Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

To the OP, there is still time to escape....

 

.....stop right there ....and walk quickly in the opposite direction. 

 

 

Edited by kendo
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if all those sistemically non believers start thinking there's something in the DM doesn't match with the visual layer, also with the damages related with the caliber you're shooting. 12x 0.303 are better than 6x 0.50????: definetly there's something wrong.

 

 

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

What the DM is doing is rewarding concentration of hits: in effect is it saying that 30 hits spread evenly over a target is worth less, in aerodynamic effect, than some number < 30 concentrated in one area.  From an engineering perspective I cannot say that is right or wrong, but I do not find it implausible. It is just a matter of fact, perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

 

Where they may be an issue, is that it is easier to get concentration against an He111 wing than a 109 wing: not just because the wing is bigger but because the He111 wing has two hit boxes while the smaller 109 wing (like some other planes with a rounded wing tip), has three. Unless all planes are designed with hit boxes that are of equal size (which means more for the larger planes, and less on some fighters), I cannot see a way around that problem.

If I understand correctly, you infer that the threshold value for skin damage is not proportional to the size of the affected hitbox, right?

 

A thought experiment:

 

I fire the same shotgun at a bear (=hitbox A) and a rabbit (=hitbox B) under exactly the same conditions.

Once my aim is correct, I can be sure that a number of projectiles (shots/pellets) will hit the target.

The actual number of hits will be higher in the case of the bear, simply because its a much bigger target, and individual pellets have less chance to miss.

Even the probability to hit a crucial organ of the bear is higher, simply because the brain, heart, and spine of the bear are bigger than those of a rabbit.

So far, so good, it does make sense for damaging engines and fuel tanks, but the same logic is weird when it comes to skin damage.

 

If the threshold value for skin damage is the same for both animals/hitboxes, it's a likely scenario that the big bear cannot stand 40 pellets, while the small rabbit happily runs away with 30. Which is just absurd and contrary to RL experience.

 

The workaround is simple IMO: when calculating skin damage, the threshold value(s) should be proportionate to the size of the affected hitbox, so that 80 hits on a 10 sqm area inflict the same damage as 8 hits on 1 sqm. And only at this point should we also factor in the various damaging capabilities of different ammo types.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My hypothesis is that the hits needed to trigger a damage specific level are loosely correlated with the area, but area is not the only variable. It is testable if you use static targets, accurately counting hits in specific hit boxes. 

 

In an earlier developer post about the new DM it was mentioned that the toughness of hitboxes was directly related to the amount and quality of their construction. I took that to mean that wing hit boxes take into account the materials, number and size of ribs and stringers, as well as their skin area and skin thickness.  Which seems to be why the P-51 wings and other areas like stabilisers, take noticeably more hits to trigger visible damage levels than most WW2 fighters.  WW1 planes take very few hits. It is not just about area.

 

It would not surprise me if bomber wings had a higher proportion of empty space inside their wings - a large part of the He111 wings are filled with fuel tanks.

 

We do not need to reinvent the whole DM. IMHO all that needs looking at (apart from adding incendiary effects) is re-examining the relative damage production of AP vs HE rounds.    

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mgs lack power in quick snapshots but a decent angle off burst into the fuselage of a fighter/attack aircraft or the engine nacelles of heavier aircraft work for me. I would be lying if I said I noticed much of a difference between .50s or 7-8mms, maybe the smaller guns rate of fire (ie hurricane) makes up for their lack of size. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew a ground attack mission yesterday against an unarmed train in the P-51. I usually try to knock out the locomotive first but as luck would have it, I severed the line of cars directly behind the tender. Before I could get turned around for another run, the engine must have reached its waypoint as it reversed direction and knocked its self out when it ran into the rail cars.  
 

To your point, I preceded to torch a car or tanker car on every pass. I’ve struggled recently strafing getting less than impressive results. So surprised was I that when the mission finished I checked my settings to see if somehow the easy aiming option had been checked. It hadn’t. 

 

I find getting kills against 190s and 109s feels very realistic. Most times I’ll pepper the airframe til I either get a PK or he bails. Maybe one time in three or four I’ll set an engine on fire. The end result is I’ll get the kill just not immediately every time. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rjel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same conversation.  I just don't see the .50s as all that awful.  Not as good as 20mm to be sure, but then again they were not in real life either.  I have not had too much of an issue getting kills with the .50s.  As noted by others, the kills do tend to be pilot kills or flamers and not structural failure, but they do happen.  If you expect a a 109 or 190 to disintegrate under a 1 second burst I guess you are going to be disappointed.  

