Jump to content

P47 in current state


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I'm really trying to like this plane since it was released (both versions).  Improvements have been made in handling and power (with 150 grade fuel) but it still feels just so vulnerable to damage compared to other fighters.  It doesn't fall apart like it used to, but relatively trivial damage (mg hits) to wings and it often loses controlability.  Again, I stress that this is in comparison to other aircraft.  I fly ground attack a lot so I am well used to getting hit!  I thought of bringing this up as I have seen others remarking on it in multiplayer chat.  

 

It would be nice if the P47 had the advantages in durability that seems to have historically had.  I note the discussion about 50 cals elsewhere but would add that they certainly don't feel like they are putting much firepower out.  I'll be the first to acknowledge that my gunnery needs improvement but when I do get it right and hose down an enemy they only seem to go down if I hit something critical and the cumulative damage seems trivial (this may relate to the lack of API I have seen mentioned elsewhere).   

 

Devs, you've done great work to respond to community concerns and difficulties about spotting and I know Normandy is the next big thing but please take another look at the P47 (Razorback is in there afterall) durability and controls after getting hit.

 

Thanks.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO now I think it can take the proper amount of hits. Having flown it before and now I think we're seeing a pretty good representation of how much damage it should take on average. There's always edge cases sure but I want to note that often the ground fire that is shooting us down are 37mm cannons that pack a punch or we're being hit by MK108's or a battery of four 20mm cannon that are typical in the late war period.

 

I think it'll be interesting to fly say an early 1944 scenario as the P-47 will appear much tougher there simply because the weaponry being employed is somewhat less impressive at that point - though still dangerous of course.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Real life in late 1944/45: A plane that is best at high altitude in air to air is now being flown on low altitude ground attack missions.  That's OK because it is good at it and it is largely unopposed in the air.  if it did see an enemy plane odds are good that the enemy pilot could barely fly it.  Biggest threat was AA.  Tactical air forces flying the P47 suffered serious losses right to wars end.

 

Life in game: A plane that is best at high altitude in air to air is now being flown on low and medium altitude ground attack missions and fighter missions.  In MP it is opposed by experienced human pilots flying fighters much better suited for that environment.  In SP it is opposed by AI (lesser quality) but still flying fighters much better suited for that environment.  AA is still as deadly as ever.  If the AA AI is high level it is probably even more deadly than is historically accurate.

 

Short version: the game is not like real life.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly the P-47 a lot. Probably too much. About 95% of my online sorties, and 95% of those are ground attack.

The P-47, after the latest DM patch and flight model tweaks, is IMO very well modeled. You know that picture of the guy standing in front of his P-47 with the whole front of the aircraft covered in oil? I have landed the P-47 in such a shape on several occasions, in some cases flying for 20 minutes with an oil covered windshield and my wings full of holes. I've dragged the P-47 home after taking several hits with heavy cannon. Unless ground fire kills my engine or sets me on fire I can usually limp it home. The real danger is german fighters, since they almost always have the 30mm cannons and their 12.7mm MGs have HE rounds, which tear up your skin and make the plane uncontrollable. At the end of the day the P-47's skin is still duralumin, it's not a tank. It's also a much bigger target so you are easier to hit.
 

Currently the M2 .50 cals seem underpowered in terms of skin/structure damage, so hits to aircraft structure are not very effective. On the other hand, I have never gotten so many pilot kills as I have with the .50s. Deflection shots to the engine and cockpit area are your friend. Engine fires are not uncommon either. 

 

This is anecdotal, but if someone gets their guns on me, in most other planes I die quicker than in the P-47, but death, ditching or bailout almost always comes. Especially online, once someone gets lined up on you and starts getting hits, your chances of survival are very low. There are some excellent shots out there, even with the big melon lobber cannons.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the 37mm and high calibre weapons would still be catastrophic if you got a close or direct hit and it was still a very risky business doing ground attack duties - the attrition for pilots flying P-47's, Tempests and other ground attackers was still absolutely horrendous, even in 1945.

