.50 cal damage, or lack there of

[Hawk-2a]

56 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Biased much?

 

Facts:

• .50 cals are missing API rounds
• 109 tail section DM is indestructible (WIP)
• same lack of effectiveness reproduced offline where net code is not an issue

 

Therefore it is reasonable to expect changes that will and should, make .50 cals more lethal and effective in the near future.

I‘m not saying that those arent valid points my man. Those are actually some of the very accurate and valid points that also are my opinion.

if the lack of effectiveness can be reproduced reliably (maybe not on a 109 due to the tail being WIP, might falsen results), it is a good indicator that it needs to be looked at
 

but all the rest around that topic without any reproduceable case, statements about how it should be based on pure assumptions or rather questionable statements of (sorry) old and forgetting veterans instead of fact based statements is just pure crap and at this point not just tiring to read but just ridiculous and at best amusing. 

[sniperton]

1 hour ago, H_Stiglitz said:

if the lack of effectiveness can be reproduced reliably (maybe not on a 109 due to the tail being WIP, might falsen results), it is a good indicator that it needs to be looked at

This is why I suggested that someone should set up a test mission online and invite volunteers to strafe vehicles under set conditions. If the numbers gathered from the stats are conclusive and support the argument (any argument), there's definitely an issue here (or not), and no one can ignore it any more with any of the arguments brought up here. I'd gladly spend an hour with the repetitive task of strafing howitzers, no matter what the conclusion might be.

[JG7_X-Man]

Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft but the 109 LOL.

 

 

With the assumption that you are firing on an Bf 109 from the rear, level flight and at perfect convergence range, It seems to me that the most probable kill would be to:

• hit the propeller (IN YELLOW) (...as your rounds are not harmonized with the 109's engine) which would in real life destroy the aircraft. Since that is not modeled in game (not sure why not...), next probable damage would be to the cooling system in the wing root, the wing root itself and the landing gear housing, which is also in the yellow area.
• The second most probable area would be the empennage (tail assembly) area. However, the probability of a hit would more likely be (IN BLACK) that houses the fuel tank (than the thin margin of hitting the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer (IN PURPLE) within the black oval.

That said, it's my contention that when it comes to firing on a WWII fighter aircraft from the rear at level flight:

1. The probability of .50 cal ripping off the tail of a non maneuvering 109 is highly improbable (...but not implausible).
2. The 20 mm round as it has more explosive power than the .50 cal would inflict more damage to said area and more probably(...but not definitely) rip off the tail of a non maneuvering allied fighter aircraft.
3. The probability of shooting off a propeller blade, rupturing a fuel tank, hitting a coolant line/hydraulic line/landing gear assembly (which would more than likely deploy the landing gear) is higher in my opinion than ripping off the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer.

 

To summarize:

"Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft except the 109".

Based on the surface area, It should be pretty hard to shoot the tail off of any aircraft from the 6 o'clock position.

Edited September 18, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[CountZero]

16 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft but the 109 LOL.

 

With the assumption that you are firing on an Bf 109 from the rear, level flight and at perfect convergence range, It seems to me that the most probable kill would be to:

• hit the propeller (IN YELLOW) (...as your rounds are not harmonized with the 109's engine) which would in real life destroy the aircraft. Since that is not modeled in game (not sure why not...), next probable damage would be to the cooling system in the wing root, the wing root itself and the landing gear housing, which is also in the yellow area.
• The second most probable area would be the empennage (tail assembly) area. However, the probability of a hit would more likely be (IN BLACK) that houses the fuel tank (than the thin margin of hitting the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer (IN PURPLE) within the black oval.

