Jump to content

HE area of affect too high along with lift/drag penalty


Hitcher
 Share

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

You can see the latter 2 aircraft getting physically knocked around by 18g of explosives. Unlikely.

 

Moving the 8000lb aircraft around like a toy no less!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG7_X-Man

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
17 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

From a European perspective this weapon meetings look really weird - with all respect - but this looks so out of place I am still baffled. No bad meaning intended. Just wanting to express my puzzlement.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitcher
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

This isn't even a .50 cal subject.

No one is disagreeing with you on your points.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mtnbiker1998
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

No one is discussing .50s in this thread. its purely discussing the way HE ammo is modeled. And if anything, the pictures you posted further reinforce the point. Big holes sure, but nowhere near the amount of splash/shrapnel damage we see in game. in game we see entire wings and half of a fuselage peppered with damage from single rounds. 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

357th_Dog
2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 



Okay, now..for a moment, let's appreciate the irony of your signature quote..

"We are quick to point out the problem but we are slow to see the role we play to causes the problem     ---JG7_X-Man"

No one said anything about .50 cals, but you're going off the handle about something that is completely outside the topic of conversation. 

You're being part of the problem, not the solution 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mtnbiker1998
8 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:



Okay, now..for a moment, let's appreciate the irony of your signature quote..

"We are quick to point out the problem but we are slow to see the role we play to causes the problem     ---JG7_X-Man"

No one said anything about .50 cals, but you're going off the handle about something that is completely outside the topic of conversation. 

You're being part of the problem, not the solution 

And he's quoting himself, nonetheless! Imagine.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

No one is saying that the caliber that cannot be named (TCTCBN) round is a good as a 20mm round for round.   We're talking about HE rounds being better than they should be in game.  That includes the small ones like the 13mm and the 12.7mm.   We think the Devs have made the explosion effects far too powerful specially for machinegun HE (13mm/12.7mm).  The Devs have claimed that one of these round is capable of blowing a 300mm hole in the skin.   Clearly that is what a 20mm can do NOT a 13mm round.  This is shown quite clearly in the pictures you've posted.  Those 20mm hits all look about a foot across.  Also, it's good to bear in mind that TCTCBN equipped AC fire many more rounds than the calibers that can be named per plane since the American planes carry six to eight of them vs. 1-4 13mm/12.7mm/20mm on most Axis/Russian planes to make up for the smaller size round.  If TCTCBN worked better and the HE was in line with reality than TCTCBN would, in fact, be "good enough", but that's not the way things are right now.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

What does HE overperforming have to do with the .50?

 

Aside from desperately trying to protect a broken meta I'm confused at your goal here. 

 

We have a clip that shows the 20mm HE has enough splash damage to physically move a 8000lb aircraft. 

 

Don't know about you but that fails the sniff test and then some. 

 

Not sure if you've caught a 20mm while flying the 47 but it impacts with so much force that it causes you to roll 90°+ from a single round. 

 

 

Edited by Denum
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe

I am no expert on all this but when I compare the holes presented in the photographs and what I see in game I notice following: Most time the ingame plane is peppered with small and medium sized holes all over the place. It looks like there is a sort of virtual circle with a certain diameter laid on top of the hit plane about the point of impact and within this circle a certain (random???) pattern of holes is created where this circle intersects with the plane model. Depending where the hit point is this peppers your tail section or entire wings.

So if I come back to the initial topic I would really like to know if this large area of shrapnell impact is realistic or not and if the impact on aerodynamics is as large as depicted by the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus

The current graphical representation is generic and shows only the damage level of a certain area not the correct damage at the exact location. So a wing at damage level 3 will look the same wether hit by a salvo of .50s or a single 30mm mine. 
DVD is still to be implemented for A/C damage representation. 
 

Until than damage graphics are unsuited for detailed discussion of the damage model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
33 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The current graphical representation is generic and shows only the damage level of a certain area not the correct damage at the exact location. So a wing at damage level 3 will look the same wether hit by a salvo of .50s or a single 30mm mine. 
DVD is still to be implemented for A/C damage representation. 
 

Until than damage graphics are unsuited for detailed discussion of the damage model. 

OK, thanks for that explanation. I have been away from IL2 for several years and was not aware of that. I hope they implement this rather quickly as I think that is is important for a pilot and the player behind to get good optical cues on his sustained damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
17 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Grrrr! Not this again!