 

For me, getting a kill with the smaller caliber MGs is rare.  Using the 2x 7mm on German planes, maybe a light Russian fighter but not much else.  I hosed down a flight of Stukas with an 8x .303 Hurricane and got one in flames, damaged a second.  Honestly seems about right.

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

But I have to ask and wonder, is teh damage model preset to favor explosive ammunition

 

Reality favors explosive ammunition. The game just simulates reality better than some of the US literature.

  All major waring powers had some sort of .50cals, but most of them realized early on, that explosive ammunition is the way to go against aircraft.  Everyone else switched to cannons.

      USA was the only major power that stuck to machine guns, not because they didn't understand the reality, but because their attempt to adopt the 20MM Hispano cannon failed miserably. 

      I'm not saying that US .50BMG as not deadly to aircraft, because it was. It was just not the best tool for the job.

  The mythical power of the "mighty .50BMG", compared to other weapons, was mostly the result of propaganda. 

 

Cannons were better and more efficient at taking down planes. US Airforce learned that the hard way in Korea.

  

 

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did 20 QMB tests P-51 vs 109G-14 - at a 5% hit rate on average it requires 44-45 hits to take down the G-14 offline...maybe more tests would show a slightly different outcome but I doubt it would be by much. 
 

Some sorties required only 17-18 hits, the high end was 67-68 hits.

 

These were combat sorties so most of it was angle-off hits. The .50 is highly effective at engine kills and pilot kills, less effective from dead six.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said plenty on this subject before. There's two key points:

 

1) Improve your own shooting abilities with all weapons. Review your engagements and watch your shot clusters to see how well your perceived shooting matches with the recorded reality. It helps to get several consecutive shots on the same target. Where you hit on the plane matters.

2) The simulation can always be improved. One area that the .50cal isn't getting a boost from is the lack of incendiary rounds and the unique effects that they have. That will come eventually, I'm sure. Until then, see point 1.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 40plus said:

There's a reason planes like the P-47 had 8 BMG when everyone else was getting away with 4 or even 2 cannons.

If only they barowed russian or german HE HMG bullet, they could just have 1 in each wing if you go by the way game sim HMG HE ammo.

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

I've said plenty on this subject before. There's two key points:

 

1) Improve your own shooting abilities with all weapons. Review your engagements and watch your shot clusters to see how well your perceived shooting matches with the recorded reality. It helps to get several consecutive shots on the same target. Where you hit on the plane matters.

2) The simulation can always be improved. One area that the .50cal isn't getting a boost from is the lack of incendiary rounds and the unique effects that they have. That will come eventually, I'm sure. Until then, see point 1.

 

 

Git gud. Noted, thanks!

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

The simulation can always be improved. One area that the .50cal isn't getting a boost from is the lack of incendiary rounds and the unique effects that they have.

When reviewing gun camera footage or reading pilot anecdotes, they are not always the best source of information or scientific study. However, when reviewing the hundreds of gun camera footage videos fitted to American aircraft from 1944/45 that are available online, one of the most observable situations that happens is fire, lots of fire, with ammunition explosions and more fires. I think it's important to ask the question and to understand why that by 1944 most United States aircraft were loaded almost exclusively with API, if standard AP was so effective?

 I can understand why people will question aerodynamic loss but if we had API modelled (as it should be) and the aircraft you are sitting in is on fire then that becomes somewhat of a moot point.  Some of the threads regarding the 50's has stretched hundreds of posts and across multiple threads. what is rather ironic though is that the bug reporting thread for "flight and damage" model physics

only stretches to to 4 pages since 2014. You would have thought that would have been a much busier section of the forum. 

 

Edit: for those that missed it, the developers have acknowledged that they will be studying the damage model in the foreseeable future. Linked below. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
See edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Same conversation. 

Except that it was never intended to be the same discussion. Please refer to the first post where we prove that it takes an inordinate amount of AP HMG ammo to cause appreciable drag. A good pilot can secure a kill with any ammo type. The issue is that AP HMG is extremely borked and needs to be adjusted (or HE HMG needs to be adjusted).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

When reviewing gun camera footage or reading pilot anecdotes, they are not always the best source of information or scientific study. However, when reviewing the hundreds of gun camera footage videos fitted to American aircraft from 1944/45 that are available online, one of the most observable situations that happens is fire, lots of fire, with ammunition explosions and more fires. I think it's important to ask the question and to understand why that by 1944 most United States aircraft were loaded almost exclusively with API, if standard AP was so effective?