 

The P-47 is up against experienced, heavily armed opposition online... the upcoming fuel systems and API changes will likely affect the damage caused by low calibre hits however, with systems and control surfaces functioning more often from those particular weapons... but the risk of fire being (obviously) much higher. This is the case with a number of aircraft where people get unusual results and frustrated as it seems out of proportion to the hit(s) sustained.

 

In this context, I can see how this limits the respect for the P-47; as one of its greatest assets is its ability to take many hits from (relatively) low calibre weapons and being shot or forced down by them doesn't fit the character of the aircraft much.

 

The typical machine gun of late war German fighters (MG131) - used to spray targets - would typically use API not the current HE type I believe, so I don't see in future the MG131 having the current debilitating / blast effect on control surfaces and systems that people seem to receive so often. But we'll have to see what comes through.

 

In other words... it looks to me like the P-47 will benefit from the upcoming changes as it has a large structure to absorb hits - and without the HE effect in the MG131 it would therefore be less prone to blast/area damage from these low calibers which is what I'm perceiving this as coming from.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

IMHO now I think it can take the proper amount of hits. Having flown it before and now I think we're seeing a pretty good representation of how much damage it should take on average. There's always edge cases sure but I want to note that often the ground fire that is shooting us down are 37mm cannons that pack a punch or we're being hit by MK108's or a battery of four 20mm cannon that are typical in the late war period.

 

I think it'll be interesting to fly say an early 1944 scenario as the P-47 will appear much tougher there simply because the weaponry being employed is somewhat less impressive at that point - though still dangerous of course.

How would early 1944 be any different?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

How would early 1944 be any different?

 

 

It was still flying high altitude escort missions.  It was starting to be replaced by the P51 for that role but the process was only beginning.

 

Also, it would be facing the 109 G6 and FW190 A6 and A8, not the 109K and 190D.

Edited by PatrickAWlson
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It was still flying high altitude escort missions.  It was starting to be replaced by the P51 for that role but the process was only beginning.

 

Also, it would be facing the 109 G6 and FW190 A6 and A8, not the 109K and 190D.

I agree with you but my question was to this post :

'I think it'll be interesting to fly say an early 1944 scenario as the P-47 will appear much tougher there simply because the weaponry being employed is somewhat less impressive at that point - though still dangerous of course. '

 

Bf109G6 Late has the same weaponry compared to the G14, Fw190A6 same 4x20 as A8 minus 13mm machineguns, me410 has 2x20 + 2x7.7 as default but we likely receive the 4x20mm as mod, ju88c6 is the only one that could be considered worse with it's 3x20 mgFF but considering it's performance, it's not going to be an thread to an P47 no matter which guns it carried + very rare in Normandy.

For late war the me262 is the only exception but that was an rare aircraft compared to bf109 and fw190 in late war.

 

Flak groundunits where standard already using flakvierling (4x20mm) and 37mm guns by early 1944, the germans did have 37mm flak 43 in late war (higher rate of fire, also some where double barrel) but we don't have the flak 43 in the game.

 

So in all of this I don't see how early 1944 german weaponry is less impressive compared to late war ingame, it's basically the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried but for some reason the P-47 I have really had a hard time getting my arms wrapped around it and comfortable with it.

I am ok with some ground pounding but air to air I always feel very much at a disadvantage.

 

I suppose I could put a little more time in with it. Too much fun with the P-51 and Spit Mk IX currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

How would early 1944 be any different?

 

 

Pat Wilson has already covered it but to respond directly ... the weapons are not the same. The Fw190A-5/6 are the best armed and are formidable with four 20mm cannons but that's still not two 20mm and two 30mm as the A-8 can be setup with. Or the MK108 30mm on the G-14 and K-4. Those are at hitting power levels beyond your conventional 1943 G-6.

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

The Fw190A-5/6 are the best armed and are formidable with four 20mm cannons but that's still not two 20mm and two 30mm as the A-8 can be setup with.

Well ok it can't carry 30mm guns but the A6 (as the G3/R1) can carry WB 152/20 gunpods which increase the total amount to 6x20mm.