 

The 20mm round has more explosive power than a .50 cal round period. You will not experience "the same" degree of external damage which disrupts airflow along an aircraft's cross section from .50 cal round hits as the 20mm cannon shell. This is inherent from the design of German/Russian/British aircraft armament - blow a hole into object and ignite something inside (20 mm HEI round) and send armor piercing rounds down range as well to tear metal up inside said hole (13mm/.50cal rounds).

 

I am American - and we just have to understand that the United States doesn't always get it right the 1st time or at all for that matter.

 

The fact is, the .50 cal was "good enough". We have talked about this to the point of nausea.

 

image.jpeg.fe319830a786916f056aa2c9c2c3ae4f.jpeg

 

A.

AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations - Page 2 - Realistic Battle  Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum 

 

 

A.

The shortest serving Spitfire - Album on Imgur

 

 

A.

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-4 2./JG3 (Black 4+) Jozef Jancovie Russia  28th Jan 1943

 

A.

image.png.50841401bc92b45c7fcaa5ad3eccbb45.png

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

I don't think the OP was saying that 20mm HE should be near 50cal AP

There is actually some nuance here. Saying something is overperforming relative to something does not mean he thinks that thing should be THE SAME as the other thing.

What the gist is

image.png.87d8ca5152af820b3256c6c1cca3465e.png


In game, damage which from this picture should cause damage of roughly these dimensions inferred from IRL picture:

Hole roughly .35m x .35m Frontal area roughly .25m x .25m

Causes a reduction of maximum airspeed (measured in game by doing a before and after a full power level speed run) equal to lowering one's landing gear

See the source image

Holes roughly 2 x ( .55m x .55m ) Frontal area roughly 2 x[ (.55m x .2m) + (.1m x .2m) ]

Now the questions could be

That picture of 20mm HE(M) damage might be far smaller than typical (survivor bias maybe)

Valid but not necessarily a large enough factor to nullify the argument.

There is some property of the dimensions of the damage relative to the wheel wells / gear legs that renders it far more effective at causing vortices / other forms of drag.

Valid but due to the relative dimensions of the damage relative to the wheel wells / gear legs ( 0.00625 m^2 V .26 m^2 ) ie more than 400% the frontal area (and I was erring on the side of generous with the size of the damages' frontal area I think)

Also the gear's projections are far further out into the airstream and gear is not designed to be aerodynamic.


I would say that that is likely to be immaterial to the principle of the discussion although it could effect the exact numbers, (my point isn't for exact numbers, just broad brush comparison) 

Edited by Barnacles
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG7_X-Man

@Hitcher I apologize! This isn't a .50 cal vs 20mm issue but a single 20mm cannon could not be that effective! I have seen the error in my failure to read the entire post.

 

However - my logic still stands (...somewhat). Let me explain what's going on:

 

The RAF transitioned over to the 20mm because they saw the effectiveness from the onset of the MG FF/M in 1940 or the decrease in effectiveness of the 8 x .303/7.92 rounds. The VVS did the same thing - reevaluated the effectiveness of their weapons.

 

The OKL's logic under direction of Werner Mölders was reduce time on target by guarantying total destruction by mounting heaver armament on their aircraft. By mid '41 a single MG 151/20 paired with MG 17 (.303") then MG 131 (.51") with the 109G-6 was sufficient to bring down any allied fighter (this you have seen with pictures I posted).

 

Now that we are cooking with gas, if 1x20mm can do xx amount of damage, let's mount more of them - turns out 2 per wing was the max possible. Here we get into the issue of the Luftwaffe on the Fw 190s mounting 2 closer to the nose to reduce the need for convergence of it's standard armament. SORRY - different conversation.

 

However, with the reason why it only takes a few hit of a Minengeschoss shell to bring down an aircraft in this game - that's is what is was designed to do. Don't take our word for it - ask the thousands of pilots that didn't live to tell the tale after a tango with an E-2, F-2, F-4, G-6, G-14, G-10 and K-4.

 

Video below: 24:20 explains this much better.

 

Great video on the subject!

 

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep

@JG7_X-Man Put the 20mm cannons and .50 cals aside for a moment. Compare the HE rounds in the MG131 to the AP rounds in the same gun. The HE round for the MG131 contains just 1.4g of PETN. In IL2, the MG131 AP round creates a perfect hole the exact size of the round (13mm) with no tumbling/deformation to the skin of the aircraft around it. The MG131 HE round creates a hole that is 300mm in diameter - that's a hole bigger than a basketball for a heavy machine gun (not a cannon). This is a nonsensical difference between the two ammunition types and is the crux of the issue. No reasonable person is arguing that AP should be as effective as HE when it comes to aerodynamic penalty, but it should not be an 80 : 1 ratio (which is what it is now).