That said, it's my contention that when it comes to firing on a WWII fighter aircraft from the rear at level flight:

1. The probability of .50 cal ripping off the tail of a non maneuvering 109 is highly improbable (...but not implausible).
2. The 20 mm round as it has more explosive power than the .50 cal would inflict more damage to said area and more probably(...but not definitely) rip off the tail of a non maneuvering allied fighter aircraft.
3. The probability of shooting off a propeller blade, rupturing a fuel tank, hitting a coolant line/hydraulic line/landing gear assembly (which would more than likely deploy the landing gear) is higher in my opinion than ripping off the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer.

how about 3-5x30 or 37mm HE hiting tail of 109, what is probability of happening then ? i try it in this game and since 4.005 airplane just absorbs any hits in tail, what got changed in that update i wonder. It dosent take a watson to solve  the mistery. 

[JG7_X-Man]

8 minutes ago, CountZero said:

how about 3-5x30 or 37mm HE hiting tail of 109, what is probability of happening then ? i try it in this game and since 4.005 airplane just absorbs any hits in tail, what got changed in that update i wonder. It dosent take a watson to solve  the mistery. 

 

I guess you did understand my point.

 

I am saying that "Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft except the 109".

Based on the surface area, It should be pretty hard to shoot the tail off of any aircraft from the 6 o'clock position.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

I guess you did understand my point.

 

I am saying that "Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft except the 109".

Based on the surface area, It should be pretty hard to shoot the tail off of any aircraft from the 6 o'clock position.

Yes i didnt understod it.

I think it should happend easeyer then now, especialy with big guns like 30 or 37mm.

[-332FG-Buddy]

11 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

What exactly did you want to tell us again, @EisenFaust?

The fact that they're working on other things or the fact that they've neither acknowledge the "bullet sponge" 109's tail or the fact that they've got no idea how to solve the "undetachable" tail issue on the 109s, let alone when?

 

See: If any of the devs was afraid that the ongoing complaints would ruin the reputation of the game, then for freck's sake the easiest way to stop it was to acknowledge the issues and roll out a plan for immediate countermeasures.

Half a year of silence is sailing on the edge of ignorance, sorry to say.

 

Mike

Well said

[JG7_X-Man]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Yes i didnt understod it.

I think it should happend easeyer then now, especialy with big guns like 30 or 37mm.

 

The vertical and horizontal stabilizer have a small cross section from the 6 o'clock position not to mention even at 150 m range. From the 6 o'clock position and slight above/below or the 9/3 o'clock position I will agree with you because there is more surface area to hit.

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft but the 109 LOL.

 

 

With the assumption that you are firing on an Bf 109 from the rear, level flight and at perfect convergence range, It seems to me that the most probable kill would be to:

• hit the propeller (IN YELLOW) (...as your rounds are not harmonized with the 109's engine) which would in real life destroy the aircraft. Since that is not modeled in game (not sure why not...), next probable damage would be to the cooling system in the wing root, the wing root itself and the landing gear housing, which is also in the yellow area.
• The second most probable area would be the empennage (tail assembly) area. However, the probability of a hit would more likely be (IN BLACK) that houses the fuel tank (than the thin margin of hitting the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer (IN PURPLE) within the black oval.

That said, it's my contention that when it comes to firing on a WWII fighter aircraft from the rear at level flight:

1. The probability of .50 cal ripping off the tail of a non maneuvering 109 is highly improbable (...but not implausible).
2. The 20 mm round as it has more explosive power than the .50 cal would inflict more damage to said area and more probably(...but not definitely) rip off the tail of a non maneuvering allied fighter aircraft.
3. The probability of shooting off a propeller blade, rupturing a fuel tank, hitting a coolant line/hydraulic line/landing gear assembly (which would more than likely deploy the landing gear) is higher in my opinion than ripping off the actual vertical and horizontal stabilizer.

 

To summarize:

"Maybe we do have an issue with all aircraft except the 109".

Based on the surface area, It should be pretty hard to shoot the tail off of any aircraft from the 6 o'clock position.

 

Mostly agree, except: the probability of hitting the spinning propeller is (almost) identical to that of hitting the propeller when it is stationary: so the yellow area represents a chance of a hit, equal to the area of the actual blades as shown divided by the yellow area, minus the blocking bits in both cases. It would be better to just highlight the area of the actual blades: roughly equal to the area of the black oval. 