 I can understand why people will question aerodynamic loss but if we had API modelled (as it should be) and the aircraft you are sitting in is fire then that becomes somewhat of a moot point.  Some of the threads regarding the 50's has stretched hundreds of posts and across multiple threads. what is rather ironic though is that the bug reporting thread for "flight and damage" model physics

only stretches to to 4 pages since 2014. You would have thought that would have been a much busier section of the forum. 

 

For the first part, yes, I expect if API becomes modeled, the folks at 1CGS will do a lot of detail work to make it work as close to the way it should that they can. They aren't a team that tend to do half measures when they feel like they can do more. So when incendiary does come, it'll make a notable difference in those specific types of damage effects. I have long suspected that enhancing the fuel tank simulation is probably the first step on that road. There may be others.

 

As for the flight and damage model physics thread only being 4-pages long, I think that's an effect of there being a lot of people willing to make assumptions and complain about a feature but very few of them are willing to do the kind of repetitive testing (similar to what CUJO did above) that would help to generate some data on this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Christ. Some genius mod thought that a complaint thread belonged here, so now we get to tackle the same arguments that we concluded like 5 pages ago again.

 

Let's clear the air first. This claim: 

 

1 hour ago, Jaws2002 said:

USA was the only major power that stuck to machine guns, not because they didn't understand the reality, but because their attempt to adopt the 20MM Hispano cannon failed miserably. 

Is fun to make, but doesn't pan out. Check out the comment I linked below, should make it clear that the USAAF had a different philosophy on patterns of fire to the other warring patterns, and it suited them quite well. You will not find an account of a British Jug or Mustang driver that complained about the 'silly amerikan pea shooters'.

Beyond that. Anyone who was brought over from the other thread, take a moment to situate yourself, and try not to make the same arguments twice. Avoid flame wars to the best of your ability, lets not lock this thread up.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

When reviewing gun camera footage or reading pilot anecdotes, they are not always the best source of information or scientific study. However, when reviewing the hundreds of gun camera footage videos fitted to American aircraft from 1944/45 that are available online, one of the most observable situations that happens is fire, lots of fire, with ammunition explosions and more fires. I think it's important to ask the question and to understand why that by 1944 most United States aircraft were loaded almost exclusively with API, if standard AP was so effective?

 

Like you say, it is important to know about the bias of guncam footage.

Specifically, the guncam footage that survived the cutting room floor tends to be the footage that was useful for training. Shots that show good gunnery with good effect. Clips in which the pilots shots at an aircraft and there is no obvious effect don't tend to be kept as often.

 

Now, I'm sure API is better at starting fires than AP and almost as good at damaging components as AP. I'm not arguing against it's effectiveness, just against reading too much into videos that have already been cherry-picked at the time it was made and perhaps further cherry-picked after by conservators.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Except that it was never intended to be the same discussion. Please refer to the first post where we prove that it takes an inordinate amount of AP HMG ammo to cause appreciable drag. A good pilot can secure a kill with any ammo type. The issue is that AP HMG is extremely borked and needs to be adjusted (or HE HMG needs to be adjusted).

 

For drag, 20mm HE is going to blow chunks out of an aluminum skin where AP ammo punches holes.  I can see AP ammo causing structural damage if it hit key structural areas but it will be nowhere near as effective at damaging skins as an explosive round.

 

I didn't think .50 cal HE rounds were a thing.  Incendiary, yes, but not HE.  Doubt incendiary is going to cause the kind of skin damage you are looking for either.  Here's one source for different ..50 cal rounds: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

same ranges for me, shooting 1-200 yards,,,, with extra ammo,the mustang shredded up 5 C47s as effectively as the german 20 mm gun pods will do. 

 

 

Same ranges, the P40 took , with extra ammo, 800 rounds to get a single c47 to go down. All focusing on engines. 

 

But never got the black puffs of smoke with the P40

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

I've said plenty on this subject before. There's two key points:

 

1) Improve your own shooting abilities with all weapons. Review your engagements and watch your shot clusters to see how well your perceived shooting matches with the recorded reality. It helps to get several consecutive shots on the same target. Where you hit on the plane matters.