 

Take a look at this short video in which they detonate 6 grams of PETN on the surface of a piece of metal that is twice the thickness of an aircraft fuselage (spoiler alert... it doesn't create a basketball size hole).

 

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG7_X-Man

@QB.Creep I see your point and I 100% agree. However, I am not sure Jason et al ever said the visual damage on aircraft armament specific. Actually, if I am not mistaken, the visual damage we see is randomly generated. Until the updates arrives (unless it has...) 

 

Per Jason:

 

 

My question and @30speed

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep

@JG7_X-Man I am not referring to visual damage when I say 300mm - these are the values being modeled within the game. Rails discovered this while working on his mod and the devs confirmed it here. Note that he says "up to" even this is the value that is used 100% of the time in-game. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst
On 5/31/2021 at 6:56 PM, QB.Creep said:

Because this isn’t the Middle Ages and we aren’t arguing a topic on the edge of human understanding. It should be common sense that a single round of HE HMG should not cause the same amount of drag as lowering the landing gear on a P-51. 
 

But as they say, common sense isn’t common - especially for wehrbs on this forum.

 

The very first thing that comes into mind with all these Buff 50s / Nerf HE threads, initiated by same select few 'enlightened' individuals is the lack of any common sense and the complete lack of grasp of primary school physics.

On 5/31/2021 at 7:49 PM, Hitcher said:

QB.Rails has created a weapon damage mod that has added a HE element to the .50 cals to simulate skin tearing and round tumbling, they are almost identical to the base game .50s just slightly more powerful, so it can be done.

 

Its magnificent that now we have even have fantasy mods that simulate the three exact thing that .50 cals did not have, that is, HE content, any noteworthy tendency for 'skin tearing' (at least not any more pronounced than any round coming in at shallow angles) or 'round tumbling' (which would immidietely render any AP round largely ineffective), all of which are basically made up forum argument to sustain an unsustainable and irrational notion. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexmarine

Honestly this topic is getting kinda out of hand, let's proceed one step at a time:

 

1)The first real issue with the Allied .50cals is the lack of incendiary munitions modelled, this is not limited to this weapon in particular, afaik no incendiary munition at all is modelled in the game for any plane/gun/side, meaning that even the .303 or the 7.62mm and similar don't have them. This is something that should be corrected not just for the Allied planes using .50cals but for the entirety of the simulation that the game offers 

 

2)This can be controversial but I feel another issue (specific to planes using batteries of guns in the wings and unsynchronized guns) is the very small dispersion caused by the lack of wing fluttering and of the perfectly synchronisation of the guns, meaning that those planes are too accurate for their own sakes. Even as far as the Korean War Sabres, despite having all the guns nose mounted, it was noted and appreciated a certain scatter effect of the bursts. I wouldn't mind being able to spray my bursts in a larger cone of effect

 

3) Regarding the "overmodeled" HE effects I believe that it's something that holds true only for the 12/13mm heavy machine guns we currently have in the game with HE ammo modelled in the belts (Soviet Berezin, Italian Breda, German MG131). I remember someone sharing on this forum that atm an HE bullet of a 12/13mm gun deals 60 times the damage to an aircraft surface of a similar AP bullet, which seems way too high for this class of weapons considering that in no aviation publications the HE 12mm equipped Italian and Japanese planes of WW2 for example were ever considered heavy hitters untill unless adopting 20mm cannons of german or indigenous origin at least. At the moment the HE of this calibers are way to close to skin deformation and drag penalties inflicted by 20mm and higher caliber shells than I would expect. There is definitely a tuning down here needed but for this specific class of ammo/weapons, the rest actually feels as they should feel I would say

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Yes, in game a single HE round of MG 131 causes the same skin damage as 60 impacts of 12.7mm armor piercing, also a single round of 12.7mm Berezin HE causes the same skin damage as 100 impacts of 12.7mm armor piercing.

The new DVD textures show how exageratted this is quite clearly.

For example, here it is a P-51 wing hit by one round of 12.7mm AP and one round of 12.7mm HE (marked in red, the other damage decals are the baked in standard damage ones, not part of the DVD system).

unknown.png

It is roughly what I would expect from a small HE filler heavy machine gun, maybe a bit bigger but not that much more.

