Jump to content

Hi, why are the allied aircraft so inferior to the axis aircraft.


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

I have never read a single pilot that has ever said that the difference between life and death was the "machine." They all said it was the pilot that made the difference. 

 

I mean, if you are reading a pilot's memoirs, with all due respect, there is probably a little bit of ego involved. Of course a successful, surviving pilot is going to claim it's the pilot that makes the difference. Very few people are going to write a book and say "I was a pretty average pilot, but I had a faster, more maneuverable plane and a gyro gunsight so I had a leg up on my opponents." 

If the pilot alone made the difference between life and death then why did anyone bother making better airplanes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With very much respect folks, i think that what matters is the pilot and not the plane, ( i agreed with the issue of the .50s ) , but i personally see virtual pilots fliying p39s agains any axis planes and always survive even in a numeric disadvantage.

 

Its good to read about the plane that you fly, know some technical data, and plan some tactic when you fly.

 

Every plane is a diferent world, but its the person who fly It correctly who determine victory or defeat.

 

 

Edited by GOA_Companere-VR-
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, its all about how you use your equiment not how good it is, if im best of the best (like i am) and use kaybord and mous, and my oponent in 1v1 is just a little less best of the best (he didnt get as gifted as me) but use stick and rudder, ill still be better then him in flying games e-sports, its logic man, its all about the player.

 

There is litteraly no reason why some players play game on 30 dollaros sticks and some use 1000s dollars stiks , rudders and hotas combos, its just for that bling, player is all that mathers not thir equipment at the end, one is just smarter and spends 30$ other one is not and spends 1000s$.

Edited by CountZero
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Yep, who would want to fly on a side which is being placed at a constant disadvantage due to factors outside the player's control... that has to operate with all those limitations. In late war scenarios you would essentially be penalising the player for flying Luftwaffe aircraft, which might be historically correct (up to a point)... but would be denying equal opportunity for players in the game environment.

 

This is still a combat flight simulator, not a (strategic) war simulator and people still want to be able to fight back in order to make the game experience and air combat actually worth while and enjoyable.

 

For the most part, what you see in-game is the full potential of each aircraft deployed on relatively equal terms - and I agree that is quite different to what would have occurred in practice during the war itself.

 

see that's the problem there though, realism isn't applied always across the board as it should be, and as it currently stands with the .50 change for later war US and the general dominance of German aircraft over Russian counterparts until later war, flying allied is flying at a disadvantage. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 10:44 PM, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

I have never read a single pilot that has ever said that the difference between life and death was the "machine." They all said it was the pilot that made the difference. 

 

Awesome.

So in an i16 vs 190 D9 fight, it’s an even match....or an i16 vs F-16 for that matter then. ;)

 

Point is, the plane matters.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAF was very concerned about the fw190 when it came out. They weren´t concerned about a sudden surge in LW pilot skill but the quality of the FW190 compared to the SpitV. "Surprisingly", they were less concerned when the spit IX started to grow in numbers.

The same could be said of the concern of the 5th AF in 1942 when they face the Japanese fighters with P-39s and P-40s. They were concerned. That concern started to dissapear when the P-38 was introduced in the theater.

Obviously, a good pilot in comparable machines is going to have the upper hand. But the same can be said when there are comparable pilot skills but a significant difference in plane qualities.

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2021 at 1:10 PM, Bremspropeller said:

A dogfight-server has absolutely ZIP historical relevance or connection. Hence you simply cannot expect a historical outcome in any way, shape or form.

That probably should be a top sticky quote in Complaints section.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 3:27 PM, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

The British ace Lanoe Hawker was shot down in an old D.H.2. by a less experienced German pilot (the future Red Baron) in the more advanced Albatros D.II. 

 

Polish pilots proved to be among the best in the world when they started flying the Hurricane and Spitfire, but were hopelessly outmatched when facing Bf-109s in their PZL P.11s. In fact, the first aerial victory of WWII was scored by a Ju-87 against a P.11.

 

 

 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 7:40 PM, Eisenfaustus said:

General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland regarded the Me 262 as a decisive factor - and attributed his successes in the JV44 to this machine.
Many German pilots felt clearly superior in their Me 109 to British Hurricanes and clearly inferior in their me 110 to British Spitfires during the Battle of Britain while roughly regarding British fighter pilots their equals in skill. 