 

Hits to the propeller disc are modelled: if you hit the propeller disc with a round with HE you can get splinter damage to nearby areas. Firing a 50 cal at the prop disc also produces the "hit debris" decal for a proportion of hits, but as far as I can see there is no resultant damage to the engine. I am not sure why there would be, necessarily. It would take a number of hits close together from 50 cals to rip off a propeller blade: I do not see this as likely.

 

That aside I agree - the actual tail area which is the cause of so much grief is tiny, and can only be blocking a proportion of hits from a six o'clock position, if indeed it is. The question then is, if you get a lot of hits in the black oval, most of which do not actually get blocked by the vertical stabiliser, what happens?  You would eventually cause a fuel leak, fire and/or PK, after you defeat the armour and self sealing, but the issue is how many hits are needed to create these effects. 

 

 

[-SF-Disarray]

X-Man, I think you are misunderstanding the issue here. Few, if any, people are arguing that shots from a battery of .50 HMG's using only AP ammo should regularly saw the tail of a plane off without a considerable amount of hits. At least if they are, I've missed it. The issue is two fold: First, taking shots from .50 AP rounds often times imparts almost no noticeable effect on the plane that is shot. Earlier today I was flying a 190 and was shot by a P-51. Rounds hit across my left wing causing damage to the skin. No damage to the internal wing strucure, no damage to the cannon in that wing, no damage to the ammunition stored in the wing. Before getting shot I was doing 500 KPH in level flight and I was able to do the same 500 KPH (310 MPH) at the same altitude and engine settings after getting shot. Later this same day I was flying a P-51 and took a few hits from the 131's of a 190 to my left wingtip in a snap deflection shot. The P-51 was immediately combat ineffective, I fought the plane the whole way to a landing strip and was only able to reach a level flight speed of about 442 KPH (275 MPH) at 7500 feet at the top end of cruise power. I landed the plane, repaired it and flew back up to 7500 feet, set the engine for maximum cruise power and was able to make about 523 KPH (325 MPH). So we have a situation where a few hits from 131's into a wingtip causing a speed loss of 81 KPH and a similar or greater number of hits from M2's resulting in no speed loss and no increased instability in the plane. This seems credible to you? I'll grant you the HE filler will make the 131 rounds a little more effective but this is a substantial difference in wing area damaged and effect on performance; far more effect than .8 grams of HE filler can account for. So I have to ask, where is this disparity coming from?

 

The second issue is wholly unrelated to any kind of weapon in so far as has been demonstrated. The empennage section of the 109's seems to do some thing to negate the damage from rounds that hit it. Why, exactly, this is being discussed here I don't know but it is. There is nothing in the construction of the entire tail section of a 109 that would indicate to me that it should be able to take the abuse it is regularly observed to take with little to no ill effect on the plane's performance.

[unreasonable]

50 cal round hits to the wing absolutely cause damage to the internal structure: get enough of them and wings will fall off. Take about 40-50 hits in one test to remove the outer section of a Dora's wing at 1G - I do not know the average.  You just cannot see the internal damage until the wing section actually fails. Going from the description of the DM given by the developers, you have to roll an RNG to get a "spar" hit, probability depending on the angle and so the relative aspect of wing and "spar", then enough "spar" hits in one section will cause a reduction in allowable G loading, eventually to failure. No different in the mechanism of the DM from the wings on the FC crates potentially collapsing after being hit by 303s.

 

I agree that the weapons and ammo bays appear to be immune, and should not be. But you would still have to actually hit them and roll an RNG to see an effect. It would be quite unrealistic if every time a wing was hit by a few MG bullets the weapons or ammo was damaged.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by unreasonable

[Eisenfaustus]

10 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

hit the propeller (IN YELLOW) (...as your rounds are not harmonized with the 109's engine) which would in real life destroy the aircraft.