However, in regards to actual flight model effect, that single Berezin 12.7mm HE hit is actually equal to this:

unknown.png

100 impacts of 12.7mm AP visualized.

The users that think this needs fixing don't say that a kinetic projectile should have the same or comparable damage to a high explosive projectile, something like 5 - 10 -15 times higher skin damage for the 12.7mm HE depending on filler weight sounds plausible, but not 60 times and 100 times better, that's just way too overblown and the images show it. Like they should still be worse, and significantly worse at that, but knock down an order of magnitude from the ratio as the current one is just excessive.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Thanks 8
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=EnvyC

Just want to add the problem with HE/AP isn't even confined to the issue of the .50 BMG. Ever wondered why everyone says take the HE belts on the La5 and not the mix or AP only? They basically do no damage, which hamstrings the Yak series of aircraft quite unfairly. Even the AP Hispano round does basically nothing, Typhoon hit me with one of those rounds and I had no issues barring a minor "engine" warning in technochat. I was still able to use full power to chase him down along with no aero affects at all. Meanwhile I hit him with a small amount of HE and he was basically out of the fight.

 

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/1403192/?tour=41

 

I firmly believe anyone who doesn't see the insanity that is the issue of HE rounds is purposely keeping their eyes wide shut it to keep the status quo as is despite reality. 13mm HE simply wasn't as effective as popular belief implies. The Germans are on record as preferring to use API rounds when they were available as alternative rounds simply weren't reliable. You can find that information here;

 

https://kupdf.net/download/quotldv4000-10quot-munitionsvorschrift-fr-fliegerbordwaffen-teil-10-1944_59a8686cdc0d605c02568edf_pdf

 

The sim desperately needs some form of API ammunition for both German and American weapons, along with Box convergence rather than point for the American and British fighters.

 

I am also still waiting for a response to the question of why did the devs use a 20mm Japanese cannon hit on a SDB as an example of 13mm and a Do-17 peppered with Browning .308s as an example of .50 BMG. These are the assumptions that 1CG, by their own admission, are basing their damage model on which clearly brings the very foundations of the damage model into question. Those posts can be found here;

 

 

 

Edited by =RS=EnvyC
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The very first thing that comes into mind with all these Buff 50s / Nerf HE threads, initiated by same select few 'enlightened' individuals is the lack of any common sense and the complete lack of grasp of primary school physics.

 

Its magnificent that now we have even have fantasy mods that simulate the three exact thing that .50 cals did not have, that is, HE content, any noteworthy tendency for 'skin tearing' (at least not any more pronounced than any round coming in at shallow angles) or 'round tumbling' (which would immidietely render any AP round largely ineffective), all of which are basically made up forum argument to sustain an unsustainable and irrational notion. 

I really like your name and profile picture

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Cass
4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The very first thing that comes into mind with all these Buff 50s / Nerf HE threads, initiated by same select few 'enlightened' individuals is the lack of any common sense and the complete lack of grasp of primary school physics.

 

Could you explain what physics you are talking about? I think we're all in need of this primary school lesson. 

 

I'd really like to understand the physics behind a slower, 20% lighter round with a firecrackers worth of PETN being 80 times more destructive that it's faster firing American counterpart. 

 

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Its magnificent that now we have even have fantasy mods that simulate the three exact thing that .50 cals did not have, that is, HE content, any noteworthy tendency for 'skin tearing' (at least not any more pronounced than any round coming in at shallow angles)

 

The system doesn't have the ability to simulate anything other than a round size hole for AP. I believe this has something to do with WW2 and WW1 sharing the damage model (rounds going through fabric planes filled with nothing are almost certainly going to leave round size holes all the time). Adding a very small HE component was a solution to try and simulate a round imparting more of its energy into the plane. 

 

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

which would immidietely render any AP round largely ineffective

 

How? AP rounds easily punch through the thin metal used in aircraft. If you don't understand how a slower, tumbling round can cause significantly more damage then I don't think you've got even remotely enough knowledge on the subject to add anything to the discussion. 

 

 

If you'd like some reading on the subject, NATO conducted a study in 1981:

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/AGARD-AG-238/AGARD-AG-238.pdf

 

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 1:38 PM, JG7_X-Man said:

 

I don't care who you are - you can't equate this to a .50 cal (..which I have fired by the way)

 

 

Unless you've been on the receiving end in an aircraft this is irrelevant.