There are many cases in which the Plane obviously matters. Of course the pilot matters as well. I guess when comparing the influence of pilot and aircraft performance on the outcome of air combat whatever has the greatest gap will prove decisive.

And in the skies over Europe in 1944 the pilot ability gap between German and Allied pilots on average was far wider than any aircraft performance gap - that I absolutely agree upon. 

 

You both created a hyperbole. The BF 110 assumptive capabilities proved to be false. This has nothing to do with my comment. The weaknesses and strengths of each aircraft is well known unlike in real time. You developed strategies for servers. e.g. BF 110 can fly escorted to protect them from more agile fighters. This was a luxury that BF 110 pilots did not have in B. Britain. So, you do not have an excuse on a server where hindsight is beneficial. 

 

But let's address the other part of the hyperbole. It is claimed that the Me 262 is too strong of an aircraft, but yet US pilots dealt with it. Moreover servers limit their usage which actually consistent to their numbers relative to other aircraft in historical time. This is what I was referring to (and I think you are smartenough to actually know this) and not mismatched of a Spitfire vs a BF 110. 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 10:20 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

There are numerous quotes from great pilots about aircraft quality and wanting better aircraft.  What I have never read is "give me whatever, I'm awesome so I'll be just fine".  

 

 

 

Neither have I, so why you are making this argument seems silly to me. The point, which you seemed to have missed I mentioned above. They developed strategies in real time to deal with mismatches. Thy did not have a choice. You do here. You have hindsight and far greater knowledge of the relative strength and weaknesses of each aircraft. You have the ability to die a 1000 deaths learning. 

23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Awesome.

So in an i16 vs 190 D9 fight, it’s an even match....or an i16 vs F-16 for that matter then. ;)

 

Point is, the plane matters.

 

 

I am speechless; you have made intelligent post in the past and this is not up to those standards. This is just a childish hyperbole. Why you responded like this is beyond comprehension. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

The weaknesses and strengths of each aircraft is well known unlike in real time. You developed strategies for servers. e.g. BF 110 can fly escorted to protect them from more agile fighters. This was a luxury that BF 110 pilots did not have in B. Britain. So, you do not have an excuse on a server where hindsight is beneficial. 

 

The idea of Bf-109s escorting Bf-110s escorting bombers actually originated in the Battle of Britain. 

 

I doubt that anyone actually does it in MP outside of roleplaying, though, given how nonsensical of a tactic it is. Escorting Bf-110s against the exact same aircraft they're meant to be escorting the bombers from? Why not just escort the bombers with Bf-109s?

 

31 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

But let's address the other part of the hyperbole. It is claimed that the Me 262 is too strong of an aircraft, but yet US pilots dealt with it.

 

Yes, by shooting them down when they were taking off or landing, both situations where the 262 was so vulnerable that a rookie US pilot had a pretty good chance of shooting down a German century-ace. So less about the pilot and more about the combat situation, and the fact that the P-51 was better at attacking slow aircraft than the 262 was at flying at low speed.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

I am speechless; you have made intelligent post in the past and this is not up to those standards. This is just a childish hyperbole. Why you responded like this is beyond comprehension. 

 

It’s not beyond comprehension.

I took it to an extreme intentionally in order to illustrate that at some point (well before 190 vs i16) the aircraft makes a difference.

 

Yes strategies were developed to deal with mismatches (Zero vs Wildcats) however if you know anything at all of history and air combat, then you know that pilots often enough, and for various reasons found themselves outside of these established tactics.

Ask 9th Air Force Jug pilots who found themselves at tree-top level fighting 190’s and 109’s. I could go on.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

It’s not beyond comprehension.

I took it to an extreme intentionally in order to illustrate that at some point (well before 190 vs i16) the aircraft makes a difference.

 

Yes strategies were developed to deal with mismatches (Zero vs Wildcats) however if you know anything at all of history and air combat, then you know that pilots often enough, and for various reasons found themselves outside of these established tactics.

 

I think you now the statement was referring to 'contemporaneous" machines. 