2) The simulation can always be improved. One area that the .50cal isn't getting a boost from is the lack of incendiary rounds and the unique effects that they have. That will come eventually, I'm sure. Until then, see point 1.

 

While getting better at shooting will work obviously, most of what you said is not nearly as true for other weapons. Shot location is much, much more important for the .50 cals than for any other weapon, with the exception of the LMGs. 

The HE equipped 12.7mm can essentially cripple a plane after a few hits anywhere on the airframe due to the large amount of skin damage produced. Three or four hits on the wing and the enemy plane is out of the fight, if not uncontrollable. Precision is not required, and with nose-mounted guns convergence is not a concern.

What it amounts to is one must be an expert or lucky to get single-pass kills with a battery of .50 cals, but one must only hit the enemy aircraft with two german MGs to do the same. 

The flyers who made this thread are all infinitely better shots than I am and notice the same issues and have articulated them and demonstrated them in practice. I don't think accuracy is the issue here. The skin damage from the HE 12.7mm rounds are extreme, and the skin damage from the AP rounds is negligible up to a point that is difficult to achieve. Probably both need to be looked at. API would be welcome but I would still expect another look at the AP rounds, the difference between the rounds does not seem plausible. Once again, if the HE 12.7mm guns were this effective, no one would have gone to the expense of producing larger cannon, with the associated trade-offs. No one would bother with API, becuase HE was clearly the only way to go.

What needs to happen is this:
1. Difference between AP and HE 12.7mm should be reviewed and, IMO, tweaked
2. API introduced.
3. Pattern convergence introduced.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

If only they barowed russian or german HE HMG bullet, they could just have 1 in each wing if you go by the way game sim HMG HE ammo.

 

 

 Well. The Russian 12.7mm was superior to the US version and the Russians had the most effective API ammunition. I won't comment on the German 13.2, but even in the HMG version, weapons using explosive ammunition were superior. 

The Belgian 13.3mm FN Browning machine gun was considered superior to the US .50 cal version, precisely because they developed a very effective explosive round for it.  The explosive ammunition in 13.2mm Fn was considered twice as effective as ball.

 

Edited by Jaws2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

While getting better at shooting will work obviously, most of what you said is not nearly as true for other weapons. Shot location is much, much more important for the .50 cals than for any other weapon, with the exception of the LMGs. 

The HE equipped 12.7mm can essentially cripple a plane after a few hits anywhere on the airframe due to the large amount of skin damage produced. Three or four hits on the wing and the enemy plane is out of the fight, if not uncontrollable. Precision is not required, and with nose-mounted guns convergence is not a concern.

What it amounts to is one must be an expert or lucky to get single-pass kills with a battery of .50 cals, but one must only hit the enemy aircraft with two german MGs to do the same. 

The flyers who made this thread are all infinitely better shots than I am and notice the same issues and have articulated them and demonstrated them in practice. I don't think accuracy is the issue here. The skin damage from the HE 12.7mm rounds are extreme, and the skin damage from the AP rounds is negligible up to a point that is difficult to achieve. Probably both need to be looked at. API would be welcome but I would still expect another look at the AP rounds, the difference between the rounds does not seem plausible. Once again, if the HE 12.7mm guns were this effective, no one would have gone to the expense of producing larger cannon, with the associated trade-offs. No one would bother with API, becuase HE was clearly the only way to go.

What needs to happen is this:
1. Difference between AP and HE 12.7mm should be reviewed and, IMO, tweaked
2. API introduced.
3. Pattern convergence introduced.

 

 

Based on that statement I would suggest that it is the 12.7mm gun that should be reviewed.  If three hits to the wings consistently makes a plane uncontrollable then that might be a reasonable complaint.  That, however, is different from expecting a few rounds of .50 cal AP ammo to cause significant drag.  

 

Curious as to how people are determining the actual effect of drag as determined by the game.  is there something that people can see that is providing numbers or is it "it feels like". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

 

 Well. The Russian 12.7mm was superior to the US version and the Russians had the most effective API ammunition. I won't comment on the German 13.2, but even in the HMG version, weapons using explosive ammunition were superior. 

The Belgian 13.3mm FN Browning machine gun was considered superior to the US .50 cal version, precisely because they developed a very effective explosive round for it.