 

So can anyone else with a few bucks to burn and a pay to play range near by.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
On 6/12/2021 at 12:36 AM, 357th_Dog said:



Okay, now..for a moment, let's appreciate the irony of your signature quote..

"We are quick to point out the problem but we are slow to see the role we play to causes the problem     ---JG7_X-Man"

No one said anything about .50 cals, but you're going off the handle about something that is completely outside the topic of conversation. 

You're being part of the problem, not the solution 

663541415_ellenvets.jpg.adaa3067521d37019a7bc2431d7bb1ee.jpg

You started the "debate" from the very wrong way mate.

 

 

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of being thorough, I always like to do my own testing on a given subject. Without further preamble, here goes.

 

I developed a simple test wherein I'm facing the AI in a Typhoon (loaded with rockets and extra armor, full fuel, no engine or prop mod). The goal of the test was to fire HE rounds from various guns into the wing of the Typhoon while it was turning, to see if the AI could regain its balance before crashing into the nearby ground. These are the results (note: all screenshots taken from recorded clips, replayed at 1/16 speed for accuracy):

 

109G-6 Late, 20mm only, one HE wing strike as indicated (two other strikes on the fuselage from a failed attempt to hit the wing; one HE under the cockpit, another AP ahead of the tail):

 

20210619195424_1.thumb.jpg.128dfde69aa9d5ef4f5283e7ba63dcf2.jpg

 

The target subsequently rolled to his right, and in a spiraling turn, hit the ground.

 

In the following screen, I was in a Yak-9 and fired only my 12.7mm. 4 strikes were recorded, 2 AP, 2 HE, as visible:

 

20210619201308_1.thumb.jpg.5a63a74c39e1feef691fe3c2e8775648.jpg

 

HE round 1 is on the trailing edge of the wing, near the seam of the wing nearest to the inboard 20mm. AP round 1 is a few feet ahead towards the leading edge. HE round 2 is just outside the white roundel marking, on the way to the outboard 20mm. AP round 2 is right next to the aileron's inboard edge. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

The following screen is of a single 37mm HE round from a Yak-9T:

 

20210619202720_1.thumb.jpg.f8e83f8d4827a19575d1decab6840d76.jpg

 

The impact mark is near the seam going back from the inboard 20mm. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

La-5FN, HE-only special ammo load. Initial attack angle:

 

20210619203157_1.thumb.jpg.030180a255fb7384b54b2c09450c044e.jpg

 

Results:

 

20210619203231_1.thumb.jpg.82e9e4a542b86815c7a36d71342583fd.jpg

 

2 strikes. The one is clearly visible between the 20mm bumps, while the other is nearer to the trailing edge, visible inside the largest (old damage decal) hole in the wing. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

P-38, firing only the 20mm:

 

Initial attack angle:

 

20210619204214_1.thumb.jpg.f23894d89be1a428371f98af24c1c003.jpg

 

Result:

 

20210619204238_1.thumb.jpg.e565d5375ba0edd9049b26378b6187b5.jpg

 

One strike, HE shell, as shown. Target rolled on his right wing, and spiraled into the ground.

 

I showed the angle of a few of these attacks to demonstrate how even being in a shallow bank, not a tight turn, when hit, still did not leave the AI pilot enough control with which to recover.

 

The only one of these fatal hits that makes complete sense is the 37mm. I would say maybe I broke the aileron controls with the other hits, but that seems unlikely for all of them.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus
4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

HE round 1 is on the trailing edge of the wing, near the seam of the wing nearest to the inboard 20mm. AP round 1 is a few feet ahead towards the leading edge. HE round 2 is just outside the white roundel marking, on the way to the outboard 20mm. AP round 2 is right next to the aileron's inboard edge. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

2 strikes. The one is clearly visible between the 20mm bumps, while the other is nearer to the trailing edge, visible inside the largest (old damage decal) hole in the wing. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

One strike, HE shell, as shown. Target rolled on his right wing, and spiraled into the ground.


Concerning this, I‘ll quote myself:

On 6/12/2021 at 11:38 AM, Eisenfaustus said:

The current graphical representation is generic and shows only the damage level of a certain area not the correct damage at the exact location. So a wing at damage level 3 will look the same wether hit by a salvo of .50s or a single 30mm mine. 
DVD is still to be implemented for A/C damage representation. 
 