 

Pilots who found themselves outside of any available tactics had to rely guile and ingenuity to survive or they died. You can died 1000s deaths developing whys surviving. The virtual has yet another huge advantage. 

So you have a perfectly crated machine fresh from "factory," you have hulk like strength, and physiology to recover from extreme g force, and you have infinite number of lives to learn from your mistake and perfect tactics. Moreover, you have the hindsight and collective knowledge of real world pilots in know for certain, the strength and weaknesses of every single aircraft. Yet, people complain. 

 

If you want all things equal, then you certainly in the wrong game. 

 

22 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

The idea of Bf-109s escorting Bf-110s escorting bombers actually originated in the Battle of Britain. 

 

I doubt that anyone actually does it in MP outside of roleplaying, though, given how nonsensical of a tactic it is. Escorting Bf-110s against the exact same aircraft they're meant to be escorting the bombers from? Why not just escort the bombers with Bf-109s?

 

 

Yes, by shooting them down when they were taking off or landing, both situations where the 262 was so vulnerable that a rookie US pilot had a pretty good chance of shooting down a German century-ace. So less about the pilot and more about the combat situation, and the fact that the P-51 was better at attacking slow aircraft than the 262 was at flying at low speed.

 

 

 

First, you realize that I stated that they developed tactics during the war? This is why I referred to hindsight. 

Second, so there i no difference; attack them near the known airbases just as the allied fighters did. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

The idea of Bf-109s escorting Bf-110s escorting bombers actually originated in the Battle of Britain. 

 

I doubt that anyone actually does it in MP outside of roleplaying, though, given how nonsensical of a tactic it is. Escorting Bf-110s against the exact same aircraft they're meant to be escorting the bombers from? Why not just escort the bombers with Bf-109s?

 

 

Yes, by shooting them down when they were taking off or landing, both situations where the 262 was so vulnerable that a rookie US pilot had a pretty good chance of shooting down a German century-ace. So less about the pilot and more about the combat situation, and the fact that the P-51 was better at attacking slow aircraft than the 262 was at flying at low speed.

 

 

Which brings a third variable to the table tactical situation. Even well trained talented and experienced pilots in great airplanes will have trouble if the tactical situation will be in the enemy’s favor. You’re absolutely right of course. And often the tactical situation was outside of control of the individual pilot. 

 

2 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

You both created a hyperbole.

You said you never read a pilot stating the plane was the decisive factor - we presented examples of the opposite. 
 

Yes I chose very clear example but there are many many others that prove your point wrong. Take the Spit I and Emil - most here would propably agree these two were very evenly matched overall and that here tactical situation and pilot skill determine the outcome. Nevertheless have I read many quotes from pilots of both sides claiming one or the other to be the better fighter because a certain strength gave it the edge. I even read pilot statements challenging what is conceived as common knowledge about these fighters. Because every pilot has his own experience. 
And as has been said a psychological component comes in as well. 
Successfull aces have an incentive to see skill as the decisive factor because then it is their success alone. Less successful fighter pilots have incentive to see doctrine and aircraft as the decisive factors because then their lack of success isn’t their fault. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

Second, so there i no difference; attack them near the known airbases just as the allied fighters did. 


Yeah, that is the best thing to do in the game.

 

But that has nothing to do with the idea that, in real life, the better pilot will always win regardless of equipment or situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Even well trained talented and experienced pilots in great airplanes will have trouble if the tactical situation will be in the enemy’s favor. You’re absolutely right of course. And often the tactical situation was outside of control of the individual pilot. 

Excatly! People often under-estimate the role luck played into the survival of many aces or even the average pilot.

I'm not sure whether many pilots suffered from survivior's guilt, but I'm quite sure that even among the very successful aces, many had to fight their own demons at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Excatly! People often under-estimate the role luck played into the survival of many aces or even the average pilot.

