Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

A studying of WWII aircraft metal composition found that BF109's had between .5mm and 3mm skin thickness and FW190's had 1.4mm skin thinkness (Source)

If you look at a US Army Study on aircraft survivability from 1971 (Here), you will see on Page 79 that a .50 hitting aircraft aluminum will make a clean hole the size of the round though the aluminum without petaling or crack propagation.The .50 has so much energy it is just blasting though the aluminum not causing any damage.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

15 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

If you truly believe that 93 rounds hitting from an almost dead six position (meaning that those rounds moving laterally through the wing, the fuselage, etc) should not cause more significant damage than what you see here, then I don't think anything will convince you that there is a problem.

 

Edited by QB.Creep
removed snarky response
  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Creep, I do fly allied. Just not all the often in MP or in CombatBox where I see you the most, since the majority of my wingmates fly Axis.

It's hard to tell from your video, and really only possible with a developers tool, to tell exactly where your rounds were hitting. I know from experience that .50's can result in a lot of pilot kills, and some serious engine damage, and drag issues.

I'll ask you this, what would be your proposed solution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout that 190 should spin out control when missing a vertical stabilizer for starters! Or fixing the 109’s broken tail section that they locked. There’s a lot more wrong to name off as well

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't issues with the .50, but issues with the damage model, that yes, would be nice fixes.

In the discord chat, I said it's a damage model issue, not a .50 issue.

Edited by Jayhawk
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

I'll ask you this, what would be your proposed solution?

First off, I apologize for the extremely snarky reply at first. Please understand it is incredibly frustrating when folks say there is nothing with .50s.

 

I think that the % chance for component damage from .50s should be increased and that many hits should cause an appreciable drag penalty. Currently they do very little. Contrast that with even a single MG131 round hitting the tip of your wing - that causes a ton of drag and basically takes you out of the fight. 

 

 

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

That and model API or up the 50’s chance of fire to match actual data in the interim till fuel systems are modeled. As it currently stands it’s rare to get a fuel tank fire when shooting 50’s. More than likely it’s an engine fire if you’re lucky. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 3:38 PM, Jayhawk said:

It's hard to tell from your video, and really only possible with a developers tool, to tell exactly where your rounds were hitting. I know from experience that .50's can result in a lot of pilot kills, and some serious engine damage, and drag issues.

The .50 are only good for pk’s and engine fires. They used to be able to shoot out engines before damage model was updated, but its less effective now. I don’t know if that’s a function of AP being weaker, or engines being tougher.
 

The primary issues are the inability to consistently set engine or fuel fires, a capability that API was known for, and the total lack of effective aero damage. A target will sooner experience critical structural failure, like losing a wing or vertical stab, than reach “level 2” aero damage. When firing at a target from dead 6, they should do more than punch near entry and exit holes, especially when they’re traveling parallel to the wings surface.
 

The PK is nice, but struggles dearly against 109’s from the low 6. This is both due to the relative inability for the 50’s to cause fuel fires, and the way that the 109’s rear armor and/or tail is modeled in the DM.

 

 

Do note there’s also some issues that are likely netcode related. As longer bursts of fire will result in impact decals not occurring, making the shooter think that they’re missing their target. Tracers will go so far as to phase through the target in longer bursts as well. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that I would like to see more effects modeled into the damage model. It would be awesome to get hit and have a control cable severed, electronics go out, fuel tank fires, engine vibrations that knock your teeth out, or a slew of other things. But I also understand that this may require a complete rework of the engine and damage models, which would be very extensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jayhawk I absolutely agree. But I think not modeling these kinds of features does a major disservice to aircraft that rely on AP ammunition. A work around would be the inclusion of a trigger box. For example. A 190 doesn't have all its fuel lines modeled in the DM right now, but a hitbox could be placed in the general area of the lines, and the hitbox were to be trigger, it could have an XX% chance of the lines caching fire. 