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Or the MK108 30mm on the G-14 and K-4. Those are at hitting power levels beyond your conventional 1943 G-6.

I think you are confusing the Bf109G6 with the Bf109G4, the G4 has an 1x20mm in the nose and the option to carry 2x20mm gunpods.

The G6 (Kuban Collector), G6 Late (Which we get with Normandy) and G14 (Bodenplatte) all have the same gun options as the G4 except it has 2x13mm in the nose and the option to switch the nose 20mm to the MK108 30mm.

The K4 loses the option to carry the 20mm in the nose which is the only difference on gun weaponry from the other bf109's starting from the G6.

Edited by ww2fighter20
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Well ok it can't carry 30mm guns but the A6 (as the G3/R1) can carry WB 152/20 gunpods which increase the total amount to 6x20mm.

I think you are confusing the Bf109G6 with the Bf109G4, the G4 has an 1x20mm in the nose and the option to carry 2x20mm gunpods.

The G6 (Kuban Collector), G6 Late (Which we get with Normandy) and G14 (Bodenplatte) all have the same gun options as the G4 except it has 2x13mm in the nose and the option to switch the nose 20mm to the MK108 30mm.

The K4 loses the option to carry the 20mm in the nose which is the only difference on gun weaponry from the other bf109's starting from the G6.

 

How often are Fw190A-5's and A-6's fitted with the MG151/20 gunpods and how often were they used against fighters? Rare. Those were aircraft that were very specialized to fight the bomber stream and the gunpods had an adverse effect on handling. If we want to talk within the sim, I'm pretty sure I've seen those pods fitted in multiplayer matches just once. And that Fw190 was shot down very quickly.

 

Not confusing Bf109 variants either. The standard G-6 is fitted with a MG151/20. The U4 variant was a small subset of production with tests and trials in the summer of 1943 but less than 150 had been produced in this configuration by the end of 1943 and early 1944. The majority were still armed with the MG151/20.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

The typical machine gun of late war German fighters (MG131) - used to spray targets - would typically use API not the current HE type I believe, so I don't see in future the MG131 having the current debilitating / blast effect on control surfaces and systems that people seem to receive so often. But we'll have to see what comes through.

 

In other words... it looks to me like the P-47 will benefit from the upcoming changes as it has a large structure to absorb hits - and without the HE effect in the MG131 it would therefore be less prone to blast/area damage from these low calibers which is what I'm perceiving this as coming from.

 

I don't believe this is correct. The MG131 used AP, HE, and HE-I. The last is an HE round, but also included Incendiary component. 

 

A lot of folks are begging for API for 50BMG because they want better capability to set fires and etc. But I'm certain that many forget the fact that when API is introduced, it wont just be US planes that get it. German early war planes will become even more deadly as well because 8mm MGs will get API ammo as well. The MG131 i believe will be even more deadly because an ordinary solid projectile with an incendiary component is much less likely to cause a fuel leak and ignition when hitting self sealing fuel tanks. However, having the HE filler of the MG131 is much more likely to breach a self sealing tank and cause a major leak. 

 

All that being said, if we see self sealing tanks introduced appropriately, i think folks will hate on 50BMG even more than they already do.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-47 does not like me and tries to kill me out of sheer spite, but I have not noticed it being more vulnerable to hits than other aircraft. ‘I’ + opinion stated = mathematic certainty, BTW.

 

Across general US types I have no complaint re current .5s. They chew at aircraft, leaving them severely damaged, out of control or with a dead pilot. Seems to match most gun-camera films that I have seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 

 

All that being said, if we see self sealing tanks introduced appropriately, i think folks will hate on 50BMG even more than they already do.

 

Yes, as far as i know, self sealing tanks of that era were able to seal leaks caused by even .50 cal ammo. Not sure how well they would work if u pump dozens or hundreds .50s at a single fuel tank tho. But a hit or two should not cause fire or leak, as far as i understand.

 

edit: On the other hand icendiary ammo creates a small explosion too and might actually be able to damage the tank enough to cause leak. 

