically takes you out of the fight.   Most US pilots in WW II were not "expert plane snipers" they simply got someone in the middle of sights and fired.   They didn't need to worry about aiming for some certain part of the target because it was either going to go down or be severely damaged regardless.   If they ever would have thought that it was more complicated than that there would have been a change to US armaments.  The whole point to military armaments is to make them the fastest killing with the least amount of training and thinking as possible because frightened people in combat don't have time (or the ability) to do a lot of thinking.  Something is wrong here.

3 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

Now I can't speak to the lack of aero damage since I haven't looked into it much, but I will agree that if I'm on the receiving end of the barrage, I may get all sorts of component damage, but my bird will dance just fine after looking like swiss cheese.

Exactly what we've been saying.

On 7/10/2020 at 6:14 AM, SCG_motoadve said:

Must be a MP issue, testing the P47 in quick missions against 109s and 190s I would get 4 to 6 kills consistently, many of those planes set on fire, .50s seems lethal.

.50 cals convergence is important , also deflection shooting helps.

That may well be, but whatever the cause they are next to useless in multiplayer compared to the German and Russian counterparts even though the US planes have 3x as many.    Since a lot of people play multiplayer (hundreds maybe over thousand even) I think this should be fixed sooner rather than later.  They are also the most ardent supporters of IL2 based on all the names I recognize here on the forums.   I too have noticed that the M2's seem more effective offline, but on the other hand the AI is pretty crappy when it comes to dodging bullets of any kind.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that post 4.008 update, the .50 cals have been way less effective.  Not sure if anyone else has had the same experience, but we fly mostly allied A/C and welcomed the P-47 Razorback in the update.  However, after several nights online and several offline testing (Razorback) missions, everyone in our squad experienced the same impressions.  I'm not the best shot by any means and although I try to hit at convergence, I often fail, but after dumping almost an entire "extra ammo" load from a P-51 into a FW that was already hit hard by my wingman, I saw little effects.  He just smoked a little and zoomed away.  Five of us had similar experiences and it just seemed like we were flying a previous version of IL2 before the .50s were improved.

 

I know the update didn't mention any changes to ordinance, but wondering if anything could have inadvertently have been changed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we discussing the lethality of .50 cals as if there is just one gun hitting the target??? There's 6-8 of them depending on the plane, meaning you'd have at least like 4 guns hitting relatively in the same area at over 700 rounds per minute. Then we have to take into account tumbling, spalling, and it ripping through parts inside the plane causing some pretty respectable exit holes making aerodynamic penalty even worse. I don't know where some of you get the idea that it is not an effective anti-aircraft round for the time and the tens of thousands of planes shot down by .50 cals are a testament to their effectiveness. Literally no one is saying .50 cals should do the same damage as 20mm HE, a single 20mm hit is obviously superior to a single .50 hit, they just aren't comparable especially when HE filler is used. But when you have dozens of HMG rounds hitting relatively in the same area, the effect is absolutely devastating. Just look up what an M2 does to its targets, now up the fire rate a little and add 5-7 more of those guns. Adding API is not going to help, it will only increase chance of starting a fire.

 

Even now USAF practices the same idea of more rounds hitting the target with smaller caliber guns. Germany, Britain, and France today are sporting 27mm or 30mm with Russia and China using mainly 30mm too, meanwhile the US is using 20mm at higher fire rates than their counterparts. It isn't less effective, it's just preference towards separate doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2020 at 7:58 PM, unreasonable said:

 

 

 

The problem with the tests claiming that the ball rounds cause no aerodynamic effects,  is that they were getting insufficient hits, or hits spread over too many wing hit boxes, or many hits to ailerons and flaps.  Having a hit box design for the DM means that 10 hits in one box might reach a cumulative damage level sufficient to trigger an effect, spread over four boxes they would not.  The DM rewards concentration of fire.

 

 

 

  

Yes. This is a good explanation of what seems to be going on.

 

However, this will have to be corrected somehow, because an aircraft hit by multiple impacts on a wing behaving just like it is not hit at all just because it has not hit the boxes is not really acceptable IMHO. This is a situation just like the 20mm Minen where the DM design is clearly negating  the effect and the intent of the weapon.

 

The DM doesn't reward concentration of fire as you say, it's just a limitation of the model and hopefully it can be corrected somehow. Otherwise one could ask: what was the DM rewarding exactly when the Minen were not modified?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was just so weird decision to change how american .50 behave, no one was complaining about them being to op before 4.005 and all of sudden they got adjusted and now its a mess, i remenber before one good thing about american airplanes was they atleast had good .50 guns finaly in some flying game, but that didnt last for long.

Edited by CountZero
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • LukeFF locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...