Until than damage graphics are unsuited for detailed discussion of the damage model. 

You can even see that the damage on the wing is identical on all of your pictures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Concerning this, I‘ll quote myself:

You can even see that the damage on the wing is identical on all of your pictures. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

DVD has been implemented in the P-51 and Typhoon. I use the Typhoon for testing because it's less agile (in AI hands, anyway) and a better target drone.

 

I'm sorry I didn't bother to highlight the DVD damage holes, but I thought everyone knew what they looked like by now. Even if you can't tell the DVD apart from the old damage, you can plainly see where the strike was in several screens.

 

The salient point is that 1x20mm German shell on the trailing edge of a wing brought the plane down; 2 Russian HE 12.7mm brought a plane down; 1 American 20mm brought a plane down; and 2x20mm Russian shells brought a plane down.

 

It is very unlikely that the aileron control was destroyed in each case. Especially since I reviewed my tracks and saw that the aileron in the right wing was fully down (meaning the AI was trying to level out but couldn't).

 

I'll put up the tracks if the screenshots just aren't convincing enough. But I was trying to save myself some time in uploading them to YouTube.

 

Edit***

 

Okay, here's the tracks:

 

La-5FN test:

 

Spoiler

 

 

P-38 test (note: if you select a slow enough playback speed, you'll see the target gets hit twice; once in the wing, the other time in the right elevator. However, I ascertained the elevator strike was an AP and thus didn't change the outcome of this test):

 

Spoiler

 

 

Yak-9 test:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited by oc2209
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 2:38 AM, Eisenfaustus said:

The current graphical representation is generic and shows only the damage level of a certain area not the correct damage at the exact location. So a wing at damage level 3 will look the same wether hit by a salvo of .50s or a single 30mm mine. 
DVD is still to be implemented for A/C damage representation. 
 

Until than damage graphics are unsuited for detailed discussion of the damage model. 

 

Just to clarify what I mean...

 

Russian HE 20mm:

 

Inked0210619203231_1RT.thumb.jpg.9539d941820504924ed77ac58d2a6367.jpg

 

Russian HE and AP 12.7mm:

 

Inked20210619201308_1RT.thumb.jpg.d1bf1a54109cf01e9b0ce0d35d2c3a91.jpg

 

The AP are the smaller holes with the clean borders and the metallic ring around the holes. The HE are jagged-edged and have no shiny ring. In the general discussion area, I put up a long series of posts with screens showing all the different kinds of ammunition holes. I forget whether it was in that thread or a different one, but I argued that I would prefer the new DVD system to replace the old one completely, rather than have them side-by-side as they are now. I think the old decals detract from the new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Rails

The DVD system is just a visual model. Those little holes will still have a huge impact on performance. The older damage visual currently is a better representation of how the plane is handling after getting hit. Whether that is right or not is debatable. But you shouldn’t be thinking that dvd is going to somehow be a game changer. It’s just going to be nice for screenshots and movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
On 6/20/2021 at 12:08 AM, oc2209 said:

In the interest of being thorough, I always like to do my own testing on a given subject. Without further preamble, here goes.

 

I developed a simple test wherein I'm facing the AI in a Typhoon (loaded with rockets and extra armor, full fuel, no engine or prop mod). The goal of the test was to fire HE rounds from various guns into the wing of the Typhoon while it was turning, to see if the AI could regain its balance before crashing into the nearby ground. These are the results (note: all screenshots taken from recorded clips, replayed at 1/16 speed for accuracy):

 

109G-6 Late, 20mm only, one HE wing strike as indicated (two other strikes on the fuselage from a failed attempt to hit the wing; one HE under the cockpit, another AP ahead of the tail):

 

20210619195424_1.thumb.jpg.128dfde69aa9d5ef4f5283e7ba63dcf2.jpg

 

The target subsequently rolled to his right, and in a spiraling turn, hit the ground.