Edited by Mollotin
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mollotin said:

 

Yes, as far as i know, self sealing tanks of that era were able to seal leaks caused by even .50 cal ammo. Not sure how well they would work if u pump dozens or hundreds .50s at a single fuel tank tho. But a hit or two should not cause fire or leak, as far as i understand.

 

edit: On the other hand icendiary ammo creates a small explosion too and might actually be able to damage the tank enough to cause leak. 

 

I shoot 50BMG API at steel targets. It does not explode. It simply splatters the burning incendiary compound everywhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

I don't believe this is correct. The MG131 used AP, HE, and HE-I. The last is an HE round, but also included Incendiary component. 

 

A lot of folks are begging for API for 50BMG because they want better capability to set fires and etc. But I'm certain that many forget the fact that when API is introduced, it wont just be US planes that get it. German early war planes will become even more deadly as well because 8mm MGs will get API ammo as well. The MG131 i believe will be even more deadly because an ordinary solid projectile with an incendiary component is much less likely to cause a fuel leak and ignition when hitting self sealing fuel tanks. However, having the HE filler of the MG131 is much more likely to breach a self sealing tank and cause a major leak. 

 

All that being said, if we see self sealing tanks introduced appropriately, i think folks will hate on 50BMG even more than they already do.

 

Sorry yeah - good correction there thanks.

 

My understanding is even the HE-I though will be relying on its incendiary component to do the critical damage, with a small explosive element embedded; so I'd expect it to have a lesser explosive / blast effect to what we're seeing at the moment is what I'm trying to get at.

 

I totally agree its going to work both ways. With an aircraft like the P-47 however which has a chunky, spacious fuselage with plenty of ducting and equipment in the fuselage to absorb hits, it may well be better off than other Allied fighters.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

I don't believe this is correct. The MG131 used AP, HE, and HE-I. The last is an HE round, but also included Incendiary component. 

 

A lot of folks are begging for API for 50BMG because they want better capability to set fires and etc. But I'm certain that many forget the fact that when API is introduced, it wont just be US planes that get it. German early war planes will become even more deadly as well because 8mm MGs will get API ammo as well. The MG131 i believe will be even more deadly because an ordinary solid projectile with an incendiary component is much less likely to cause a fuel leak and ignition when hitting self sealing fuel tanks. However, having the HE filler of the MG131 is much more likely to breach a self sealing tank and cause a major leak. 

 

All that being said, if we see self sealing tanks introduced appropriately, i think folks will hate on 50BMG even more than they already do.


Not really, because the explosive rounds in game already have a significant incendiary probability, and getting hit by explosive ammo already is pretty much devastating. All guns will be more effective, but the M2 .50 cal should gain a lot of effectiveness while for the rest of the planes it will be a bonus, they already cause fires and cripple the enemy planes with explosive ammo.

For example: 13mm against a P-38 with half empty tanks
 


Against a P-38 with full tanks
 


And on top of that you have to add the massive skin damage caused by these high explosive rounds with just a few hits, even if it's just the small filler 13mm HE
 


AP only guns have basically no effect in comparison.
 


I fired 230 rounds, most of them hits and a good portion of them in the tail section, no control affected whatsoever, the plane went down because of a pilot kill, other than that it was essentially in perfect fighting conditions (a player could easily force an overshoot, and cripple my plane with just a 13mm spray, let alone 20mm/30mm,) , also lots of fuel leaks pouring everywhere (armor and self sealing cover defeated) yet no fires in this ocassion.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

also lots of fuel leaks pouring everywhere (armor and self sealing cover defeated) yet no fires in this ocassion.

 

It is my understanding that self sealing tanks are not currently modelled.

 

With respect to skin damage, the 13mm might have a small filler, but it is fuse detonated so it activates after hitting and thus has potential to damage skin since the explosion likely happens right after it hits said skin. With a jacketed rifle projectile with a solid core like 50BMG, there is high potential for a straight pass through with minimal energy transfer.