 

 

For the record, nobody is saying that the Russian wasn´t superior. It was. The berezin was a marvellous HMG. What they have said, now dozens of times, is that the difference in performance is too big. I, my self, will add that this difference in the game is ridiculous.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

For the record, nobody is saying that the Russian wasn´t superior. It was. The berezin was a marvellous HMG. What they have said, now dozens of times, is that the difference in performance is too big. I, my self, will add that this difference in the game is ridiculous.

Fair point.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Based on that statement I would suggest that it is the 12.7mm gun that should be reviewed.  If three hits to the wings consistently makes a plane uncontrollable then that might be a reasonable complaint.  That, however, is different from expecting a few rounds of .50 cal AP ammo to cause significant drag.  

 

Curious as to how people are determining the actual effect of drag as determined by the game.  is there something that people can see that is providing numbers or is it "it feels like". 

Please, can you elaborate when the OP has said that a few rounds should cause a significant drag? In this or a different thread there are several videos in which they show that a hugemoungous amount of 0.5cal AP rounds don´t cause any significant drag. I wish we all can appreciate this difference.

 

 

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

 

Based on that statement I would suggest that it is the 12.7mm gun that should be reviewed.  If three hits to the wings consistently makes a plane uncontrollable then that might be a reasonable complaint.  That, however, is different from expecting a few rounds of .50 cal AP ammo to cause significant drag.  

 

Curious as to how people are determining the actual effect of drag as determined by the game.  is there something that people can see that is providing numbers or is it "it feels like". 

I'm sorry that your recent posts ended up here, but since they are here now, please read the first post in this thread. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I'm sorry that your recent posts ended up here, but since they are here now, please read the first post in this thread. 

Considering testing showed that just polishing a plane, keeping the leading edges clean, and cleaning up the rivet heads could add 25 mph or more to the top speed of WW II aircraft I think expecting a few jagged .50 holes to slow a plane down significantly is not unreasonable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Considering testing showed that just polishing a plane, keeping the leading edges clean, and cleaning up the rivet heads could add 25 mph or more to the top speed of WW II aircraft I think expecting a few jagged .50 holes to slow a plane down significantly is not unreasonable.

 

I am not sure a few jagged .50 holes are going to slow down a plane significantly (also depending of what you consider signficantly) but what I am very convinced of is that a few dozens should do it. And this is not what we see regularly in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Considering testing showed that just polishing a plane, keeping the leading edges clean, and cleaning up the rivet heads could add 25 mph or more to the top speed of WW II aircraft... 

 

I'd like to know the source for that testing please. I know polishing and waxing was common, but I've not heard the 25mph figure before. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This always ends up with the same points being made. The number of rounds it takes to fully kill an aircraft are probably about right for .50 BMG.

 

The issue lies with the fact that you can put 40 rounds into a plane with little to no effect only for the 41st round to plonk the pilot on the head or create a fire.

 

It's not a cannon. It was nowhere near as effective as a cannon, but it's still is a decent anti aircraft weapon when you stick 6 or 8 of them on a plane.

 

The issue of skin damage seems to be the main problem along with a lack of internal components that are damagable. We know a best case for the round against aircraft skin alone (up to) 70 degrees is a ~1.8 inch hole (NATO NATDAM model). I think one thing that we can't really model is a round hitting at high deflection (>70) and tearing through a line of rivets or impacting a supporting strut that causes some skin to shear. This is what we clearly see in guncam footage but appears to be missing from the DM.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Based on that statement I would suggest that it is the 12.7mm gun that should be reviewed.  If three hits to the wings consistently makes a plane uncontrollable then that might be a reasonable complaint.  That, however, is different from expecting a few rounds of .50 cal AP ammo to cause significant drag.  

 

Curious as to how people are determining the actual effect of drag as determined by the game.  is there something that people can see that is providing numbers or is it "it feels like". 

Apart from a few outliers, almost no one is asking the USA .50 cals to duplicate the performance of the HE equipped 12.7mm. The OP is very clear on that fact. The HE equipped 12.7 are overperforming in my opinion. The AP are also, IMO, underperforming, but not to the point where their damage should be increased by ten times ...which is nearly what you would need to do to achieve the same performance as the HE 12.7. The mod shown in videos above which replaced the M2 AP rounds with MG131 rounds has been included to show how implausible the performance is. A plane with 6 guns firing those rounds completely negates the necessity to develop heavy cannon to defeat heavy bombers. It is clear from historical context that some factor is being exaggerated in the model here. Why have a 30mm cannon when  .50 cals with a tiny amount of HE can dewing or explode a B-25?