Sometimes they think it is luck, but then it wasn't. When Hub Zemke shot down Alfred Grislawski who was sepearating himself from combat as he was low on ammo, Grislawski saw Zemkes P-51 from far and when he saw the Mustang open fire from what it looked like like to him about half a kilometer. He thought that American must be a rookie to open fire from that distance. Only moments later, Grislawski was hit and he had to bail out. As some of his friends were gored on hanging on the parachute, he pulled the ripchord very late. Late enough that the impact was hard enough to break two lumbar vertebrate. And that was it for his flying career. Zemke on the other hand filed a combat report, stating that ge shot a 109 at 400 yards range, using the K-14 gunsight. Grislawski couldn't have been more wrong about his spontaneous assessment of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Grislawski couldn't have been more wrong about his spontaneous assessment of the situation.

 

Yeah, but the availability and capabilities of the K-14 kind of played into the unfortunate outcome, didn't it?

Had Grislawski known about the capabilities of the K-14, he MIGHT have evaluated the situation differently and acted accordingly.

 

In the end, all things considered, he was lucky his mis-assessment got him a ticket home.

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

Yeah, but the availability and capabilities of the K-14 kind of played into the unfortunate outcome, didn't it?

That was my point. The Mustang is a good fighter aircraft, but with the K-14 it is a great fighter aircraft. All that without getting faster etc. There's many things to a great aircraft.

 

Personally, I value the fact that it is an aircraft that can serve as a tolerable workplace for 7 consecutive hours on the job even in adverse conditions. If you tried such in the 109, it would take a very  resourceful veterinary to separate you from the cockpit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem  to be  alot of  different opinions  on the effectiveness of various AC  and various weapons  used on them.  The 50 cal seems to be one of the more  hot topics.  It may well be  that the 50 cal  does not do the damage  that it should.  The API rounds  were supposedly  2 times as effective as standard ball.  I think that  when  this subject is broached  opinions vary wildly.  At the end of the day the devs will  make changes  if supported,  or may make changes even if not supported.  The fact that the US stayed with 50 cals  prob has more to do with their  primary mission, and the fact that the 20mm  they developed from a copy of the german 20 was not good in terms of quality.  The Germans, British and Russians  had  other  roles.  Germany had to get cannons  that could take out a heavy bomber,  the US never really  had to face heavy bombers.  Different mission.  The British realized the 50 cal was nowhere near as good as a 20mm cannon,  which is why they started to put 20mm  cannons in their AC.  HE filler in the 20mm rounds  made them  much more effective.  The Germans  developed the mine rounds  and were able to put @ double the amount of HE in their 20 mm cannon rounds as the allies  making them much more effective.  The 30mm mine rounds had @ 5 times the amount of HE filler as their 20mm,  giving them  @ 10 times the amount of explosive filler as say a British or Russian 20mm.   That  is why the 30mm could down a B17  with 3-5 hits.  An Allied fighter, with few exceptions,  went down with 1, 30mm strike.  The 50 may not be as effective in game  as IRL,  but by the same token, the 30mm mine rounds are nowhere near  as effective as they were IRL.  The 20mm mine rounds need a look as well, as do all of the weapons in game to match  actual performance with game performance.  Now the pilot skill may have played a large role, and the amount of sorties flown,  but the mine round development  increased exponentially  the ability of a german pilot with a 30mm getting a kill,  vs an allied pilot of say equal skill getting a kill.  The American needs  many 50 cal hits to down a fighter,  the German pilot only needs 1, 30mm hit  to do the same.   That, imho,  could be a large  part of the reason the  germans with 50 kills or more shot down over 30k  aircraft.  When you only have to score 1 hit  from a engine mounted cannon to down a fighter  that is a very big leg up on the competition,  and  alot of the opportunities to fire are very brief and may only be enough to deliver very few strikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

 

I think you now the statement was referring to 'contemporaneous" machines. 

 

There are air forces still flying the F-4. That means the F-4 is ‘contemporaneous’ with the F-16 (never mind the F-22)

 

I think you’re trying to move the goal posts around a bit in order to be right about this. More than once in WWII pilots were instructed to avoid combat with a certain aircraft type - for good reason.

 

An ace Oscar pilot could (and did) avoid giving up a shot to a P-38, but that game is transient in most cases, and he’d be hopeless in ever getting a clean shot at the far superior P-38. 