 

In the following screen, I was in a Yak-9 and fired only my 12.7mm. 4 strikes were recorded, 2 AP, 2 HE, as visible:

 

20210619201308_1.thumb.jpg.5a63a74c39e1feef691fe3c2e8775648.jpg

 

HE round 1 is on the trailing edge of the wing, near the seam of the wing nearest to the inboard 20mm. AP round 1 is a few feet ahead towards the leading edge. HE round 2 is just outside the white roundel marking, on the way to the outboard 20mm. AP round 2 is right next to the aileron's inboard edge. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

The following screen is of a single 37mm HE round from a Yak-9T:

 

20210619202720_1.thumb.jpg.f8e83f8d4827a19575d1decab6840d76.jpg

 

The impact mark is near the seam going back from the inboard 20mm. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

La-5FN, HE-only special ammo load. Initial attack angle:

 

20210619203157_1.thumb.jpg.030180a255fb7384b54b2c09450c044e.jpg

 

Results:

 

20210619203231_1.thumb.jpg.82e9e4a542b86815c7a36d71342583fd.jpg

 

2 strikes. The one is clearly visible between the 20mm bumps, while the other is nearer to the trailing edge, visible inside the largest (old damage decal) hole in the wing. The target spiraled into the ground.

 

P-38, firing only the 20mm:

 

Initial attack angle:

 

20210619204214_1.thumb.jpg.f23894d89be1a428371f98af24c1c003.jpg

 

Result:

 

20210619204238_1.thumb.jpg.e565d5375ba0edd9049b26378b6187b5.jpg

 

One strike, HE shell, as shown. Target rolled on his right wing, and spiraled into the ground.

 

I showed the angle of a few of these attacks to demonstrate how even being in a shallow bank, not a tight turn, when hit, still did not leave the AI pilot enough control with which to recover.

 

The only one of these fatal hits that makes complete sense is the 37mm. I would say maybe I broke the aileron controls with the other hits, but that seems unlikely for all of them.

This is concerning and needs to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
pocketshaver
On 6/14/2021 at 2:37 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The very first thing that comes into mind with all these Buff 50s / Nerf HE threads, initiated by same select few 'enlightened' individuals is the lack of any common sense and the complete lack of grasp of primary school physics.

 

Its magnificent that now we have even have fantasy mods that simulate the three exact thing that .50 cals did not have, that is, HE content, any noteworthy tendency for 'skin tearing' (at least not any more pronounced than any round coming in at shallow angles) or 'round tumbling' (which would immidietely render any AP round largely ineffective), all of which are basically made up forum argument to sustain an unsustainable and irrational notion. 

since i believe 2010, EVERY online and offline combat system with the P51 has had the SAME stupid debate over and over and over. Its a more regular cyclic cycle then cicadas....

 

And just as annoying

 

The data for the estimated rounds to destroy a B17 are a critical component of the argument that EVERYONE seems to both use when needed, and to despise when it screws with a pet agenda. yet the truth is there, and it coincides with what the British and US governments discovered after testing in the mid to late 1930s. 

 

SOLID rounds like AP are not that great for doing damage to the aerodynamic of a plane. They function purely as high velocity drill bits going through the plane. To many people want them to perform like hand grenades but it doesnt work that way. 

 

Then you have people conveniently "forgetting" that inconvenient MIXED belt of german, russian, and british fighters. NOTHING hurts their feelings like having it pointed out that it took 21 HE   AND 32 AP from a hispano   WITH 59 rounds of 50 AP to kill ONE plane...  

  Want us to disregard the damage done by AP while focusing on that the HE "did all the work with so little less rounds"

 

What people can find online with minimal trouble, 

US Army TS Ordnance 1 Planning Munitions: Chapter 15: Aircraft Armament: Weapons for Air-to-Air Combat (tothosewhoserved.org)

 

http://tothosewhoserved.org/usa/aaf/usaaf06/chapter06.html

 

Its easily proven that although SOME HE rounds can have a slightly larger fragmentation zone.... the overall HE effect is DEAD ON correct.   ALTHOUGH we should see more wings get ripped off with sustained HE strikes to the same panel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitcher
Posted (edited)

Known forum agitators - please stop.

 

13mm AP rounds makes makes 13mm holes in skin, or be 13x25mm holes in case of shallow angle hit.

13mm HE round may do a hole up to 300mm in diameter

 

2018-08-11-0006_20210211_001840831.jpg.170ce3010880be3c7478b6654c742675.thumb.jpg.99e2597dfc4c737cd1e9a1afde1eab6a.jpg

 

Compare the hole surface and stop complaining

 

1766412508_Bomberbulletholes_20210211_001834774.jpg.70d5e42603ad794598d3ff224ea62871.thumb.jpg.9ca19e7fc083cbc8dc97ee47549efb45.jpg

 

API rounds are very effective to demolish airplane systems, crew, may broke some airframe structure, fire up fuel or engine, make leaks and so on. But they obviously poor in serios damaging of airplane skin and aerodynamics in compare to HE.