 

21 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

My understanding is even the HE-I though will be relying on its incendiary component to do the critical damage, with a small explosive element embedded; so I'd expect it to have a lesser explosive / blast effect to what we're seeing at the moment is what I'm trying to get at.

 

The MG131 HE-I has the same amount of HE filler as the regular HE. The blast effect will be the same but will have the addition of an Incendiary component. The difference between HE and Incendiary is that HE is an explosive while an Incendiary deflagrates at extreme heat. With an explosive, a percussion wave and shrapnel is the damage mechanism. With an incendiary, heat is the damaging mechanism. 

Edited by II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

With respect to skin damage, the 13mm might have a small filler, but it is fuse detonated so it activates after hitting and thus has potential to damage skin since the explosion likely happens right after it hits said skin. With a jacketed rifle projectile with a solid core like 50BMG, there is high potential for a straight pass through with minimal energy transfer.

 

Yes and no. If we were talking about a single shot hitting perpendicular, on a single sheet of aircraft skin, you'd be right. The .50 would probably punch right through 1-2mm sheet duralumin with minimal effect beside a nice half-inch hole (probably with some slight deformation around it).

 

However, that isn't the kind of situation we're dealing with. We're talking about aircraft wings, which have multiple layers of skin and lots of small structural elements contained within them.

If that .50 hits at an angle (for example, when shooting at an enemy from behind, or in anything that isn't a 90° deflection shot), it's not going to punch neat half-inch holes, it's going to tear gashes on its way in, and the skin will also likely impart tumble to the bullet. If the bullet strikes anything structural (spars, ribs, etc), a lot of energy will be transferred to that structure, and the bullet will likely deform and/or tumble further. This matters because it's not going to punch neat holes in anything it hits after that, and will instead tear its way through, transferring lots of energy in the process.

 

In-game, it's like you punch half-inch holes directly through the path of a bullet. In reality, that bullet will tumble, deform, ricochet, and tear away at the insides of an aircraft. The tail of a 109 is a busy place, and I think it's pretty clearly a silly argument to say that ~200 rounds impacting the tail should have no noticeable effect (let's also note that the kill was a pilot snipe, not even aerodynamic!)

 

EDIT: Here you can see all the smaller structures in a 109's wings and tail. A .50 BMG is going to strike ribs/structural elements on almost any hit, which will severely weaken whatever it's supporting. The MG 131s take 12 rounds to do what the .50s can't do in 200.

Edited by DJBscout
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJBscout said:

 

However, that isn't the kind of situation we're dealing with. We're talking about aircraft wings, which have multiple layers of skin and lots of small structural elements contained within them.

If that .50 hits at an angle (for example, when shooting at an enemy from behind, or in anything that isn't a 90° deflection shot), it's not going to punch neat half-inch holes, it's going to tear gashes on its way in, and the skin will also likely impart tumble to the bullet. If the bullet strikes anything structural (spars, ribs, etc), a lot of energy will be transferred to that structure, and the bullet will likely deform and/or tumble further. This matters because it's not going to punch neat holes in anything it hits after that, and will instead tear its way through, transferring lots of energy in the process.

 

 

I'm very well aware of how a projectile can react when intersecting with different materials and structures. What I was saying is that there is high potential that it could just punch a clean hole through and not damage much, not that it happens all the time. I am certain that projectile yaw and deformation is far beyond what this engine will allow the developers to model. Nevertheless, even if a 50BMG projectile did yaw and hit a spar or etc completely sideways, it is still not that big of a projectile compared to the size of the plane. 

 

If it is taking 200+ rounds to destroy a fighter, i would honestly perform an examination to see if you suffer from packet loss. I think the most I've ever needed to wipe out a 190 or 109 was about 100. Most of the time it's less; usually between 50-100. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 12:29 AM, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 even if a 50BMG projectile did yaw and hit a spar or etc completely sideways, it is still not that big of a projectile compared to the size of the plane. 

 

 

 

In 109, that would compromise the main spar to the point of it losing most of its load bearing properties, leaving the skin to handle the stress. 

 

This means that any sort of proper loading on the wing will cause it to detach. 