I don’t think that would be certain kill. (Though it could be a kill of course)
 

when Adolf Galland first tested the mg131 in a bf109f2 in 1941 they were wrongly synchronised. He fired several bursts into his own propeller, thinking he saw surprisingly big muzzle flashes. But inspite the propeller having to be replaced he made it back to base. 
 

So I guess destroying a WWII propeller with machine gun fire was harder then you think. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I don’t think that would be certain kill. (Though it could be a kill of course)
 

when Adolf Galland first tested the mg131 in a bf109f2 in 1941 they were wrongly synchronised. He fired several bursts into his own propeller, thinking he saw surprisingly big muzzle flashes. But inspite the propeller having to be replaced he made it back to base. 
 

So I guess destroying a WWII propeller with machine gun fire was harder then you think. 

 

 

Its just show that our current 109 is historically durable as even German 50 cals cant kill it. 

[CountZero]

From combatbox server topic:

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/913976/?tour=26

 

Pure example how after 4.005 AP is good just to warn enemy he should check his 6. On top you get pure HE ammo to pk that same guy LOL and it was perfect bounce, just noob mistake of using american airplane in this game insted anything els lol

If this is what WW2 guns can do and this is how powerfull HE ammo was compared to AP why in the world anyone used anything els then HE ammo. 

Even before 4.005 HE ammo was so good, but after it its just comical what they did to widen devide betwen AP and HE, and its only two ammo types to model in game, not dozens or more, and its this mess lol

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by CountZero

[von_Tom]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

From combatbox server topic:

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/913976/?tour=26

 

If this is what WW2 guns can do and this is how powerfull HE ammo was compared to AP why in the world anyone used anything els then HE ammo. 

 

 

USAAF decision - plenty of research on it elsewhere.

 

Here's another sortie log for you - https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/917307/?tour=26

 

Good accuracy in this sortie - weight of ammo on target counts.

 

von Tom

[Tempus]

Just another example of an standard operation 109 sortie in combat box...... (sarcasm included in the final price too)

 

 

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

USAAF decision - plenty of research on it elsewhere.

 

Here's another sortie log for you - https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/917307/?tour=26

 

Good accuracy in this sortie - weight of ammo on target counts.

 

von Tom

I remenber planty sorties with 5 and more kills by german airplanes before 4.005 but somehow players complained that guns are week especialy HE ammo, so by that logic they had nothing to complain about if players online can get 5 and more kills in sortie in a year...

Funny how 190s are gone in one pass, but 109 (looks like strongest ww2 fighter by game) has longer dmg lines then receipts in cvs, also one fight 51 38 and spit and while shoot got spit and it took 51 3 min to get it... maybe well get ace in flight video considering thats his only 5 kill sortie with 51 in this year ?

Edited September 22, 2020 by CountZero

[VBF-12_Snake9]

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

USAAF decision - plenty of research on it elsewhere.

 

Here's another sortie log for you - https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/917307/?tour=26

 

Good accuracy in this sortie - weight of ammo on target counts.

 

von Tom

Here's my 5 kill sortie last month.  

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/851547/?tour=25

 

Thing is both of us know the 50s are trash.  Anyone that has flown the 51 enough to get 5 kills in one sortie also knows hundreds of times the 50s do absolutely nothing.  How about yall two fly the 51 enough to get 5 kills in a sortie and then you can express your opinion.  huh.........  ?

 

And why is it that only the 51 pilots need to learn to aim.  Flying german this month I found out I don't need to aim at all.  Just point and pull the trigger.   ?

[-SF-Disarray]

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

USAAF decision - plenty of research on it elsewhere.

 

Here's another sortie log for you - https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/917307/?tour=26

 

Good accuracy in this sortie - weight of ammo on target counts.