The aircraft was simply not capable of matching the 38, and could only hope to avoid being shot long enough to either bore the 38 pilot or run him out of ammo. This scenario played out many times, usually resulting in dead Oscar/s. The Oscar might as well be a Fokker DVII.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

 The 50 may not be as effective in game  as IRL,  but by the same token, the 30mm mine rounds are nowhere near  as effective as they were IRL.  The 20mm mine rounds need a look as well, as do all of the weapons in game to match  actual performance with game performance.  Now the pilot skill may have played a large role, and the amount of sorties flown,  but the mine round development  increased exponentially  the ability of a german pilot with a 30mm getting a kill,  vs an allied pilot of say equal skill getting a kill.  The American needs  many 50 cal hits to down a fighter,  the German pilot only needs 1, 30mm hit  to do the same.   That, imho,  could be a large  part of the reason the  germans with 50 kills or more shot down over 30k  aircraft.  When you only have to score 1 hit  from a engine mounted cannon to down a fighter  that is a very big leg up on the competition,  and  alot of the opportunities to fire are very brief and may only be enough to deliver very few strikes.

I`d like to see you make a legitimate case of that. Been there for some time now, never seen a more powerful rendition of German mineshell than in GB series.

 

The MK108 is crazy effective vs fighter airframe. Every single hit pretty much blows the aircraft out of its flight path, causing massive airframe damage. The fact that the graphical effect isn`t there changes nothing in terms of its effectiveness. Literally if the MK108 had ballistics of MG151/20, there would be no reason to use the 20mm.

 

In comparison of RL weapons, the 50cal case had been made clear a hundred times. When you have 4 such guns shooting such powerfull AP rounds at a such ROF you are bound to hit something important. Let alone 6 or 8.

 

In terms of fighter busting, comparing those weapons it is a case of going about destroying your foes.  The case by case results are very different, but the end result in macroscale might be similar.  In terms of clear flightsim user meta howeverm it is a case of personal preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

I`d like to see you make a legitimate case of that. Been there for some time now, never seen a more powerful rendition of German mineshell than in GB series.

 

The MK108 is crazy effective vs fighter airframe. Every single hit pretty much blows the aircraft out of its flight path, causing massive airframe damage. The fact that the graphical effect isn`t there changes nothing in terms of its effectiveness. Literally if the MK108 had ballistics of MG151/20, there would be no reason to use the 20mm.

 

In comparison of RL weapons, the 50cal case had been made clear a hundred times. When you have 4 such guns shooting such powerfull AP rounds at a such ROF you are bound to hit something important. Let alone 6 or 8.

 

In terms of fighter busting, comparing those weapons it is a case of going about destroying your foes.  The case by case results are very different, but the end result in macroscale might be similar.  In terms of clear flightsim user meta howeverm it is a case of personal preference.

The case has been made on here many times about the 50 cal.  It seems  that  some want cannon level, or slightly lower than cannon level performance  in game from a hmg.  The reality is that in the war  everyone, except the Americans realized that equipping ac  with only  hmg's  was  not as effective as cannons.  The Americans  fought for the longest part of the war  against  japanese ac.  The British and the Russians  did their fighting against the Germans.  The British started putting cannons in their AC early on, as did the Russians.  The Americans held on to the 50 cal much like they held on to a  weak gunned  tank.  Had the 50 cal been so effective  the British  would not have needed to go to cannons but could have equipped with 4 6 or 8  50 cals, and the Russians had a better hmg than the Americans, and still equipped with cannons.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The Americans held on to the 50 cal much like they held on to a  weak gunned  tank

 

and what won them the war. both the M4 Sherman and the .50cal were able to be put on the  field in vast quantaties fast.

The American .50 cal was a realiable  hard hitting gun, that was availabe, that could be equipped and supplied fast and in vast numbers to ground vehicles and airplanes and could kept running due to the existing logistics which is futher simplefied by concrentrating an just a few models (contrary to the germans).

The fines gun or tanks wont do you good, if its not there. (missing fuel, spare parts, ammo...etc).