 

190 had a beefier spar, but also considerably heavier, 109 on the other hand was much much more fragile plane with many parts made from pressed magnesium (that can catch fire). 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the History Channel "Dogfights: Y-29" episode anywhere but, there is a pilot interview from a P-47 driver who was actually there.  In the interview he claims to have shot a volley of .50 cal. at a 190 causing the wings to (paraphrased)  "fold like a taco shell and touch wing tips at the top of the plane above the cockpit, trapping the pilot inside.  Unlike what you might expect, the wings didn't break off."  

I don't care how heavy the wing spar is.  If you put any beam - made of any material - under load and drill multiple holes near the center of gravity / center of load, it's going to break.  Unless AP or API .50 cal. is proven to not be able to punch through the wing spar or degrade the material by "chipping away" at it, the 190's "super tough" wing spar is a myth. 

 

In fact, while a decently-close grouping of .50 bullets would be ideal, a grouping that is too close together would probably be less efficient in degrading the material's integrity than close-but-evenly spaced bullet damage.

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

 

In 109, that would compromise the main spar to the point of it losing most of its load bearing properties, leaving the skin to handle the stress. 

 

This means that any sort of proper loading on the wing will cause it to detach. 

 

190 had a beefier spar, but also considerably heavier, 109 on the other hand was much much more fragile plane with many parts made from pressed magnesium (that can catch fire). 

 

The spars are modelled - depending on the angle of the hit and size of the main spars, there is a probability to hit the spar for each hit on a wing hit box. Hits to the spar degrade it's load bearing ability until it eventually breaks leading to the wing section coming off. This mechanism appears to be independent of the skin damage mechanism: it is easier to see it in action with the much more fragile FC planes, where it is possible for spar sections to fail after just a very few MG bullet hits, with only minimum visible external skin damage, even at very low gs.

 

Ironically the complaining in the FC forum about the DM is all that the wings are far too likely to fold after MG hits to the spars - no HE rounds involved at all. We are told that the DM's basic mechanisms are the same for FC and GB:  so the .50 cals are in effect hitting and degrading the internal structures in the game - presumably more than the HE rounds, which do much more skin damage. 

 

Whether the quantities the game is using for these calculations are appropriate is another matter. 

 

 

 

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I can't find the History Channel "Dogfights: Y-29" episode anywhere but, there is a pilot interview from a P-47 driver who was actually there.  In the interview he claims to have shot a volley of .50 cal. at a 190 causing the wings to (paraphrased)  "fold like a taco shell and touch wing tips at the top of the plane above the cockpit, trapping the pilot inside.  Unlike what you might expect, the wings didn't break off."  

I don't care how heavy the wing spar is.  If you put any beam - made of any material - under load and drill multiple holes near the center of gravity / center of load, it's going to break.  Unless AP or API .50 cal. is proven to not be able to punch through the wing spar or degrade the material by "chipping away" at it, the 190's "super tough" wing spar is a myth. 

 

In fact, while a decently-close grouping of .50 bullets would be ideal, a grouping that is too close together would probably be less efficient in degrading the material's integrity than close-but-evenly spaced bullet damage.

It was a p51 .

352-moats-1jan45.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 2:29 PM, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

If it is taking 200+ rounds to destroy a fighter, i would honestly perform an examination to see if you suffer from packet loss. I think the most I've ever needed to wipe out a 190 or 109 was about 100. Most of the time it's less; usually between 50-100. 