Edited by Hitcher
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
2 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

since i believe 2010, EVERY online and offline combat system with the P51 has had the SAME stupid debate over and over and over. Its a more regular cyclic cycle then cicadas....

 

And just as annoying

 

The data for the estimated rounds to destroy a B17 are a critical component of the argument that EVERYONE seems to both use when needed, and to despise when it screws with a pet agenda. yet the truth is there, and it coincides with what the British and US governments discovered after testing in the mid to late 1930s. 

 

SOLID rounds like AP are not that great for doing damage to the aerodynamic of a plane. They function purely as high velocity drill bits going through the plane. To many people want them to perform like hand grenades but it doesnt work that way. 

 

Then you have people conveniently "forgetting" that inconvenient MIXED belt of german, russian, and british fighters. NOTHING hurts their feelings like having it pointed out that it took 21 HE   AND 32 AP from a hispano   WITH 59 rounds of 50 AP to kill ONE plane...  

  Want us to disregard the damage done by AP while focusing on that the HE "did all the work with so little less rounds"

 

What people can find online with minimal trouble, 

US Army TS Ordnance 1 Planning Munitions: Chapter 15: Aircraft Armament: Weapons for Air-to-Air Combat (tothosewhoserved.org)

 

http://tothosewhoserved.org/usa/aaf/usaaf06/chapter06.html

 

Its easily proven that although SOME HE rounds can have a slightly larger fragmentation zone.... the overall HE effect is DEAD ON correct.   ALTHOUGH we should see more wings get ripped off with sustained HE strikes to the same panel.  

Please stop abusing CAPSLOCK. 

On 6/14/2021 at 8:37 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

Its magnificent that now we have even have fantasy mods that simulate the three exact thing that .50 cals did not have, 

These fantasy mods are only there to remove the fantasy aspect of the game that suggests 109s could consistently take 100s of 50 cal hits with practically zero effect on their ability to fight.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Barnacles
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero

"since i believe 2010, EVERY online and offline combat system with the P51 has had the SAME stupid debate over and over and over. Its a more regular cyclic cycle then cicadas...."

 

That only shows that this devs did it right from start in this game as there was no debates or complains about .50 cal guns since P-40 with them come to game, so all worked fine for 5 years and then 4.005 patch come out with this comics AP vs HE and look sudenly complainets start, wonder why no one compained about to strong .50 for 5 years  if it was wrong all that time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
12 minutes ago, CountZero said:

wonder why no one compained about to strong .50 for 5 years  if it was wrong all that time.

Because some folks were too busy complaining about how easily aircraft were falling apart.  

This has been done to death at this point. The Devs will be implementing a new fuel system soon and hopefully they will take a another look into DM and or AP rounds. 

 

When time and schedule allow.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, Hitcher said:

Known forum agitators - please stop.

 

13mm AP rounds makes makes 13mm holes in skin, or be 13x25mm holes in case of shallow angle hit.

13mm HE round may do a hole up to 300mm in diameter

 

2018-08-11-0006_20210211_001840831.jpg.170ce3010880be3c7478b6654c742675.thumb.jpg.99e2597dfc4c737cd1e9a1afde1eab6a.jpg

 

Compare the hole surface and stop complaining

Who's the agitator?  You show a hole clearly caused by a 20mm HE and you try to convince us it's a 13mm HE.  If the label on that photo claims 13mm it's clearly wrong.

 

Below is a vehicle that was shot by 20 mm HE.   Notice the holes match the one in your photo where you claim they were made by a 13mm HE round.

b8f3833feb89db234b44c4e9584bd305.jpg

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Who's the agitator?  You show a hole clearly caused by a 20mm HE and you try to convince us it's a 13mm HE.  If the label on that photo claims 13mm it's clearly wrong.

 

Below is a vehicle that was shot by 20 mm HE.   Notice the holes match the one in your photo where you claim they were made by a 13mm HE round.

b8f3833feb89db234b44c4e9584bd305.jpg

That car can only go 45mph now. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Who's the agitator?  You show a hole clearly caused by a 20mm HE and you try to convince us it's a 13mm HE.  If the label on that photo claims 13mm it's clearly wrong.

 

Below is a vehicle that was shot by 20 mm HE.   Notice the holes match the one in your photo where you claim they were made by a 13mm HE round.

 


He was being sarcastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...