I would always choose a M4 Sherman over a Panther/Tiger, which is not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The case has been made on here many times about the 50 cal.  It seems  that  some want cannon level, or slightly lower than cannon level performance  in game from a hmg.  The reality is that in the war  everyone, except the Americans realized that equipping ac  with only  hmg's  was  not as effective as cannons.  The Americans  fought for the longest part of the war  against  japanese ac.  The British and the Russians  did their fighting against the Germans.  The British started putting cannons in their AC early on, as did the Russians.  The Americans held on to the 50 cal much like they held on to a  weak gunned  tank.  Had the 50 cal been so effective  the British  would not have needed to go to cannons but could have equipped with 4 6 or 8  50 cals, and the Russians had a better hmg than the Americans, and still equipped with cannons.

 

The false analogy....

While its true that the 20mm was a better gun in all aspects that doesn't imply that the 0.5cal wasn't effective. It was very effective in shooting down light planes like the japanese but also the light armoured me109 and fw190. The american failed to produce a working 20mm but, by stacking 6/8 guns in their relatively big figthters, they put enough weight of fire to dismantle and ignite both fitghters. The  110, although bigger, was even easier to shoot down with the fifties. And those 3 fighters made for the vast majority of enemies they fought in the ETO.

Germans, Russians and British had to fight bombers as well and all of them relied in relatively small fighters were the thought of putting 6 HMG was not possible and, given that they all had a working 20mm, then the decission was straight forward.

Nobody wants a fiftie at the same level of a 20mm. That is just the product of your imagination. But 6/8 hmgs are more effective than a single 20mm and the crazy people of US Navy and LW said that 3-3.5 HMGs was equivalent to one 20mm in the job of shooting down planes.

 

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Navy and LW said that 3-3.5 HMGs was equivalent to one 20mm in the job of shooting down planes.

 

/Thread.

 

There are certainly some advantages like trajectory that the .50 cal has over other munitions... Whole other discussion tho, but this is/was pretty much my understanding of why the US continued to utilize the .50 as it's main armament.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The case has been made on here many times about the 50 cal.  It seems  that  some want cannon level, or slightly lower than cannon level performance  in game from a hmg.  The reality is that in the war  everyone, except the Americans realized that equipping ac  with only  hmg's  was  not as effective as cannons.  The Americans  fought for the longest part of the war  against  japanese ac.  The British and the Russians  did their fighting against the Germans.  The British started putting cannons in their AC early on, as did the Russians.  The Americans held on to the 50 cal much like they held on to a  weak gunned  tank.  Had the 50 cal been so effective  the British  would not have needed to go to cannons but could have equipped with 4 6 or 8  50 cals, and the Russians had a better hmg than the Americans, and still equipped with cannons.

 

 

 

facepalm-really.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wittman isn't wrong.  Better than 303's or 7.9mm, less effective than 20 mm cannon, but better trajectory, longer travel, higher velocity...

Edit: there were/ are advantages/disadvantages with the munition, I guess was my point. /shrug

Edited by JG51_Beazil
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The case has been made on here many times about the 50 cal.  It seems  that  some want cannon level, or slightly lower than cannon level performance  in game from a hmg.  The reality is that in the war  everyone, except the Americans realized that equipping ac  with only  hmg's  was  not as effective as cannons.  The Americans  fought for the longest part of the war  against  japanese ac.  The British and the Russians  did their fighting against the Germans.  The British started putting cannons in their AC early on, as did the Russians.  The Americans held on to the 50 cal much like they held on to a  weak gunned  tank.  Had the 50 cal been so effective  the British  would not have needed to go to cannons but could have equipped with 4 6 or 8  50 cals, and the Russians had a better hmg than the Americans, and still equipped with cannons.

 

I suggest you stop typing, and instead do a bit of research on the external ballistics of the .50 cal. It’s a hard-hitting round. Now put hundreds of them down range...

 

A single round in the engine block will do it.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

A single round in the engine block will do it.

Depends on the Engine doesn’t it? I read somewhere BMW 802s often brought the airframe home even after losing two cylinders to gunfire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Depends on the Engine doesn’t it? I read somewhere BMW 802s often brought the airframe home even after losing two cylinders to gunfire. 

 

Definitely - same with the Double Wasp etc. Nothing is all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I suggest you stop typing, and instead do a bit of research on the external ballistics of the .50 cal. It’s a hard-hitting round. Now put hundreds of them down range...

 

A single round in the engine block will do it.