The same goes for API ammunition. It's possible the devs don't have the tools to properly model it, but not even trying to reach an interim solution simply exacerbates the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an 18D in the U.S. Army, so when I say I have very intimate experience with the .50 cal (affectionately known as the Ma Deuce) it's coming from 18 years of experience in SOF.  I have seen one, JUST ONE, M2 .50 cal turn vehicles into mush and collapse concrete structures several times over my career.  I can just imagine what six or eight could do.  The developers say "But we did the math on our computers with our super accurate calculations to simulate the most accurate DM!".  My question to you is, did you actually shoot a .50 cal at the range to see firsthand the devastation?  Try six or eight aimed at a concrete structure or vehicle at 300 meters and tell me what happens in less than 6 secs. 

 

v/r

 

-26

  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jayhawk I understand your thought process source in terms of the round making a nice hole. "For a straight-in penetration (normal to the surface) of ductile metal, such as aluminum alloy, the entry hole would be approximately the same size as the projectile."

 

But that is in a controlled environment against a flat surface. Very few hits into the back of a plane doing 300mph and moving through the frame would do this. In real terms the rounds would be hitting components, leaving large cuts if they hit at a very oblique angle. Causing structural failures at high-G after hits to support elements, certainly disabling things like slats and damaging flaps and ailerons significantly. 

 

Granted it's not a cannon and should be nowhere near as effective as them when considered as a single entity. But the problem we are seeing is that there is no exponential impact from a large number of rounds. They seem to be effectively neutered from causing lift or aerodynamic damage, regardless of how many rounds that hit. 

 

I'd happily have the PK chance reduced massively in favour of actual aircraft damage. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

26, it comes the .50 passing through aircraft aluminum before energy can be transferred. I too have seen the devastation that .50's will do on solid thick targets. But when you compare a .50 passing though paper or the green man at the range to a 5.56, the only different will be a bigger hole from the .50.

It's what is reflected in the survivability study that I posted. You can't compare a .50 hitting a 3-6 inch thick mud brick house to a 1mm thick piece of aluminum. And I know from personal real life experience of my combat experiences small arms fire going directly though aircraft.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

26, it comes the .50 passing through aircraft aluminum before energy can be transferred. I too have seen the devastation that .50's will do on solid thick targets. But when you compare a .50 passing though paper or the green man at the range to a 5.56, the only different will be a bigger hole from the .50.

It's what is reflected in the survivability study that I posted. You can't compare a .50 hitting a 3-6 inch thick mud brick house to a 1mm thick piece of aluminum. And I know from personal real life experience of my combat experiences small arms fire going directly though aircraft.

Understood, but are planes more resilient than ground vehicles (i.e. lightly armored combat vehicles)?  Because I have seen up-armored vehicles get disintegrated by our .50 cals and ours vics by the Russian equivalent "Dishka".  I love flying German planes, but seems like they receive no penalty from .50s in the likes of drag...in fact, sometimes I don't even know I am hit, and sometimes even if I know, I still keep fighting because I'm flying just fine.  I could never do that in an Allied plane....

 

v/r

 

-26

Edited by VBF-12_Mister26
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

There’s also that minor issue that the .50s are coded with the incorrect type of ammo.

I think they fire all at once also instead of in a sequence like they should, what we like to call in the Army "Talking the guns"....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jayhawk said:

26, it comes the .50 passing through aircraft aluminum before energy can be transferred. I too have seen the devastation that .50's will do on solid thick targets. But when you compare a .50 passing though paper or the green man at the range to a 5.56, the only different will be a bigger hole from the .50.

It's what is reflected in the survivability study that I posted. You can't compare a .50 hitting a 3-6 inch thick mud brick house to a 1mm thick piece of aluminum. And I know from personal real life experience of my combat experiences small arms fire going directly though aircraft.

Aircraft structure isn't just 1mm thick aluminum empty shell....you may research it a bit more (aircraft structure and systems) than think about angles projectile is penetrating!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All AP rounds (including .30)  would be more effective if the aero damage was fixed and the DM model actually included all the things you can break inside a real plane modeled.   We're missing probably 75% of the things that an AP round could break in most planes, important things.   If you don't believe me just look at a cut away view of any WW II fighter and compare the things you've actually seen damage for in IL2 against all the things that could be damaged in a real plane.  If you add API to the mix the damage would be even more serious.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 7:44 PM, VBF-12_Mister26 said:

I think they fire all at once also instead of in a sequence like they should, what we like to call in the Army "Talking the guns"....