 

von Tom

 

So you are saying we just need to aim harder? I just want to be sure that I'm following here. The reason I can go 5 or 6 kills in a sortie with a G-14 or a Yak 7 but struggle to get 2 kills in a sortie flying anything armed exclusively with AP firing .50's is because I aim better using HE rounds? Are you also saying that prior to the DM update they did I was able to aim better, but as soon as that update dropped my aim fell off but only with AP equipped .50's? I hope you understand why this is confusing for me. Because until you came along to explain to me that it was my own personal failing in aiming I was starting to think that something might be wrong in the game. Now we both know that is impossible, so I'm glad you've come to set things strait.

[CountZero]

50 minutes ago, messsucher said:

This topic reminds me so much of ".50 cal badly modeled" or whatever similar topic back in original IL-2 times going on like years?. The forum I do not remember, but Bearcat was a moderator there too.

 

The demand in the end appeared to be that .50 cal should be able to turn over Tiger II tank when strafed

Exept 0.50 come with BoM and untill 4.005 update years after it no one had any complains about it exept (few german only players when P-51 come last DLC from what i could see), and i dont see ppl asking for tigers to be blown up by them but airplanes they aere intended to shoot like 109 for example, that somehow become strongest fighter in word after same game update.

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, messsucher said:

The demand in the end appeared to be that .50 cal should be able to turn over Tiger II tank when strafed

 

if you mean Me 109 as Tiger II then.... I agree with you 

[von_Tom]

11 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

etc...

 

 

An observation...

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/908114/?tour=26

 

0.7% gunnery accuracy doesn't help with .50 cal AP rounds, yet even though you only hit with 14 rounds a 109 still went down.

 

Interestingly though, with my limited MP time my gunnery accuracy on Combat Box is way less than on other servers.  10.6/11 on Finnish/WoL and 4.6 on Combat Box.  Too small a sample to make anything of it though,

 

22 minutes ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

Here's my 5 kill sortie last month.  

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/851547/?tour=25

 

Thing is both of us know the 50s are trash....

 

Good sortie.

 

I have no idea if the AP .50 cals are trash or modelled correctly.  But,  I trust the developers to look at it and if needs be make changes to whatever black magic serves for computer coding for either the .50 cals or the 109 DM.

 

von Tom

[-SF-Disarray]

15 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

An observation...

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/908114/?tour=26

 

0.7% gunnery accuracy doesn't help with .50 cal AP rounds, yet even though you only hit with 14 rounds a 109 still went down.

 

Interestingly though, with my limited MP time my gunnery accuracy on Combat Box is way less than on other servers.  10.6/11 on Finnish/WoL and 4.6 on Combat Box.  Too small a sample to make anything of it though,

 

 

Good sortie.

 

I have no idea if the AP .50 cals are trash or modelled correctly.  But,  I trust the developers to look at it and if needs be make changes to whatever black magic serves for computer coding for either the .50 cals or the 109 DM.

 

von Tom

 

Well that proves it! He got me everyone! One example of a a kill with no context proves everything. Mass delusion, that's all this was. Move along, nothing to see here....

[CountZero]

36 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

An observation...

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/908114/?tour=26

 

0.7% gunnery accuracy doesn't help with .50 cal AP rounds, yet even though you only hit with 14 rounds a 109 still went down.

 

Interestingly though, with my limited MP time my gunnery accuracy on Combat Box is way less than on other servers.  10.6/11 on Finnish/WoL and 4.6 on Combat Box.  Too small a sample to make anything of it though,

 

 

Good sortie.

 

I have no idea if the AP .50 cals are trash or modelled correctly.  But,  I trust the developers to look at it and if needs be make changes to whatever black magic serves for computer coding for either the .50 cals or the 109 DM.

 

von Tom

All ammo is considered fired in bailout case by IL-2 stats, he didnt fire all his 2060 bullets so thats why % is off.

19 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

Well that proves it! He got me everyone! One example of a a kill with no context proves everything. Mass delusion, that's all this was. Move along, nothing to see here....