This is an apples to oranges comparison  to any point I was making.  The 50 cal  can penetrate  alot.  Somewhat less than the 20mm without explosive filler.  The cannon rounds,  do not need to hit the engine or control arms.  In a snap shot, where you don't have alot of time on someones 6  the explosive rounds, especially the 30mm  with 1,  can do enough damage to the airframe to bring the AC down.  In the case of the 30mm mine round,  that's for the most part 1 hit anywhere on the airframe for a fighter.  So while a 50cal rounds needs to hit a critical component to effect debilitating damage.  That can happen,  and that depends on the modelling of the damage and the internals of the AC.

 

Now I  do not fly much in allied AC,  usually the 38 when I do.  But when I fly a 190 or 109,  the 50 cals in the A20  and the  13mm  hmg's in the PE2  seem  to do just fine disabling my ac,   alot.   Granted those are AI gunners firing and they probably hit  with a higher percentage.  The hits  to wings, control surfaces  while not immediately bringing the AC down  harshly affect the flight performance most of the time.   The disabling for the most part comes from engine damage,  fires cause a bailout,  usually leaking oil or water, sometimes making it back to base, sometimes not.   This is happening  with 1 or 2 hmg's  fired by AI gunners.  So,  the HMG's  can, and do disable and shoot down LW AC  just fine.  What  is the difference between an AI gunner firing one, and a player firing  6 or 8,  set to a specific convergence ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try these ones - the black crosses make them go faster. 
 

von Tom

 

Edit: Thanks to whoever amended to put the image as a spoiler - completely slipped my mind. 

Spoiler

0EB98014-06D4-4C37-A245-4425FE42AEA4.jpeg

Edited by von_Tom
Should know by now...
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

Try these ones - the black crosses make them go faster. 
 

von Tom

0EB98014-06D4-4C37-A245-4425FE42AEA4.jpeg

do they also get better stall mechanics and high alpha ability? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

do they also get better stall mechanics and high alpha ability? 


Oh yes, with guided rounds, with each hit like.a 30mm mine shell. They’re rated to 60,000ft and the uniforms are way cooler. 
 

von Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, von_Tom said:

Try these ones - the black crosses make them go faster. 
 

von Tom

0EB98014-06D4-4C37-A245-4425FE42AEA4.jpeg

 

The two bubbletop 109fires are the most interesting.

 

If the insignia were any larger, they'd need a biplane to make them fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The two bubbletop 109fires are the most interesting.


All Spit XVIs (the last Merlin Spit) mocked up for the 1950 Farnborough air show. 
 

von Tom

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

All Spit XVIs (the last Merlin Spit) mocked up for the 1950 Farnborough air show. 

 

I guess the bloke paining S+UT would have needed more specific instructions 🙃

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Now I  do not fly much in allied AC,  usually the 38 when I do.  But when I fly a 190 or 109,  the 50 cals in the A20  and the  13mm  hmg's in the PE2  seem  to do just fine disabling my ac,   alot.   Granted those are AI gunners firing and they probably hit  with a higher percentage.  The hits  to wings, control surfaces  while not immediately bringing the AC down  harshly affect the flight performance most of the time.   The disabling for the most part comes from engine damage,  fires cause a bailout,  usually leaking oil or water, sometimes making it back to base, sometimes not.   This is happening  with 1 or 2 hmg's  fired by AI gunners.  So,  the HMG's  can, and do disable and shoot down LW AC  just fine.  What  is the difference between an AI gunner firing one, and a player firing  6 or 8,  set to a specific convergence ?

Well for one, it is hard to hit a slender airframe. Using 50cal with P38 is best case scenario, not going to get the same results with P39/40/47/51. Also a problem with shooting from dead six because most hits are projectiles reaching fuselage section.

Compared to HE the fifties have much less chance of igniting oil or fuel leaks.

 

Reworking convergence feature and adding Incediary round would change the whole picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most common misconception about combat is the idea that "the best survive". War is attritional, and at the level of the individual almost random. You can be the best pilot in the world, but given enough combat hours you will be shot down regardless of how good your plane is compared to the I-16. You could be Bruce Lee, Rocky Balboa and Rambo all rolled up in one, and given enough time you will become a casualty.

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...