 

From a stern attack, it requires an average of over 100 hits to down a 109G14 or K4 in the current damage model using the AN/M2 .50.  And in some cases over 300 hits.  And that's in single player shooting at a static airplane where you are getting perfect strikes.  Against a live target where a best case scenario is ~20% accuracy, that works out to 6+ seconds of trigger time.  A simple bounce attack where you can squeeze in a 2-3 second burst at most before the target reacts is almost guaranteed to not produce a kill.  People keep trying to blame this stuff on packet loss, but as you see in the video, this has been demonstrated in single player (months ago, and submitted as a bug report).  It's just the reality of the current DM - if they start maneuvering you can start getting pilot and engine hits, but otherwise good luck.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2020 at 1:18 AM, KW_1979 said:

 

From a stern attack, it requires an average of over 100 hits to down a 109G14 or K4 in the current damage model using the AN/M2 .50.  And in some cases over 300 hits.  And that's in single player shooting at a static airplane where you are getting perfect strikes.  Against a live target where a best case scenario is ~20% accuracy, that works out to 6+ seconds of trigger time.  A simple bounce attack where you can squeeze in a 2-3 second burst at most before the target reacts is almost guaranteed to not produce a kill.  People keep trying to blame this stuff on packet loss, but as you see in the video, this has been demonstrated in single player (months ago, and submitted as a bug report).  It's just the reality of the current DM - if they start maneuvering you can start getting pilot and engine hits, but otherwise good luck.

 

 

 

 

Is this not due to the overmodelled tail of the 109s that the Devs have explained many times? If I recall correctly, they are working on fixing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Is this not due to the overmodelled tail of the 109s that the Devs have explained many times? If I recall correctly, they are working on fixing this.

 

I do not think so. The tail part that is invulnerable - and possibly stops hits passing through altogether - is I think just the upper part of the vertical stab: even in KW_1979's test only a small proportion of hits would have hit it: unless the hit box is much bigger than the visible 3D model. 

 

If you do a static test like this from a little shorter range you can aim at the area roughly where the fuselage radio antenna is attached in the mid fuselage (K-4) and avoid the V stab while being on a direct line with the pilots body.

 

When I do that I get an average hits to "destroy" of about 70, (only four test runs) firing 3-5 round bursts and waiting a few seconds between bursts. That is with an AI plane with "delete when destroyed" ticked as the criterion, which does not always take a fire or PK.  That does seem rather a lot of rounds: but then I do not know what the armour protection of the fuel tank and pilot's seat should be.

 

What is also clear is that if you go to external free camera after each burst and look at the 109 close up, it will be leaking fuel onto the ground, usually after 5-15 hits, which is invisible from the firing position.   It will also show light damage decals to fuselage and engine cover from the first couple of bursts.

 

So the game is "saying":

 

1) The armour plate, seat and fuel tank protecting the pilot from this angle is (almost completely?) proof against PKs from .50 cal hits 

2) The fuel tank is self sealing but will start to leak with a probability p per hit that has passed through the rear armour, (perhaps with compound effect), which someone could work out with a large enough sample.

3) Leaking fuel tanks/fuel systems will ignite from standard .50 cal hits, but with a fairly low probability. My tests were with 50% fuel and a winter map: both of these factors should make a difference but I have no idea if they do.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 4:29 PM, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I'm very well aware of how a projectile can react when intersecting with different materials and structures. What I was saying is that there is high potential that it could just punch a clean hole through and not damage much, not that it happens all the time. I am certain that projectile yaw and deformation is far beyond what this engine will allow the developers to model. Nevertheless, even if a 50BMG projectile did yaw and hit a spar or etc completely sideways, it is still not that big of a projectile compared to the size of the plane. 

Did you even look at the image I linked? The crucial structures you're talking about are everywhere. If a .50 hits a wing at any sort of angle, it'll be quite likely to hit and/or tear through multiple ribs/spars/support structures. There's not a whole lot of empty space, certainly not from low deflection. Any sort of hole in a load-bearing structure is a big problem, and one that will compound exponentially with multiple hits.

 

The 109 was built for lightness, not durability. All 109s had one main wing spar, which was vulnerable to damage. Early F-series 109s had issues with the wings completely buckling and/or failing under load, even with no damage whatsoever. With some spar reinforcement and thicker wing skin, this issue was fixed, but the fact remains that the margin on the 109 spars was quite clearly a thin one. Putting even just a few holes in that spar is going to bring your ability to pull high speeds or Gs severely into doubt. Moreso with the current .50 grouping, which will place 3-4 holes right next to each other, severely weakening that portion of the spar. 