Re-lern to aim, that you sudenly forghot how to after april 2020 (or dont ever bail out if you wont to have high acc% ). Aim for wingtips ?

Edited September 22, 2020 by CountZero

[von_Tom]

47 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

...nothing to see here....

 

Quite right.

 

33 minutes ago, CountZero said:

All ammo is considered fired in bailout case by IL-2 stats, he didnt fire all his 2060 bullets so thats why % is off.

 

I didn't know that - thanks for the clarification.

 

von Tom

[Cpt_Siddy]

3 hours ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

Here's my 5 kill sortie last month.  

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/851547/?tour=25

 

Thing is both of us know the 50s are trash.  Anyone that has flown the 51 enough to get 5 kills in one sortie also knows hundreds of times the 50s do absolutely nothing.  How about yall two fly the 51 enough to get 5 kills in a sortie and then you can express your opinion.  huh.........  ?

 

And why is it that only the 51 pilots need to learn to aim.  Flying german this month I found out I don't need to aim at all.  Just point and pull the trigger.   ?

 

 

Dooode, just aim at the wing tips and its k, also watch for netcode. 

[messsucher]

I think .50 cal should not have the stopping power of 30mm cannon, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe if .50 cal is Made in USA, then it would equal 30mm cannon. That's what I have learned anyway of these endless .50 cal threads

[CountZero]

35 minutes ago, messsucher said:

I think .50 cal should not have the stopping power of 30mm cannon, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe if .50 cal is Made in USA, then it would equal 30mm cannon. That's what I have learned anyway of these endless .50 cal threads

Dont worry we all learn at differant speeds, just dont read to fast and youll pull trough.

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, messsucher said:

That's what I have learned anyway of these endless .50 cal threads

 

The first 2 post in this forum for kinda trolling. Are you an undercover dev? I only ask you this cause people who come to this threat and need to learn something about any are in position for changing anything, also fix anything (only in the rare case if anything doesn't work properly). If your answer is YES, please fix this B...(*).... ASAP after half year of ....(*)........ If your answer is NO then keep us informed about your improvements in your learning curve. Keep on it!!.  Every post is exponentially better than previous..... imagine the 10th.

 

(*) Fill in the gaps whatever you imagine is missed in this exercise  

[Cpt_Siddy]

I think devs avoid this section, bad for blood pressure. 

[-SF-Disarray]

With such insightful commentary, I'm sure you'll fix that right up Siddy.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

A simple way to illustrate the problem with the .50 right now is that your opponent will go from fully operationnal to dead in a heartbeat every single time. You can spend 800 bullets on a target or 45 to get a kill, but this kill will be a shot pilot or a fire. The structural damage wont pile up so you wont see the performance of your opponent degrade until his demise. With .50, it'll go from 100% to 0% straight away, the real question is how many bullets will you need?

 

I got a 7 kills sortie with the Mustang. But I also get plenty of frustrating 3's. It is simply an aberration that a 109 can operate to nominal performance after eating 375 .50 bullets. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

 

 

Take a note on a ground strafing, how dispersed the fire is. Even if it is out of convergence, the dispersion is still more like shotgun and less like our two intersecting beams we got now. Our problems with our current iteration of 50 cals are not singular issue, but a compound of myriad things, all working in consort to make USAAF pilots game experience somewhat frustrating. Especially if you have much flight time on VVS or Axis planes and you compare your experiences with them. 

The hispanos are only saving grace west front allied have right now. 

 

PS: don't cross the streams :^) 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[SAS_Storebror]

I'm glad that someone enlightened us on the importance of fixing "showstopper" bugs - they're totally overestimated apparently.

All the time when I've been hanging on indestructible tails smashing .50 marshmallows at them, I thought to myself "if only they could focus a tad more on driveable AA".
Thanks for this lesson, for your attention and for the incredible customer care.

Am I gonna throw more money after this right now?
Have a guess!