If you are curious how people have arrived at these interpretations, you should watch the video and consult the data in the OP, where the video creators have documented their process. People have tested the amount of drag in terms of top speed, and by seeing how the damage decals are applied to the hitbox(which dictates the effect on drag in the FM, as has been proven by unreasonable's extensive tests on the matter, elsewhere on the forums). The HE 12.7mm get to the highest level of drag damage after a few hits. This is fact. If you think that HE equipped 12.7mm rounds should do that extreme amount of damage, and AP rounds should do so little in comparison, then there is of course no argument. To me, this strains credulity. 

Subjectively, any time I am hit by a burst of german MG fire (it's not hard to differentiate based on sound and initial impact movement of the plane), the stick requires significant deflection to maintain level flight. I am a terrible shot but I am excellent at getting shot. I get hit a lot in American airplanes. I know that if I am in a dogfight and hear a 'tink' of a round impact, that I need to exit the fight, because violent maneuvers will stall the aircraft much more easily, my speed will be lower, and I will be unable to follow enemies in maneuvers. Certain planes, like the Spit IX, take a single hit of MG fire to the tail to become completely uncontrollable. This has been improved only lately, when the belts were modified so as not to contain ONLY HE, which means sometimes if I hear a single 'tink' I may yet live - because it was an AP round and had no impact on flyability.

Meanwhile, even a substantial number of hits from M2 AP does not affect the controllability of axis aircraft. This means that in a fight, your enemy only has to get lucky once, and you have to get lucky a lot. Of course if you hit the nose area of the plane at convergence the pilot will be killed or the engine would be ablaze, but we are not questioning the PK abilities, the fire-setting abilities, or the engine damage abilities of the AP rounds (although liquid cooled engines are more robust to coolant loss in the sim than I think they should be). 

I'm not advocating the devs simply do this - but if they improved the effectiveness of the M2 by 25-50% in terms of aerodynamic damage, and reduced teh 12.7mm HE rounds by the same amount, I would consider that plausible. The HE equipped rounds would still be doing 5 times more damage per round than the M2, which is probably excessive, and the AP rounds would still require substantial fire to get aerodynamic kills, but nothing like what is needed now. It would produce effects more in line with what we see in combat reports and guncam videos, although still not likely as spectacular as often mentioned.

They still would be less effective than pre-DM patch, when people were dewinging planes with a few .50 cal hits left and right, which I also found unrealistic (and supported changes to the DM to fix that). The DM would still clearly demonstrate the superiority of HE rounds, but not the frustrating exaggeration we see here. 

If they introduce API it will be a bandaid on the AP rounds but if they are effective at fire-setting, most people will probably shrug and accept it, because a kill is a kill. That said I have seen a few bugs where 110s and other planes have been set ablaze and then the fire go out with no damage, so if that thing persists, so will the frustration.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured I'd provide some photos that were already presented before. Below you'll see 2 pictures of a drug trafficking's bird that was intercepted and fired upon by an A-29 of the FAB that typically sport 2x internally housed M2 .50's. First picture shows rather neat entrance wounds, and the one below showing slightly messier exit wounds. In IL2, 60+ rounds will not perform fight ending levels of aerodynamic damage. These pictures are a result of just 5.

 

ptexp-fab-3.jpgptexp-fab-2.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something isn't right about those exit holes.

For starters, there are five entry holes, but more than 9 exit holes and no amount of round tumbling could create such a large exit.

There is also what appears to be some heat damage. The aluminium has burned away in places, rather than being torn off.

Edit. Removed an error.

 

 

The FN M3P .50cal on the Super Tucano can be loaded out with Armour-Piercing Explosive Incendiary rounds. I suspect that is what we are looking at here.

 

We should expect this kind of damage from fire, but not from AP or API without fire.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the pictures are of the same wing. You can see the exit damage at the top of the first picture which doesn't correspond to the one below. The way the paint has come off in the 2nd picture is potentially put that down to a crash maybe pulling off some additional skin.

 

To clarify also, the amount of explosives in WW2 HMG (Russian and German) is not sufficient to create significantly more skin damage. Explosives only come into play in rounds 20mm+ where the explosive energy becomes much greater than the kinetic energy of the round (or explosive + kinetic). Hence Minengeschoss rounds being king daddy at this.

 

Modern HE .50 rounds like the Rafouss round have a similar output to a Hispano so we'd need to know what they were firing before we judge.

Edited by Cass
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...