They do fire in perfect sync. It is correct to have the initial salvo fire at the same time since the American birds used electric triggers, but the sim does not have variable fire rate modeled, so you'll fire 'pulses' throughout a burst instead of a stream of fire like it should be. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh goody, another .50 cal/109/190/LW bias thread.

 

The arguments have all been rehearsed already so let's see how long this one goes on for.

 

von Tom

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

 

Oh goody, another .50 cal/109/190/LW bias thread.

 

The arguments have all been rehearsed already so let's see how long this one goes on for.

 

von Tom

There's no need to argue, the issue is plain to see. I'm not going to stop beating on this drum until something is done to remedy the issue.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

How hard it is to ONLY kill pilot with AP. This was a bug(fixed) but the difference between when this bug happened and and how it is now on the game was quite alarming. AP Bullets in this bug still go through and cause thier nano scale aerodamage. Sometimes in the testing when enough AP bullets hit a part they just fully went through like it was invisible 0_0

No mechanical or structural failures only pilot kill for AP

I will just leave this here...😁

(Edit: btw the p38 in the end terminated itself in fustration)))

 

Edited by KRASNAYAPANDA
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KRASNAYAPANDA said:

How hard it is to ONLY kill pilot with AP. This was a bug(fixed) but the difference between when this bug happened and and how it is now on the game was quite alarming. AP Bullets in this bug still go through and cause thier nano scale aerodamage. Sometimes in the testing when enough AP bullets hit a part they just fully went through like it was invisible 0_0

No mechanical or structural failures only pilot kill for AP

I will just leave this here...😁

(Edit: btw the p38 in the end terminated itself in fustration)))

 

clearly this is just a netcode issue

 

in case it was not clear, that was a joke ;)

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda ridiculous that it's been messed up this long.

 

I swear the single player don't make any noise because you just have to breath on NPCs with .50s and they just crash.

 

Unless I was miraculously getting PKs left right and center.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with 50 cal but

 

On 1/8/2021 at 9:48 PM, QB.Rails said:

How bout that 190 should spin out control when missing a vertical stabilizer for starters!

 

At that speed, I'm not sure it should automaticaly go into a spin (in other words, completely loose it's yaw stability). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 7:18 AM, mincer said:

Was there an official response from the devs about the issue?

I haven't seen a comprehensive response about this in months.   The closest we've gotten is basically either deleted posts, locked threads, or something similar to, "We're not working on it, so shut up."  I fully expect this post to be deleted shortly.  The sad thing is that this whole topic could be laid to rest for while with a thoughtful response and some idea about when or if they plan to make changes.  Keep in mind that the problem isn't just .50 AP it's all AP.   My opinion is that this could easily be addressed in the short term by adding/increasing  aero damage for AP and increasing the chance for fire or explosions from AP hits while waiting for the DM to actually be capable of modeling the damage properly.  There is no reason that a statistical approach can't be taken vs. a round by round analysis in the code.   When we numerous accounts and video of planes taking 50+ hits of .50 with no immediate ill effects something is clearly wrong. 

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 1:18 PM, Jayhawk said:

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

 

So I've posted this before in some discord discussions a few times, but I will post it again here. I disagree with your statement. There is something wrong with the .50 caliber M2 machine guns in il2, but it isn't the AP ammo model that's the obvious problem. Not to say its perfect, but what do I know about it? (The DM). Very little. My impression of the dev team is they are very meticulous and detailed in their efforts to bring us ww2 air combat in the comfort of our homes. The pilot physiology model for example, is fantastic and reading their blog posts it is plain to see the level of thought behind it. So Im going to make the assumption that their AP ammo damage model was approached with the same meticulous effort.

 

That being said, the undeniable problem with the .50 M2 machine gun: It is not a historically accurate model of the weapon system.

 

.50 M2 machine guns in US aircraft were NOT loaded with plain armor piercing ammunition.

 

They were loaded with incendiary ammunition. Either in the form of API (Armor piercing, Incendiary) or API-T (Armor Piercing, Incendiary Tracer).