 

Mike

Edited September 23, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[airacobrafan]

29 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I'm glad that someone enlightened us on the importance of fixing "showstopper" bugs - they're totally overestimated apparently.

All the time when I've been hanging on indestructible tails smashing .50 marshmallows at them, I thought to myself "if only they could focus a tad more on driveable AA".
Thanks for this lesson, for your attention and for the incredible customer care.

Am I gonna throw more money after this right now?
Have a guess!

 

Mike

Slightly, off-topic , but correct.

 

At the moment, flying AN/M2 armed planes just sucks hard while (Axis) HE rounds devastate anything in no time.

Couple that with the one-sided Bodenplatte plane selection, it is a real pain in the ass...

Edited September 23, 2020 by airacobrafan

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 minutes ago, airacobrafan said:

Slightly, off-topic , but correct.

 

At the moment, flying AN/M2 armed planes just sucks hard while (Axis) HE rounds devastate anything in no time.

Couple that with the one-sided Bodenplatte plane selection, it is a real pain in the ass...

Are you aiming properly and are you flying the correct aircraft?

[BraveSirRobin]

25 minutes ago, airacobrafan said:

 

Couple that with the one-sided Bodenplatte plane selection, it is a real pain in the ass...

You know that you’re allowed to fly both sides, right?

Edited September 23, 2020 by BraveSirRobin

[[DBS]TH0R]

2 hours ago, airacobrafan said:

Slightly, off-topic , but correct.

 

At the moment, flying AN/M2 armed planes just sucks hard while (Axis) HE rounds devastate anything in no time.

Couple that with the one-sided Bodenplatte plane selection, it is a real pain in the ass...

 

For me, it isn't that the .50 cals are under powered. Rather the other guns being over powered, so that .50s feel under powered in comparison. Especially with the lack of API rounds.

 

Gunpods on LW planes are led weight and down right useless. I can put a B-25 out of action by a single well aimed shot in the center mass - with a default Fw-190 D9 loadout. And it isn't even funny how the plane just disintegrates as if made out of paper.

 

(all tests done offline in qmb)

Edited September 23, 2020 by [DBS]TH0R

[ACG_Smokejumper]

I think it's the DM much more than the .50's.

 

No cut cables, no detonating ammo or oxygen tanks. No fuel system fires, no oil fires. No guns getting knocked out, no ammo belts damaged.

 

In Cliffs of Dover there are a lot more ways to suffer fatal damage other than oil on windscreen, dead pilot of full fuel tank fire. I'm not sure about thje convergence settings for those not cutting off wings. I've cut a lot of wings off 109s with the current .50s.

 

My convergence is 160 to 180M depending on if im strafing too.

On 9/18/2020 at 8:29 PM, -SF-Disarray said:

 The issue is two fold: First, taking shots from .50 AP rounds often times imparts almost no noticeable effect on the plane that is shot.

 

 

This issue is simple. Lack of depth in the DM. I love how you mentions the dropped landing gear. I've never seen that happen in BoX. I remember dangling gear in Cliffs all the time. Forgot about that.

 

When we get more depth there will be more chances to slow down 109s and 190s with .50s and ensure the kill.

On 9/17/2020 at 7:50 AM, [FAC]Ghost129er said:

Same goes for the 109 tail too I guess. :^)

 

 

It did get fixed. The entire empinage no longer falls off. I remember a lot of hilarious P40 kills on a 109 where the .50 stream took both horizontal stabs off. That was hilariously broken.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You know that you’re allowed to fly both sides, right?

 

Oh yeah, flying german in the Bodenplatte career instead, you wont be stuck with the powerless .50. Instead you will always encouter the same enemy planes (tempests and p-47s) because the P-38 and P-51 dont spawn because of the 'way it is configured right now' and you can fully appreciate the AI flying the Me262 in such a grand way that it makes the .50 look like a w.m.d. right now. Fascinating option!

 

Yep, I'd rather fly the P-51 peashooter right now than suffering a german Bodenplatte career.