 

Regardless of whether it takes you 50 rounds every time (which I personally doubt), there's clear in-game footage of it taking far, far more. The test footage above, in ideal test conditions, shows a 109 soaking over 200 rounds without any serious structure failure. Over 200 rounds in the tail section with no adverse effects on structural integrity? Give me a fucking break. Sure, you engineer with a margin, but not a margin of 200 .50 cals shredding tail support structures.

 

Meanwhile, it only takes twelve MG 131 rounds to kill the same 109? Either your MG 131s/HE rounds are severely overperforming, or the .50s are underperforming. Remember, each single browning round is packing 18kJ of KE at the muzzle, which is plenty to deform lots of steel. A single MG 131HE contains 9.2kJ in its explosive (1.6g PETN*1.66RE*4kJ/g TNT), and 10kJ at the muzzle. That's only ~7% more energy, assuming both expend it all. (The 131 is likely to do more skin damage, and almost guaranteed to transfer 9.2kJ to the immediate surface it strikes. However, it will be much less likely to punch deep and damage critical structures, where the brownings ought to exceed at this)

 

A gap of 188 rounds required to kill on two weapons of such similarity is just obscene. Sure, the 131s HEI packed 1.4g of PETN. But those 12 rounds still carry less HE content than a single MG 151/20 Mineshell. You want to tell me that's fine, but 50, 100, or even >200 rounds for the M2 is somehow also reasonable? Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I do not think so. The tail part that is invulnerable - and possibly stops hits passing through altogether - is I think just the upper part of the vertical stab: even in KW_1979's test only a small proportion of hits would have hit it: unless the hit box is much bigger than the visible 3D model.

 

Yeah, I set this test up with some angle off, as a pure tail shot is probably really unlikely and with some angle off the rounds should go around the vert stab and avoid that question.  However another test I ran raised a whole new set of questions regarding the vert stab.

 

I shot into the vert stab from 9 o'clock and was able to empty the entire ammo load of the A20 gunner into it, demonstrating that it was indeed invulnerable.  What was strange was that other things started happening - right around the 380 round mark (the entire ammo load) the 109s engine was stopping, or the rear fuselage was breaking in half behind the cockpit.  The only explanation I can come up with is that there must be some sort of connection with the invulnerable vert stab, or central hit point pool or something.  From the angle I was shooting there was no way either of those outcomes should have been possible.  I switched to using a 20mm MGFF/M for this shot and shooting the vert stab was producing pilot kills, engine and fuel tank fires, and outright explosions.  So it's possible that the vert stab may still be tied into the durability issue - it's certainly producing a lot of weird behavior.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot replicate that odd result at all - 20 boxes and no damage except to the V stab. Were you getting ricochets off something?  For a 20mm it makes sense if the game is calculating the distance for splinter damage as a sphere or band to the sides of whatever hit box is the initial target. 

 

The V stab is only invulnerable in the sense that it will not come off. It shows surface damage - whether or not that has a drag effect I do not know, but more to the point, it does not in fact always (or perhaps ever) stop bullets passing through. The easy way to show this is by placing an additional target behind the tail and then firing short bursts at the stab: a target behind it will take damage. See the picture for instance: after a few bursts the 109 behind loses it's rudder, shot through the stab of the one in front. 

 

Shoot at the stab a little lower down and the horizontal stab and elevator on the far side can be damaged.

 

2020_10_5__19_12_49.thumb.jpg.8c4ae097a38e7effebe599622a2a245f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

using a 20mm MGFF/M for this shot and shooting the vert stab was producing pilot kills, engine and fuel tank fires, and outright explosions

 

From 9 oclock?

 

if you shot tail and engine can be damage... its around 8 mts of radius... 16 m2 area of blast?  kill pilot can be around 6 mts of radius...12 m2 area of blast... it seems a bit OP no?  

On my test shoting one minesglosh to tail i damage both wings and engine... but was from pure six  and have some chance of error... but if you are shoting at 90º ( perpendicular ) is most clear .

Edited by HR_Tumu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...