 

This is just a gut feeling, but I think that our results with pure AP ammo are closer to the mark than not. Why? Because NOBODY used pure AP ammunition in ANY fighter aircraft that Im aware of. I think there is a reason for that, and that reason is it sucked at shooting down airplanes compared to the alternatives.

 

So what is it that we should really do here? Should we argue about the details of AP ammo and make bold statements about the quality of 1C game studios hard work? While some here accuse "allied pilots" (For the record you will find that I fly all the aircraft in the game some time or other) of being bad at gunnery or telling them they need to get better? Making bold claims that "Allied pilots expect .50s to be like cannons, cannons are better!" (Of course they are, thats why cannon armed planes had 2-4 cannons and USAF fighter had 6-8 .50 cal MGs)

 

Personally, I would skip all of that. It only creates toxicity.

 

What I am asking for is only the same historical accuracy that we find in other areas of the game. USAF aircraft should have Armor Piercing, Incendiary ammunition, and API-T. This is what they had in real life. This is what they should have in il2 great battles. It will perhaps make it easier for some and more difficult for others. Those who choose to fly only aircraft from one side, but it will be a better overall experience.

 

Cheers.

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

Nothing to do with 50 cal but

 

 

At that speed, I'm not sure it should automaticaly go into a spin (in other words, completely loose it's yaw stability). 

You're telling me at 530 kph he's going so fast that the prop is having no yaw effect on his plane? I don't buy it.

Edited by QB.Rails
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its beyond ridiculous now, 13mm against .50cal, 109s tail and the list goes on and on.

We pay good money and being denied practical use of american aircraft from the package!!!!!

Dear wonderful devs, please sell german aircraft as separate product or fix this mess.

Kind regards

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2021 at 3:59 PM, JG300_Faucon said:

At that speed, I'm not sure it should automaticaly go into a spin (in other words, completely loose it's yaw stability). 

I thought you were a stunt pilot?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/20/2021 at 7:02 AM, QB.Rails said:

You're telling me at 530 kph he's going so fast that the prop is having no yaw effect on his plane? I don't buy it.

 

The prop blast effect will depend on power and speed. Aircrafts are generally stable at cruise speed and cruise power. Same goes for warbirds. 

With speed, the fuselage participate to yaw stability. 

 

 

On 1/21/2021 at 4:43 PM, QB.Creep said:

I thought you were a stunt pilot?

 

Doesn't make me an aerodynamical engineer. 

 

 

The times I lost my vertical stab in the game, here what happened: 

- My plane was less but still stable on yaw axis as soon as I kept my speed up and fly smoothly. 

- When slowing down (to try to land for example), my plane was progressivly loosing its yaw stability and went into a spin even by flying or adjusting power carefully.

 

It's "aerodynamicaly logic". 

Edited by JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The loose of vertical stab & rudder has been corrected in 190- A8 & D9, so as soon as they loose that part inflight they suddently flip-flop and go down in a flat spin with no possibility of recovery, totaly aerodynamically logic when you loose the one & only part of the fusselage that keeps the engine torque force balanced. 

 

26 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

The prop blast effect will depend on power and speed. Aircrafts are generally stable at cruise speed and cruise power. Same goes for warbirds. 

With speed, the fuselage participate at yaw stability. 

 

You're talking about ideal situations, but when you loose a vertical stab is cause you've been shot and/ or due the high G-forces (remember you're fighting not cruising) and high preassures and parasite drag applied in the damaged parts finished in a ripped off the stab and the rudder, only because you're not in an ideal situation like cruising. 

 

That is the aerodynamics logical at least in planet Earth but then we can disscus if it matches same way in planet PC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 3:18 PM, Jayhawk said:

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

A studying of WWII aircraft metal composition found that BF109's had between .5mm and 3mm skin thickness and FW190's had 1.4mm skin thinkness (Source)

If you look at a US Army Study on aircraft survivability from 1971 (Here), you will see on Page 79 that a .50 hitting aircraft aluminum will make a clean hole the size of the round though the aluminum without petaling or crack propagation.The .50 has so much energy it is just blasting though the aluminum not causing any damage.

And if it was just a hollow skin they were shooting at that would all make sense. But what you're failing to take into account is the structure, fuel tanks, engine, and all the other objects inside of the skin. 

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...